A Financial Reporting Ontology for Market, Exchange, and Enterprise Shared Information Systems

  • Ivars Blums
  • Hans WeigandEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 369)


Enterprises operate in markets by building and fulfilling exchange relationships. However, up to date accounting information systems are organized in an enterprise-specific way. We introduce the Market Information perspective on top of the Exchange (Shared Ledger) and Enterprise-Specific perspectives. The latter, developed earlier, are enhanced and the interplay with the Market perspective elaborated. First, we analyze how are Market related concepts of Offering, Contract, Resource, and Social Interaction represented in UFO ontologies and other ontologies. Second, we propose a Market perspective, and included Exchange, and Enterprise perspective conceptual model of a Shared Information System for Financial Reporting in OntoUML language, and third, we analyze the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Conceptual Framework and Standards for Financial Reporting to uncover construct deficit and overload in these Standards and Framework for usage in Shared Information Systems.


IFRS Conceptual model UFO COFRIS 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    IASB Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. IASB (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    FASB Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. FASB (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ijiri, Y.: Theory of accounting measurement. american accounting association (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blums, I., Weigand, H.: Towards a reference ontology of complex economic exchanges for accounting information systems. In: EDOC 2016, pp. 119–128 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blums, I., Weigand, H.: Towards a core ontology for financial reporting information systems (COFRIS). In: Debruyne, C., Panetto, H., Weichhart, G., Bollen, P., Ciuciu, I., Vidal, M.-E., Meersman, R. (eds.) OTM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10697, pp. 302–306. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weigand, H., Blums, I., de Kruijff, J.: Shared ledger accounting - implementing the economic exchange pattern in DL technology. In: Krogstie, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10816, pp. 342–356. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  8. 8.
    The PROV Ontology. W3C Recommendation.
  9. 9.
    Weigand, H., Elsas, Ph.: Auditability as a design problem. In: IEEE CBI 2019, pp. 11–20 (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weigand, H.: The e3value ontology for value networks: current state and future directions. AIS J. Inform. Syst. 30, 113–133 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wieringa, R.J., Engelsman, W., Gordijn, J., Ionita, D.: A business ecosystem architecture modeling framework. In: CBI 2019, pp. 1–10 (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Ph.D. thesis, CTIT, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Enschede (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., et al.: Endurant types in ontology-driven conceptual modeling: towards OntoUML 2.0. In: ER 2018, Xi’an, China (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nardi, J.C., et al.: A commitment-based reference Ontology for services. Inform. Syst. 54, 263–288 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sales, T., et al.: Towards and ontology of competition. In: VMBO 2018, Amsterdam (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Criffo, C., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., From an ontology of service contracts to contract modeling in enterprise architecture. In: EDOC (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Almeida, J.P.A., Falbo, R.A., Guizzardi, G.: Events as entities in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In: ER 2019, pp. 1–14 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino, N.: On the semantics of ongoing and future occurrence identifiers. In: Mayr, H.C., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2017. LNCS, vol. 10650, pp. 477–490. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G.: Relationships and events: towards a general theory of reification and truthmaking. In: Adorni, G., Cagnoni, S., Gori, M., Maratea, M. (eds.) AI*IA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10037, pp. 237–249. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Azevedo, C.L.B., et al.: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: a well-founded ontology-based proposal for ArchiMate. Inform. Syst. 54, 235–262 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Almeida, J.P.A., et al.: Multi-level conceptual modeling. In: ONTOBRAS 2018, pp. 26–41 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melse, E.: The financial accounting model from a system dynamics’ perspective. (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Appelbaum, D., Nehmer, R.: Designing and auditing accounting systems based on blockchain and distributed ledger principles. Feliciano School of Business (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dai, J., Vasarhelyi, M.: Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. J. Inform. Syst. 31(3), 5–21 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Open Group: Archimate 3.0 specification. Standard (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO/IEC FDIS 15944-4: Information technology—business operational view—part 4: business transactions scenarios—accounting and economic ontology. ISO 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Financial Industry Business Ontology: Foundations Version 1.2. OMG (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fischer-Pauzenberger, C., Schwaiger, W.S.A.: The OntoREA accounting model: ontology-based modeling of the accounting domain. CSIMQ 11, 20–37 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SIA ODORigaLatvia
  2. 2.University of TilburgTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations