=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2383/paper12
|storemode=property
|title=Economic Resources vs Assets
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2383/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-2383
|authors=Ivars Blums,Hans Weigand
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/BlumsW19
}}
==Economic Resources vs Assets==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2383/paper12.pdf
Economic Resources vs Assets
Ivars Blums 1[0000-0003-3405-0754], Hans Weigand 2[0000-0003-3405-0754]
1
SIA ODO, Riga, Latvia
2
University of Tilburg, The Netherlands
ivars@odo.lv, h.weigand@uvt.nl
Abstract. Definitions of economic resources and assets in financial reporting and
different enterprise information system frameworks are analyzed. A conceptual
model of economic resources and assets, grounded on UFO foundational ontol-
ogy, is introduced. Some improvements of the conceptual framework for finan-
cial reporting are suggested.
Keywords: Economic Resource, Asset, Financial Reporting, Ontology
1 Introduction
In conceptual modeling of economic, accounting and financial reporting (FR), supply-
chain and other enterprise business domains, the concepts of economic resources and
assets, as well as their counterparts – claims and liabilities, play an important part.
Analysis of different ontologies and standards show that their definitions are not con-
sistent, and in addition, resources and assets are regarded almost as synonyms [12, 19].
The need for consistency and distinction increases in network-based market models,
such as DLT enabled systems and traditional exchange platforms, governmental sys-
tems, banks, communities, and corporations of related enterprises, joint ventures and
principal-agent based relationships.
In a market society, market participants – persons and enterprises, contractual groups
of people and enterprises, or the society at large – enter into economic (offering, con-
tract, resource obligation and right) relationships over objects. Economic activities of
consumption, production and exchange are stipulated by economic relationships, re-
sulting in participation actions – creation, change, termination or usage – of economic
relationships and underlying objects.
Economic activities and relationships are captured in Market and Enterprise Infor-
mation Systems (IS) – see Table 1. The information in the Market IS is correlative and
consensual – symmetrical and agreed among the participants. The information in the
Financial Reporting IS is more specific and interpreted per financial reporting stand-
ards, enterprise’s restrictions, abilities, and intentions. In the contemporary world,
where the semantic interoperability is badly needed but rarely achieved, the standards
and ontologies (especially in the biomedicine domains) seem to facilitate better under-
standing. However, standards and ontologies tend to be domain specific with a little
interdomain effort. Financial Reporting as a domain, and henceforth its conceptualiza-
tion, has some characteristics that could make it a base for a core ontology of business.
2
First, its concepts are quite universal and applicable for all industries and enterprises.
Second, FR is global and coexistent with different law systems. Third, it is understood,
co-developed and used by probably the largest amount of employed people covered by
any standard. And finally, it has an official power of a regulation.
The objective of Financial Reporting (FR) is to provide information (useful for fi-
nancial decisions) about the nature and valuation of:
• economic resources controlled by the enterprise – assets,
• economic obligations – claims against the enterprise – liabilities and equity claims,
• changes within a period in those assets and claims – income, expenses, and equity
changes.
The need of the Assets (vs Resource) concept in accounting was questioned a long time
ago, e.g. by suggesting an “inductive approach” in [8], and recently in [15]. Such ap-
proach assumes reporting of uninterpreted object (resource) transactions involving the
reporting enterprise. In contrast, the conventional accounting is based on a functional
classification of transaction effects (recognition) and valuation (measurement) in assets
[16]. However, the importance of observing transactions in their consensuality and cor-
relativity is increasing because their information is becoming more faithful, immutable
and easier captured in the Market IS and Business IS by other than accounting depart-
ments. The information of such transactions should be grounding, but not substituting,
the accounting recognition and measurement. A new aspect of our ontology of Market
and Enterprise IS interplay is the disclosure of the enterprise-specific (but non-sensual)
transaction level and provenance information to the Business and Market IS.
The requirements of financial reporting standards specify some aspects of transac-
tions not captured by (but possibly consequent for) contractual parties and business.
These aspects need to be included in the transactional information as early as possible.
Such situation requires deeper understanding and integration of information systems of
market, business and financial reporting, existing and potential investors and creditors
of an enterprise. The needs for understanding, integration and information exchange
are requiring a rather universal ontology of market and enterprise financial reporting.
The Core Ontology for Financial Reporting Information Systems (COFRIS) [4, 9,
10] is grounded on Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) [5]. In this paper, we build
on COFRIS and attempt to align different definitions of economic resources and assets
in different standards and propose to distinguish between economic resources as poten-
tial and actual participants of consensual economic exchanges in the market and assets
as enterprise-specific economic exchange effects and dispositions, see Table 1.
We start this paper with the analysis of resource and asset concepts in UFO, in dif-
ferent standards and in financial reporting, we continue with a more detailed conceptu-
alization of economic relators and events in COFRIS and we finalize with some sug-
gestions for the Conceptual Framework of Financial Reporting [2].
3
Table 1. Relational and Event Contexts of Market Resources and Enterprise Assets in IS
specialization
aggregated information
Market Perspective Enterprise-Specific Perspective
Context
Consensual IS Business IS Financial Reporting IS
Exchange Dispositions: Enterprise Control:
Economic Economic Offerings/Contracts Business Units of Account
Relationships Economic Claims Objects Liabilities and Equity
Economic Resources Assets
Exchange Participants: Enterprise Effects:
Economic Offerings/Contracts Changes in Units of Account
Economic Business
Economic Claims Changes in Liabilities
Exchanges Activities
Economic Resources Changes in Assets
Resulting Equity changes
recognition/classification/valuation
disclosure of non-sensual information
2 Aspects of Economic Resource and Asset Conceptualization
The concepts of resources and assets are key in accounting but also turn out to be hard
to define and distinguish. We begin with an example to illustrate the difference between
the resources and assets.
A corporation develops software products (intellectual property assets) and sells
MRP II Software licenses – economic resources with a market value of 200K€ per li-
cense. A manufacturing company contracts for this license type. As fulfillment of the
contract obligations the software license with ID:123 (the resource) is transferred to the
company in exchange for 200K€ to be used in an MRP resource role in its manufactur-
ing activities. Company recognizes the license combined with implementation services
(another transferred resource) as a product and an asset at a cost of 250K€ to be amor-
tized (i.e. used as a resource) by 25K€ per year. Soon after the purchase and implemen-
tation, company’s manufacturing activities are discontinued due to political sanctions
– an economic event affecting the asset. The asset does not have a use value anymore
and did not have an exchange value initially, because the company didn’t have subli-
censing rights, and the company does not have any realistic opportunity to use the li-
cense to service other companies. The value of the asset is nil, and the asset is derecog-
nized, while it still counts as an economic resource in a market perspective. It is held
(owned) by the company, but it is not controlled by the company.
We follow now with some aspects of asset and other concept definitions.
Firstly, there is a common practice of calling by the same names both the represen-
tations of objects and the real-world objects themselves. On the contrary, we may de-
sign different names for these two cases, and call the elements of enterprise financial
statements – assets and claims, and the objects of the enterprise they represent – eco-
nomic resources and claims. Our analysis shows that the accounting frameworks [12]
4
refer to both meanings with the same name, and that different enterprise related stand-
ards [11, 17] use terms assets (liabilities) outside the context of representation.
Secondly, there is a need to distinguish between the relational and event [22, 23]
context, i.e., between dispositions and objects participating in the manifestation of such
dispositions, e.g., ‘widgets [held for sale]’ vs ‘transfer of widgets’. UFO [6] describes
Resource as a role that an object plays [or could play] in an action needed to make
progress towards the goal. More specifically, Resource is defined as a type-level entity,
capturing the role of an (agentive or non-agentive) object in the scope of a material
relation or in the scope of an event [6]. The object type is restricted to an “allowed
type”. In FR resources are represented as rights over the objects [2], see Table 2.
Thirdly, there is a need to distinguish the market and reporting enterprise perspec-
tive. In the consensual and correlative market perspective, dispositions of resources
(claims) are entitlements [14] – general rights (resp, disablements – general claims)
held by some generic agent over an object. The allowed type and rights and expected
value are constraining the allowed value-producing activities and the role for the object.
In the reporting enterprise perspective, assets are dispositions of resources controlled
by the reporting enterprise.
Table 2. Relational and Event definitions of Market Resources and Enterprise Assets
Context Market Perspective Enterprise Perspective
Eco- Exchange Disposition: Enterprise Control:
nomic Economic Resource is a Right that has the po- Asset is a present Economic Resource
Relators tential to produce Economic Benefits [FR: 2] controlled by the Enterprise as a result of
past events [FR: 2]
Eco- Exchange Participants: Enterprise Effects:
nomic Resource is a Role of an Object that partici- Income is increases in Assets, …
Events pates in an (Creation, Termination, Change, Expenses are decreases in Assets [FR: 2]
Usage) Action. [UFO: 6] Resulting in Equity changes [FR: 2]
Control is a valuable capability of the reporting enterprise “to direct the use of the eco-
nomic resource and obtain the economic benefits that may flow from it” [2]. Thus,
Assets inhere in the reporting enterprise. Asset’s disposition, enough (assez) to play a
role in the controlling enterprise activity:
• is constrained by the rights, abilities, regulations, rational intentions of the enterprise
(or – as was demonstrated by the example – not even recognized);
• is increased by the enterprise’s synergies in combination with other possibly unrec-
ognized assets or legal rights and tax benefits;
• accumulates enterprise’s economic experience of asset type or an item;
• is protected from unauthorized use by other market participants.
In UFO analysis [6] resource is also defined as “an asset owned or controlled”, while
financial reporting has the opposite definition – an asset is a resource controlled by the
enterprise as a result of past events [2]. However, there is almost no difference, because
the first definition says that the resource is something of value for at least one market
participant [20], but the second says that a resource valuable in the market is an asset
for the reporting enterprise, if the resource is controlled by the enterprise [2]. A finan-
cial reporting standard [1, IFRS 13] also implies that the economic resource is an asset
5
of a market participant that has an ability to generate economic benefits by using the
asset in its highest and best use or by selling it to another market participant that would
use the A in its highest and best use.
Disposition in the case of asset is characterized by control, that is understood differ-
ently in different frameworks. For example, the employment contract mentioned in [6]
as an asset, at inception is not recognized as an asset for Financial reporting, because
the conditional commitments of the contract are rights and obligations to exchange, and
valuation of such contract generally is equal to zero, i.e., control is obtained ‘as a result
of past (expenditure) events’, but not by signing the contract. As identified in IAS 38
[1], an enterprise does not have enough control over its skilled workforce (and the train-
ing that has created those skills) to meet the definition of an asset.
REA – ISO/IEC 15944-4:2015 [15] does not define assets and thus the recognition
criteria, intentions and valuations of reporting enterprise. However, the assessment of
asset disposition (but not forecast) perhaps is the most important task of accounting and
financial reporting. Obligations and claims are described in REA [15] as entities op-
tional to “ontological completeness”. For these reasons REA is sometimes regarded as
an “operational ontology” [21] and suggested to be augmented by concepts relevant for
accounting [18].
Fourthly, in extension to the recognized resources and claims for financial reporting,
there are intentional resource and claim transfer participations and dispositions dis-
closed, committed in offerings and contracts. The valuations for such items may not be
exact but are instead estimated, or dependent on market, timing and uncertainty. Such
information is partially disclosed in the FR Notes of financial statements and not
enough conceptualized.
Such extensions and UFO-S [13] patterns also provide grounds for their relation to
analogue Enterprise Architecture concepts. The OMG Business Motivation Model
(BMM) [17] specification provides a scheme or structure for developing, communi-
cating, and managing business plans in an organized manner. The standard introduces
asset and liability concepts but claims that they are real-world objects without “account-
ing flavor” (of representation). Of course, these are planned assets (liabilities) and
moreover, in a state long before any contracts. However, we do not find any differences
in the meaning, classification and treatment of the assets of BMM vs FR, except that
current assets are called resources. The assessment described in the standard, could be
well enough aligned with the assessment required for financial reporting. As we argued
above, the valuation aspect may not be exact at the early stages, and the legal aspects
are implicit, assuming ownership, while it may be important even for a business plan
to decide between the lease and acquisition of fixed assets. BMM Liability definition
says that “it reserves resources needed to meet commitments”, in FR is not a liability
but an (equity) provision but could be generalized to align with financial reporting.
Fifthly, the assets (liabilities) and the economic resources (claims) represent social
relationships and their exchange among the participants of the market society. In recent
accounting frameworks, an economic resource is “a right that has the potential to pro-
duce economic benefits” [2], while in the REA Ontology presented in ISO/IEC 15944-
4 [15], and in other standards, social, legal position and derivative aspects are not em-
phasized. In UFO the rights aspect is elaborated by UFO-L sub-ontology [14].
6
Sixthly, while some assets are named as property, e.g., intellectual property, there is
a difference between property rights and assets, economic resources and [proper] re-
sources. The difference lays in the control and valuation, i.e., economic resources are
valued resources, and assets are controlled and valued property rights.
And finally, it is important to distinguish resources and claims, and assets and liabil-
ities as simple concepts in contrast with groups (complexes) of these entities, that con-
stitute a disposition or transfer bundle, e.g., over a physical object, contract or business.
ISO 55000:2014 Asset management [11] defines an asset as an “item, thing, or entity
that has potential or actual value to an organization …. Value can be tangible or intan-
gible, financial, or non-financial, and includes consideration of risks and liabilities. It
can be positive or negative at different stages of the asset life”. In this case, the asset is
regarded as a group of rights and obligations, otherwise the meaning is close to financial
reporting elements.
Similarly, in OntoREA [18] “the Economic Resource is typified into Phase classes
according to the economic value specialization condition for distinguishing between
Asset, Liability, Equity and Claim whereas this condition is considered as an intrinsic
property of the resources”. Considering that in FR assets are resources controlled by an
enterprise, but liabilities and equity are claims against an enterprise, economic re-
sources and claims, and assets and liabilities are sub-kinds but not phases of a simple
economic relationship. The valuation specialization condition though is valid in distin-
guishing a residual class of a complex relationship formed by a group of rights and
obligations, also called unit of account [2]. The offsetting of rights and obligations is
the exchange of these rights and obligations.
3 COFRIS. Economic Resources as Exchange Dispositions
For modeling economic relationships, a reciprocal social relator [13] called Economic
relator is introduced that mediates a party – market participant – with the society and
other parties. Economic relator captures offering, contract, claim and ownership
grounded dispositions to exchange economic resources (resp, claims) for value rights
(resp, obligations). The left side of the Fig.1 depicts the consensual market perspective
of an Economic Relator in a relational context. Thus, it shows the concepts agreed (or
offered to be agreed) among the contract parties (or within groups, in the market).
More specifically Economic relator represents Exchange Disposition of a party to
accrue value by transfers of rights (obligations) over an object that fulfil the goals of a
target party and implied realization of the accrued value by the target party transfers
that fulfil the goals of the party.
For example, a (present and historical) ownership (against any converse holder), ten-
ure and value of a real-estate object are listed in a public registry. The record represents
the object, rights and obligations over the object, and thus the allowed activities of a
holder, e.g., to use the object as an economic resource in the activities of an enterprise,
to use it as a collateral or residual in creditor and owner relationships, to sell it, to insure
it, to incur a claim to pay property tax, etc. The relationship is consensual and correla-
tive with any market participant. From an enterprise perspective, this resource would
be recognized as an asset to be used in production activities for the next 50 years.
7
Fig. 1. COFRIS. OntoUML diagram for the Relational context. Market participants in yellow,
Economic events in blue, Economic relators and their roles in green.
Valuation of an economic relator can be based on Transaction price that is the con-
tracted value to be received (resp, paid) for the transfer; or Market price (Fair value)
that is the value that could be received (paid) in the marketplace for similar transfer; or
disclosed Historical cost as a transaction price.
Economic resource, a sub-kind of exchange disposition, represents rights over an
object that can be transferred (used) in exchange for value accrual – a right to receive
value. Assuming that rights are allowed actions for allowed objects in allowed roles,
we reconcile the above definition in terms of the one in [6]:
Economic resource is an allowed role played by an object in a transfer to make pro-
gress towards a goal of accruing value in an allowed exchange activity. The allowed
activity and role are determined w.r.t. allowed object type and marketplace, disregard-
ing the abilities of a particular holder.
A transfer (a usage) should be physically or technologically possible, legally em-
powered (permissible), and financially feasible w.r.t. accrued value. Converse party for
a resource is a society or a debtor. Target party for a resource is a target customer
community [13] – ready to pay the price. A target party may be the holder itself – ready
to incur the cost. Value right is accrued by the transfer of an economic resource and is
8
to be realized after complete fulfillment or applied in a settlement. Thus, the timing of
a value right is within the production or exchange activity.
Economic claim, a sub-kind of exchange disposition, represents a duty or responsi-
bility to transfer economic resources to which the market participant is legally or con-
structively bound (to make a settlement action). Value obligation is accrued by the
transfer of an economic claim (an action different from a settlement).
An Economic resource or claim play the role of Valuable. Complex valuable is a
group of resources and/or claims which are offered, agreed, fulfilled, settled, trans-
ferred, or maintained together.
Exchange obligation (or commitment), a sub-kind of exchange disposition, repre-
sents an agreed promise to transfer a resource (resp, claim) in exchange for a value right
(resp, obligation) accrual. Economic commitment stipulates its fulfillment by transfer
of resources or claims and evolves into resource or claim during its fulfillment.
In the conceptualization of Economic commitment, we ground on UFO-C [6] and
UFO-S [13], where a social commitment is a mode, but not a relator. We represent a
social relator through its commitment mode, implying the correlative claim. Social
relator [13], representing two sides of the same coin – social commitment and correla-
tive claim, is consensual – agreed between and among the parties. In contrast, a Com-
mitment (claim) offering, another sub-kind of exchange disposition, is a commitment
(or claim) that is offered but not yet agreed. Social commitment in our case is a UFO-
C Complex closed appointment and is composed of a number of commitments that
should be realized by executing a number of actions (transfers) of a particular type
under certain types of situations, characterized by Timing and Uncertainty.
Commitment provides meaning of the fulfillment and per UFO-S assumes providing
benefit for a counterparty. Economic commitment assumes a return (a revenue) for
providing a benefit (sacrifice) – a value claim of a party. Thus, economic commitment
is a conditional commitment to exchange a fulfillment for a value. Service is a valuable
and agreed interaction; thus, it requires a commitment.
Economic contract integrates party’s and counterparty’s obligations (commitments),
governs their fulfillment, value exchange (realization) and settlement. Contract is a re-
ciprocal [13] relator comprised of conditional commitments of the parties. It assumes
the exchange of value accrual of a completed fulfillment of one party for enforcement
of unfulfilled commitments of the other party and settlement of the latter. Reciprocal
(contract) relators are comprised of two sub-relators including a party’s commitment
and a counterparty’s commitment, and thus each sub-relator can be depicted by its com-
mitment, whereby the correlative claim is implied [9].
The right part of the Fig.1 represents Enterprise perspective on the economic rela-
tionships (and their changes) in which the reporting enterprise is involved. Enterprise
exchange control intentions and capabilities are specializations of resources (resp,
claims) and are captured and possibly recognized for financial reporting as assets (resp,
liabilities and equity claims). The changes in assets and liabilities resulting from eco-
nomic exchanges and other events are represented by income, expenses and other eq-
uity changes. Value rights (resp, obligations) are represented by contract or work in
progress assets (resp, liabilities).
9
Assets (resp, Liabilities and Equity) are present resources (resp, claims) controlled
(resp, indebted and unavoidable) by the reporting enterprise, as a result of past eco-
nomic events which form their Historical cost [2].
Assets, Liabilities and Equity (provisions) are multi-layer classified by intended ac-
tivities, such as held for production or sale, by roles items play in these activities such
as raw materials, equipment and finished goods, timing (current or non-current) of the
activities, risk assessment and valuation method (measurement basis).
Equity changes resulting from asset and liability changes caused by transfers or other
economic events, classify the performed activities by Function, such as administration,
sales of goods and rendering services, and production, and the roles items played in
performed activities by Nature, such as changes in raw materials, finished goods, de-
preciation, and employee benefits. Carrying amount represents the present valuation of
assets (liabilities). While all exchanged resources (claims) are enterprise asset (liability)
changes in Financial reporting, some are regarded as momentarily [12], i.e., are trans-
ferred (consumed) as received. Momentarily assets (liabilities), such as services, in-
crease (decrease) carrying amount of affected stock assets (liabilities or equity).
4 COFRIS. Economic Resources as Exchange Participants
In COFRIS we define Economic exchange as an interaction of two market participants
(parties) whereby a party accrues value by transfers of rights (obligations) over an ob-
ject that fulfil the goals of a target party and implied realization of the accrued value by
the target party transfers that fulfil the goals of the party. The Economic event context
of economic relationships is depicted in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. COFRIS. OntoUML diagram for the Event context. Enterprise perspective is depicted for
a transferor. The correlative events and elements for the transferee are shown in brackets.
10
We need to make an addition to the relational contract structure, in order to specify the
activities of the party and counterparty aimed at fulfilling a specific goal – a product.
While particular transfers are delivering resources, they constitute the means for achiev-
ing such a goal. In our example in section 2, the MRP software license, and the imple-
mentation service were the means of achieving a goal – a working system. In an Enter-
prise context, a specific Asset and a Revenue is recognized, when achieving a produc-
tion goal. Generally, achieving several such goals may be required before the realiza-
tion of the value exchange.
Economic event affects Economic relators and includes Economic Exchange activi-
ties and other events. Exchange activity is governed by an economic contract and com-
prises of Production activities, performed by a party and a counterparty of a contract,
to achieve product goals. Production activities, in turn, comprise Economic transfers.
In short, economic transfer is a fulfillment of a commitment of providing services or
delivering goods in exchange for receiving value.
More specifically Economic transfer is a transaction whereby in exchange for ac-
crued (resp, received) value, and in fulfillment of obligations (resp, settlement of
claims), the rights (resp, obligations) – over an object held by the transferor:
1. are used for the benefit (resp, sacrifice) of the transferee; and/or
2. are terminated and equal rights (resp, obligations) held by a transferee are created.
In accordance with Hohfeld’s theory of rights and its application in e.g. [20, 14], the
economic resource includes a privilege to use an object for a holder’s benefit or stay
idle. The agreed use of an economic resource for a counterparty’s benefit is a service
and a transfer of a claim-right [20]. To convey the rights or obligations over an object
the holder needs to hold power rights and optional converse holder’s consent.
We distinguish service in a broader sense, that is any action specified by commit-
ment, and in a sense of financial reporting. Financial reporting regards transfer of power
(to use, to transfer power) as “goods” delivery, and actions that do not transfer power
(but transfer usage of the rights) as “services”. A well-known example is a difference
between purchase of a car, lease of a car (“goods” transfer) or using a taxi (“services”).
Initially, both parties perform the Fulfillment of Transfer commitments and accruing
value, that leads to the fulfillment of Production commitments and finally to the fulfill-
ment of Exchange commitment. The party who first fulfils the exchange commitment
realizes the Exchanged value in exchange for unconditional Exchange obligation of the
counterparty and becomes a creditor. The debtor performs the Settlement of Exchange,
Production and Transfer claims.
Exchanges in the market and other events involving the reporting enterprise result
in an enterprise asset and liability (and their change) recognition and derecognition,
valuation and classification. By recognition we understand making the information
about controlled resources (claims) available to financial reporting. Other events, cir-
cumstances and conditions in the market and enterprise, such as the passing of time,
impairment, price changes, contract and claim breaches etc., may result in revaluation
and reclassification of assets, liabilities and equity of the enterprise.
11
5 Preliminary Suggestions to IASB Conceptual Framework
In March 2018 IASB released the revised version of the Conceptual Framework (CF)
for Financial Reporting [2]. Our goal is to be reasonably compliant with the framework
in engineering COFRIS. Another goal is to see where the CF could benefit from our
ontological analysis. In addition to a need for information systems based ontological
approach covering the market and enterprise entities, we list the following suggestions:
Firstly, Financial reporting should aggregate transaction-centric plus enterprise-spe-
cific, but not exclusively enterprise effect-centric information. Thus, an economic ex-
change should be introduced as a unifying concept. Aggregating consensual transac-
tions for Financial reporting, instead of accounts, would provide additional opportuni-
ties for comparability with other enterprise processes, possibilities of application of
process mining methods, disclosure of event-specific information [23] and insights into
the value co-creation processes.
Secondly, competitive consensuality – meaning that among parties there is an agreed
shared ledger of contracts and their fulfillment, including provider and customer re-
sources (claims) and required asset (liability) information – should be a quality aspect,
even within the old context of audit reconciliations. Consensuality should be added to
comparability, verifiability, timeliness, and understandability as a qualitative charac-
teristic that enhances the usefulness of information that both is relevant and provides a
faithful representation of what it purports to represent and reduces reporting uncer-
tainty.
Thirdly, correlativity in economic relationships should be a standard-setting princi-
ple. The important intermediate resources (claims) of exchange, activities, and transfer
should be defined. When correlativeness and consensus are not regarded as a principle,
deficiencies emerge in standards already discussed by us elsewhere, such as those con-
cerning leases [10], contract assets and revenue [3].
Fourthly, in FR Assets (Liabilities) are conceptualized only as recognized, while
they and other economic relators may also be intended, planned, offered, contracted,
suspended etc. Some of these states need to be disclosed in the FR Notes of financial
statements, thus they also need to be conceptualized in the framework.
And finally, a unifying concept of an Economic relator should be introduced. A par-
tial effort in the framework has been made by defining the concept of a Unit of Account
as a group of related rights and/or obligations. The economic relator is a most atomic
building block that involves the value relationship, from which more complex eco-
nomic relators such as the contracts, investment portfolios, cash-generating units, and
businesses can be built.
Acknowledgments. We are thankful to Nicola Guarino for discussions.
References
1. IASB homepage, http://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards, IASB, 2019
2. IASB Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, IASB, 2018.
12
3. Weigand H., I. Blums, J. de Kruijff: Shared Ledger Accounting – Implementing the Eco-
nomic Exchange Pattern. Journal of Information Systems, 2019 (Submitted).
4. Blums, I., Weigand, H.: Towards a core ontology for financial reporting information systems
(COFRIS). C. Debruyne et al. (Eds.): OTM 2017 Workshops, LNCS 10697: 302–306, 2018
5. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, Telematics In-
stituut Fundamental Research Series, No. 015, ISSN 1388-‐1795, The Netherlands (2005).
6. Azevedo C.L.B. et al: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: A well-
founded ontology-based proposal for ArchiMate. Inf. Syst. 54: 235-262 (2015)
7. Guizzardi, G., et al, Endurant Types in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling: Towards
OntoUML 2.0, ER 2018, Xi’an, China.
8. Schrader, W.J. "An Inductive Approach to Accounting Theory," Accounting Review, Vol.
XXXVII (October 1962), pp. 645-49.
9. Blums I., H. Weigand: Towards a Reference Ontology of Complex Economic Exchanges
for Accounting Information Systems. EDOC 2016: 119-128
10. Blums I., H. Weigand: Financial Reporting by a Shared Ledger. JOWO 2017
11. ISO 55000:2014 Asset management — Overview, principles and terminology.
12. FASB Exposure Draft. Statement 8—Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, 2016
13. Nardi, J., et al., Towards a Commitment-based Reference Ontology for Services, EDOC,
2013.
14. Criffo C., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., From an Ontology of Service Contracts to Con-
tract Modeling in Enterprise Architecture, EDOC 2017.
15. ISO/IEC. Information Technology — Business Operational View — Part 4: Business Trans-
actions Scenarios — Accounting and Economic Ontology. ISO/IEC FDIS 15944-4: 2015.
16. Ijiri Y., Theory of Accounting Measurement. American Accounting Association, 1975.
17. Business Motivation Model Specification, version 1.3, OMG 2015.
18. Fischer-Pauzenberger C., W.S. A. Schwaiger, The OntoREA Accounting Model: Ontology-
based Modeling of the Accounting Domain. CSIMQ 11: 20-37 (2017).
19. Sales T.P., et al, Ontological Analysis and Redesign of Risk Modeling in ArchiMate, EDOC
2018, Stockholm, 2018.
20. Andersson B., M. Bergholtz, P. Johannesson: Resource, Process, and Use – Views on Ser-
vice Modeling. ER Workshops 2012: 23-33.
21. Melse E., The Financial Accounting Model from a System Dynamics' Perspective,
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de, 2006.
22. Guizzardi G., Wagner G., de Almeida Falbo R., Guizzardi R.S.S., Almeida J.P.A. (2013)
Towards Ontological Foundations for the Conceptual Modeling of Events. ER 2013.
23. Guarino N., Guizzardi G. (2016) Relationships and Events: Towards a General Theory of
Reification and Truthmaking. AI*IA 2016. LNCS, vol 10037. Springer, Cham.