1. Taxonomy Architectures and Taxonomy Frameworks – Local GAAPs and International GAAPs Consideration Maciej Piechocki – XBRL Poland

2. Agenda  Introduction  Taxonomies Overview  Taxonomy Architectures  Taxonomy Frameworks  Issues and Considerations

3. Projects  Bundesanzeiger (Germany)  Monitor Polski B (Poland)  National Bank of Poland  Polish taxonomy framework  IFRS-GP taxonomy development

4. Observed issues  Worldwide many taxonomies  Attempts to reuse taxonomies  Big differences in taxonomy architectures  Big differences in taxonomy frameworks  Coexistence of local and international GAAPs

5. Taxonomies Overview  local GAAPs – Spain, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Sweden, UK, Ireland  IFRS extensions – Holland, Spain, FINREP  other taxonomies – GermanCD, COREP, GCD, etc.

6. Introduction  Taxonomy architecture – a way of building a taxonomy especially in regards of the internal constructs, patterns, structures in single taxonomies (DTS)  Taxonomy framework – a way of combining different taxonomies (DTSs) together for a jurisdiction or industry (requirement is the import of a stand alone taxonomy)

7. Taxonomy Architectures  Issues with tuples  Enumerations use  Modularity  Extensibility  Element names conventions  Balance attribute  Not using context for differentiation between facts  Etc.

8. Taxonomy Frameworks  XBRL Taxonomy Space  Fully Integrated Extension Building  FINREP modularisation proposal  NBP taxonomy framework  Polish taxonomy framework  Dutch taxonomy project  US GAAP Taxonomy Framework

9. XBRL Taxonomy Space XBRL Taxonomy Space [HoPi2005, 32]

10. Fully Integrated Extension Building Fully Integrated Extension Building [SiRa2004, 22]

11. FINREP Modularised

12. NBP Taxonomy Framework COREPFINREP PZRMSR SOLOSKONSOLIDOWANY MKRKR SOLO MKR MKR SKONSOLIDOWANY KR 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13. 1.COREP SOLO MIESIĘCZNY 2.COREP SOLO KWARTALNY 3.COREP SOLO ROCZNY 4.COREP SKONSOLIDOWANY KWARTALNY 5.COREP SKONSOLIDOWANY ROCZNY 6.FINREP PZR SOLO MIESIĘCZNY 7.FINREP PZR SOLO KWARTALNY 8.FINREP PZR SOLO ROCZNY 9.FINREP MSR SOLO MIESIĘCZNY 10.FINREP MSR SOLO KWARTALNY 11.FINREP MSR SOLO ROCZNY 12.FINREP MSR SKONSOLIDOWANY KWARTALNY 13.FINREP MSR SKONSOLIDOWANY ROCZNY

13. Polish Taxonomy Framework

14. Dutch Taxonomy Project

15. US GAAP Taxonomy Framework

16. Issues and Considerations  No best practices in the area of taxonomy extensions (few of FRTA rules covering extensions)  No best practices in the are of taxonomy frameworks (many different approaches)  Growing number of cases where the issue of taxonomy framework arises  Modularity issues  Tuples extensions

17. Dangers  Taxonomies are XBRL Spec 2.1 consistent but not “compatible”  Issues for local jurisdictions (while building taxonomy frameworks)  Issues for software vendors (creating XBRL solutions)  Issues for submitters (e.g. VW)  Issues for receivers (e.g. NBP)

18. Next Steps  Gather information on taxonomy architectures  Gather information on taxonomy frameworks  Comparison & analysis paper  FRTA input

19. Discussion  Should national taxonomies be built as frameworks or should loosely coupled taxonomies be maintained?  Should the taxonomy frameworks be harmonised in Europe?  Should taxonomy architectures be harmonised in Europe?  Should best practices for architectures and frameworks exist and who should maintain them?

20. Discussion Maciej Piechocki – XBRL Poland