Abstract
The primary purpose of data standards is to improve the interoperability of data in an increasingly networked environment. Given the high cost of developing data standards, it is desirable to assess their quality. We develop a set of metrics and a framework for assessing data standard quality. The metrics include completeness, relevancy, and a combined measure. Standard quality can also be indirectly measured by assessing interoperability of data instances. We evaluate the framework on a data standard for financial reporting in United States, the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Taxonomy encoded in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), and the financial statements created using the standard by public companies. The results show that the data standard quality framework is useful and effective. Our analysis also reveals quality issues of the US GAAP XBRL taxonomy and provides useful feedback to taxonomy users. The Securities and Exchange Commission has mandated that all publicly listed companies must submit their filings using XBRL. Our findings are timely and have practical implications that will ultimately help improve the quality of financial data and the efficiency of the data supply chain in a networked business environment.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartley, J. W., Chen, Y. A., & Taylor, E. Z. (2010). A comparison of XBRL filings to corporate 10-ks - evidence from the voluntary filing program. SSRN.
Boritz, E. J., & No, W. G. (2008a). Auditing an XBRL instance document: The case of united technologies corporation. University of Waterloo.
Boritz, E. J., & No, W. G. (2008b). SEC’s XBRL voluntary program on edgar: The case for quality assurance SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1163254.
Bovee, M., Ettredge, M. L., Srivastava, R. P., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2002). Does the year 2000 XBRL taxonomy accommodate current business financial-reporting practice? Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 165–182.
Bovee, M., Kogan, A., Nelson, K., Srivastava, R. P., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2005). Financial reporting and auditing agent with net knowledge (FRAANK) and extensible business reporting language (XBRL). Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 19–41.
Bruce, T. R., & Hillmann, D. (2004). The continuum of metadata quality: Defining, expressing, exploiting. In D. Hillmann & E. L. Westbrooks (Eds.), Metadata in practice (pp. 238–256). Chicago: American Library Association.
Chou, K. H. (2006). How valid are they? An examination of XBRL voluntary filing documents with the SEC Edgar system. Paper presented at the 14th International XBRL Conference, Philadelphia, USA.
Gasser, L., & Stvilia, B. (2001). A new framework for information quality. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Hahsler, M., Grun, B., Hornik, K., & Buchta, C. (2010). Introduction to arules—a computational environment for mining association rules and frequent item sets.
Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information and Management, 30(2), 133–146.
Madnick, S. E., Wang, R. Y., Lee, Y. W., & Zhu, H. (2009). Overview and framework for data and information quality research. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 1(1), Article #2.
Markus, M. L., Steinfield, C. W., Wigand, R. T., & Minton, G. (2006). Industry-wide information systems standardization as collective action: The case of the U.S. Residential mortage industry. MIS Quarterly, 30(Special Issue), 439–465.
Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2009). Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 10(2/3), 67–91.
Palavitsinis, N., Manouselis, N., & Alonso, S. S. (2009). Evaluation of a metadata application profile for learning resources on organic agriculture. In F. Sartori, M. A. Sicilia, & N. Manouselis (Eds.), MSTR 2009, CCIS 46 (pp. 270–281). Berlin: Springer.
Park, J.-R. (2009). Metadata quality in digital repositories: a survey of the current state of the art. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(3/4), 213–228.
Rahm, E., & Bernstein, P. A. (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal, 10(4), 334–350.
Rahm, E., Do, H.-H., & Maßmann, S. (2004). Matching large xml schemas. ACM SIGMOD Record, 33(4), 26–31.
Redman, T. C. (1996). Data quality for the information age. Boston: Artech House.
Roohani, S., & Zhao, X. (2009). XBRL citation analysis: A decade of progress and puzzle. Paper presented at the International Conference on XBRL, Lawrence, Kansas, USA, April 24–25, 2009.
Rosenthal, A., Seligman, L., & Renner, S. (2004). From semantic integration to semantics management: case studies and a way forward. ACM SIGMOD Record, 33(4), 44–50.
van Rijsbergen, C. V. (1979). Information retrieval (2nd ed.). London: Butterworth.
Wang, R., & Strong, D. (1996). Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33.
XBRL International (2006). Extensible business reporting language (XBRL) 2.1. XBRL International.
Zhang, Y., & Li, Y. (2008). A user-centered functional metadata evaluation of moving image collections. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1331–1346.
Zhu, H., & Fu, L. (2009). Towards quality of data standards: Empirical findings from XBRL. Paper presented at the The 30th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS’09), Phoenix, AZ, USA, December 15–19.
Zhu, H., & Wu, H. (2010). Quality of XBRL US GAAP taxonomy: Empirical evaluation using SEC filings. In 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru, August 12–15 2010.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported in part by Office of Research, Old Dominion University and US National Science Foundation Award #0713290.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Boris Otto
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhu, H., Wu, H. Quality of data standards: framework and illustration using XBRL taxonomy and instances. Electron Markets 21, 129–139 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0060-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0060-4