Quality of data standards: Framework and illustration using XBRL taxonomy and instances

Electronic Markets

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 129-139

  Zhu, Hongwei ^a   Wu, Harris ^a  

^a OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Data quality; Data standards; Information quality; US GAAP taxonomy; XBRL

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054803776     PISSN: 10196781     EISSN: 14228890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12525-011-0060-4     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
2. Boritz, E. J., & No, W. G. (2008a). Auditing an XBRL instance document: The case of united technologies corporation. University of Waterloo.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Gasser, L., & Stvilia, B. (2001). A new framework for information quality. Urbana Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
9. Hahsler, M., Grun, B., Hornik, K., & Buchta, C. (2010). Introduction to arules-a computational environment for mining association rules and frequent item sets.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2009). Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 10(2/3), 67-91.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Rahm, E., & Bernstein, P. A. (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal, 10(4), 334-350. (Pubitemid 33570972)
17. Rahm, E., Do, H.-H., & Mabmann, S. (2004). Matching large xml schemas. ACM SIGMOD Record, 33(4), 26-31. (Pubitemid 40056329)
18. Redman, T. C. (1996). Data quality for the information age. Boston: Artech House.
19. 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.
20. 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. (Pubitemid 40056332)
21. van Rijsbergen, C. V. (1979). Information retrieval (2nd ed.). London: Butterworth.
22. Wang, R., & Strong, D. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5-33.
23. XBRL International (2006). Extensible business reporting language (XBRL) 2.1. XBRL International.
24. Zhang,Y.,&Li, Y. (2008). A user-centered functionalmetadata evaluation of moving image collections. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1331-1346.
25. 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.
26. 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.