=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2574/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Market Information Systems based Reporting (full paper)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2574/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2574
|authors=Ivars Blums,Hans Weigand
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/BlumsW20
}}
==Market Information Systems based Reporting (full paper)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2574/paper5.pdf
Market Information Systems based Reporting
Ivars BLUMS 1[0000-0003-3405-0754] and Hans WEIGAND 2[0000-0002-6035-9045]
1 SIA ODO, Riga, Latvia
Ivars.Blums@odo.lv
2 University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Abstract. Enterprises operate in markets by building and realizing exchange re-
lationships. Currently, accounting information systems are organized in an enter-
prise-specific way. We introduce a Market Information System perspective on
top of Exchange (Shared Ledger) and Enterprise-Specific perspectives. The two
latter developed earlier, are enhanced and their interplay with the Market per-
spective is elaborated. This paper presents a summary of this model and discusses
some of its practical implications, and potential reporting quality improvements.
Keywords: IFRS, UFO, COFRIS, Market Information System
1 Introduction
Relevant and faithful Financial [1-3], Tax, Integrated, National Accounts [4], and other
Economics’ related Enterprise and Person Reports and Registers play an important so-
cial role for decision making. Enterprise Reporting is mainly based on observing the
enterprise-specific effects of economic exchanges - transactions1 on assets and liabilities,
captured in Enterprise Information Systems (IS).
In a modern environment, reporting can be increasingly based on neutral, more ob-
jective and informative data about transactions within shared ledger and market infor-
mation systems. In return, the latter can benefit from enterprise-specific information.
Such interactions require a common ontology for interoperability. The ontologies of re-
porting can gain after their reconsidering from a broader than enterprise perspective.
This paper continues the attempt to conceptualize enterprise reporting based on a
wider than before [5, 6, 20] perspective, maintaining its grounding in the UFO founda-
tional ontology [9], its subontologies [10-15] and OntoUML modeling tool [8]. The re-
sults of this research are expressed in machine-readable OntoUML diagrams and axi-
oms. The main sources are the conceptual frameworks and standards of reporting, such
as [1-3], and the cases of their application. The ontology is aimed towards aiding reuse,
understandability, intra-consistency, and interoperability, as well as aligning the report-
ing concepts with economic phenomena frameworks, standards, and other ontologies,
such as [17].
Modern reporting is inseparable from its computational Information System. Repre-
sentation Theory [18] posits that the essential purpose of an IS is to provide a faithful
representation of some focal real-world phenomena, thereby assisting its users to track
1 “or an action within an institutional unit that it is analytically useful to treat like a transaction”
[4]
191
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
states and state changes (events) in the phenomena it represents. We emphasize that
modern IS increasingly allow the creation of state changes in the real world in addition
to just representing them. We distinguish two types of IS for our research: Reporting
Standard-Setting Information System (COFRIS), and Standards-Compliant Reporting
Information System that is based on Enterprise IS, Exchange IS, and Market IS.
Economic agents, such as Persons or Enterprises, operate in markets by building and
realizing economic exchange relationships. Market participants take part in an exchange
as bilateral EXCHANGE PARTIES - a PARTY and a COUNTERPARTY, either directly, or by
organizing and facilitating exchange via market (intermediate) agents, and/or using spe-
cial exchange facilitating resources of other parties, such as online platforms.
We preliminarily refer to MARKET INFORMATION SYSTEMS as information systems
of THIRD-PARTIES that transparently to and independently from potential or actual Ex-
change Parties capture and exchange (communicate) market transaction information, to
facilitate or to monitor exchange and reporting.
Independence and transparency here are relative terms – market observation is gen-
erally more independent than bilateral, and the latter is more independent than unilateral.
For example, let us regard an independent company (a third-party) that installs and
records electricity (or other utility) meters. Via its information system, it discloses to
involved exchange parties the measurements (e.g., per hour) combined with market
prices observed in the Electricity Exchange IS. Combined information, aggregated per
period and per party, represents (constitutes), or is an audit for - the revenue of the in-
volved supplier and the expenses of the involved consumer.
Access to the meter and pricing information, with lower granularity than the report-
ing period, gives the reporting system the possibility to “drill down” and analyze market
and consumer behavior and seasonal patterns as well as explicate unusual events (to
determine whether an event is orderly, unique, infrequent, unusual, routine and whether
it could have a continuing effect on the routine and frequent business activities of the
enterprise [3]). The monthly exchange is concluded by the direct debit of the consumer’s
account by the bank in favor of the third-party (for services) and the supplier.
2 Economic Exchange in an Exchange Information System
We assume that an economic exchange involves the exchange of valued resource com-
mitment and transfer actions, as well as the exchange of accompanying information
about the involved parties, resources, and experience. The order of the commitments and
subsequent transfers can be arbitrary. Being a Party does not mean that it will perform
before the Counterparty, nor that we take a perspective of any. Nevertheless, the inter-
action where the transfer of one party causally depends on the completed transfer of the
other party is an important subtype of synchronized exchanges in our model.
For reporting and other purposes, economic exchanges are categorized in EXCHANGE
STANDARD types (of contracts) and COMMITMENT and TRANSFER RULES, such as for
Trade, Lease, Insurance, Financial Instruments, Employee Benefits, and Agriculture.
Most economic exchanges are indirect – mediated through monetary valuation and
payments. While payments can take various forms and constitute an equally important
part of exchanges, one can often abstract from the payment part for categorization (typ-
ification) of exchanges and reduce it to the categorization of obligations and resources.
192
A major sub-kind of such exchanges are reciprocal exchanges in which the transfer-
rable resource valuation is equal to the payment (or other consideration) valuation. Non-
reciprocal exchanges include gifts, onerous, and option-based transactions [1]. The Ex-
change phenomenon provides a discrete way of settling a claim, raised by a resource
transfer, and includes default.
An ECONOMIC EXCHANGE (see Fig.1) complies to the Exchange Standard and comprises
of:
(1) INFORMATION exchange by potential EXCHANGE PARTIES for building trust and
for an economic decision of EXCHANGE of valued resource transfer
COMMITMENTS2, that results in mutual OBLIGATIONS comprising an EXCHANGE
CONTRACT,
(2) Contract governed EXCHANGE of RESOURCE TRANSFERS and transaction expe-
rience INFORMATION.
The processes of Phases (1) and (2) have a similarity of reaching a one-party realization
point and two other subphases (not depicted in Fig.1).
The Phase (1) comprises:
(i) mutual performance of conditional commitment and informative events, while
(ii) one party accepts or rejects the other party’s conditional OBLIGATIONS; if ac-
cepted, the party continues with the informative events, while
(iii) the other party accepts or rejects; if rejected the (ii) is reversed.
When (iii) is accepted, the exchange and obligations are CONTRACTED, and Phase (2)
starts. The Phase (2) comprises:
(i) a BREACH, or mutual TRANSFER for the partial fulfillment of contracted obliga-
tions that raise a conditional transfer or performance CLAIM [20] of one party
against the other for transferred value, and experience information gain, while
(ii) one party completes the fulfillment that triggers the mutual resource value ex-
change and raises an unconditional contract CLAIM against the other party for
unfulfilled obligations, and
(iii) a BREACH, or TRANSFER for settlement of the CLAIM by the other party.
A contracted obligation is a relator because it relates a transfer obligation of one party
with a conditional value claim against the other party.
ECONOMIC RESOURCE is a RIGHT (and a relator of a generic HOLDER against a
CONVERSE holder towards a TARGET holder) over an OBJECT that has the disposition to
produce economic benefits – value claims against the other party.
Economic TRANSFER (Provision) event transfers VALUE, and either conveys the
Rights (Obligations) over an Object or the usage (provides service) of such Rights, from
the Transferor to the benefit (sacrifice) of the Transferee. When the transfer action be-
comes substantive and requires recognition and measurement as a resource, it becomes
a service itself. A TRANSFEROR is one exchange party who initiates a transfer to the other
exchange party – a TRANSFEREE while a Transferer is an agent who executes the transfer.
2 Commitment – “making or accepting of a right, obligation, liability, or responsibility by a
Person that is capable of enforcement in the jurisdiction in which the commitment is made”
[17], thus an event in contrast to its further use as a mode (obligation) in [17] and in [10].
193
Similar concepts are introduced for Economic COMMITMENTS (Promises), PROMISORS,
and PROMISEES.
The exchange of commitments and transfers can be performed by an agency or fa-
cilitated by platforms of commitment and transfer parties. The exchange parties can play
the roles of the COMMITMENT and TRANSFER PARTIES by themselves and organize the
exchange in their own Information Systems that may be shared. We will refer to such
systems as EXCHANGE IS. When an exchange is organized by an independent Third-
Party either through an AGENCY or PLATFORM, we will refer to such systems as MARKET
IS and will regard them in the next section.
Enterprise Enterprise
Information Market (Exchange) Information Systems Information
System System
Fig 1. COFRIS. Economic Exchange. Legend: (as in color mixing) Economic agent roles in yel-
low plus their Actions in blue yield Economic relators in green, that are dispositions of Actions.
During Information and Commitment Exchange, parties exchange information about
themselves, the Exchange, Resource and Object types that they commit for exchange.
After mutual acceptance, the reciprocal obligations of resource transfer constitute an Ex-
change Contract.
For each commitment, each exchange party in the role of the ASSESSMENT PARTY
within their ENTERPRISE IS, in compliance with its ASSESSMENT POLICIES, performs As-
sessment of Asset (Liability) type and resulting Equity Change. The promisor as a po-
tential DEBTOR assesses what asset type will be derecognized and which expense type
and valuation will be used. The promisee as the potential CREDITOR assesses what asset
194
type will be recognized and which income type and valuation. (Posting) Assessments
and Postings can be specified in a Debit/Credit notation.
During Economic Resource Transfer and Information Exchange, parties FULFIL their
Contractual Obligations by transferring Economic Resources of a SPECIFIED TYPE.
EXPERIENCE about the participants, transaction, resources, and objects is mutually accu-
mulated, particularly in DESCRIPTION and CONTEXT attributes of the Economic Re-
source.
For each transfer, each exchange party in the role of a POSTING PARTY within their
ENTERPRISE IS, in compliance with its POSTING POLICIES, performs the posting of Asset
(Liability) Derecognition/Recognition and resulting Equity Change. The transferor as
Debtor derecognizes the asset and the resulting expense type and valuation. The trans-
feree as Creditor recognizes the asset and the resulting income type and valuation.
Note that not only Economic Resources, but also Contracts and Economic Claims
(Economic Resources of holders other than the transferor) can be transferred. For exam-
ple, an Enterprise can settle income tax obligations of an Employee in exchange for the
settlement of Employee’s payroll claims against the Enterprise.
In contrast with [17], which states that the concept of a claim “is more a matter of
business custom than ontological completeness”, we regard ECONOMIC CLAIMS as pre-
sent enforceable obligations to transfer as a result of past value receipts and other events.
Indeed, the quantity, value, and other features of the present claims and resources of an
enterprise are not determined by the exchanges exclusively, but also by impairment and
market valuation and resource type changes and other economic events.
For Standards-compliant Economic Exchanges, in concert with [2, para 4.30], stating
that “If one party has an obligation to transfer an economic resource, it follows that an-
other party (or parties) has a right to receive that economic resource”, we assume the
following:
• the required information captured about an Economic Exchange by one party
is correlative and consensual to the information captured by the other party,
including verified statuses and the “related-to” relationship of the parties and
exchangeable resources. The Exchange IS that captures such information pro-
vides an independent perspective as well as each party’s individual view of this
information. COFRIS provides an independent perspective for financial report-
ing standards and individual view for each party.
• In a shared perspective, reporting is based on aggregating (over a particular
enterprise) of shared Economic Exchanges. Commitments and transfers have
assessment and posting events as subevents. The Exchange IS governs and
prompts the following mapping of the initial assessment/posting events:
o each assessment/posting event references the commitment/transfer event,
o each asset (liability), even if only momentarily, is an enterprise specializa-
tion of a resource (claim), and
o each assessed or posted income (expenses) or equity change is an enterprise
specialization of a contracted obligation or an exchange type.
Recognition and measurement, taking the forward-looking perspective of an Enterprise,
specialize Economic Resources (Claims) into Assets (Liabilities) taking into account
Capabilities, Restrictions, Synergies, Uncertainty [1], and Functions of the Enterprise.
195
E.g., Raw Materials for Construction Department are a specialization (purpose) of
‘Common Bricks’ as Resources in a purchase transaction.
Derecognition generalizes Enterprise Assets (Liabilities) into Market typified and
evaluated Resources (Claims). E.g., Finished Products of Production Department
(source) are generalizations of ‘Common Bricks’ as Resources in a sales transaction.
ISO/IEC 15944-4:2015 [17] reasonably denotes the enterprise-specific perspective
as a “trading party perspective” and exchange perspective as an “independent perspec-
tive”. Further, it claims that ‘For internal database purposes of corporate accountability,
“trading partner perspective” terms are directly derivable from “independent perspec-
tive” terms’.
In contrast, the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, prescribing corpo-
rate accountability in [2, para 4.30], postulates that “a requirement for one party to rec-
ognise a liability and measure it at a specified amount does not imply that the other party
(or parties) must recognise an asset or measure it at the same amount. For example, par-
ticular Standards may contain different recognition criteria or measurement require-
ments for the liability of one party and the corresponding asset of the other party (or
parties) if those different criteria or requirements are a consequence of decisions in-
tended to select the most relevant information that faithfully represents what it purports
to represent.” Indeed, the decision acts of derecognition/recognition, initial classifica-
tion, and initial measurement are dependent but additional to those of the transfer/receipt.
Immediate expensing, accumulating, or capitalizing of the received resources as well
as their recovery function, nature and valuation within an enterprise are its prerogatives.
However high level of required categorization by FR often allows for an inference of the
element types from transaction purpose and location, exchange lifecycle categorization,
and business model and policy of the enterprise. Moreover, assets and liabilities of the
enterprise often continue to be tied to the supplier (and of course debtor and creditor)
within warranties, maintenance, and lease agreements. The categorization, lifecycle, and
valuation of elements are often tied to the market.
The question requiring further research is whether such inferences should be used,
required and disclosed in shared transaction recording. A separate issue is the disclosure
of the resource sourcing and cost.
ASSET is a present Economic Resource controlled by the Enterprise as a result of past
events [2]. LIABILITY is a present obligation of the enterprise to transfer an Economic
Resource (of a specified type) as a result of past events, including operating in a partic-
ular market. EQUITY is the residual interest in the assets of the Enterprise after deducting
all its liabilities [2], and an Equity Holders’ (Owners’) Claim against Enterprise. The
most basic EQUITY CHANGES are Income and Expenses.
3 Economic Exchange in a Market Information System
Most exchanges are committed and realized in the market environment and through
some Market Information Systems maintained by Third-Parties, having service Con-
tracts/Terms of use with the exchange parties. Third-Party contracts are subtypes of Re-
source exchange contracts that should be contracted before the commitments and trans-
fers are enabled and facilitated by them.
196
Let us return to Fig.1 for a more detailed perspective of an Economic Exchange in a
market. The basic exchange is enabled by the commitment and transfer parties being in
an AGENCY3 relationship with an exchange party, which are exchange parties themselves,
or Third-Parties that exchange on behalf of the parties being their agents, such as em-
ployees, or parties being agents, or independent agents with their own Information Sys-
tems.
The basic exchange is facilitated by commitment and transfer parties being in an
online PLATFORM4 relationship with an exchange party, which means that the Third-
Party provides an Information System Resource that helps the exchange party to carry
out the actions of the exchange including smart contracts.
Markets are institutions in which human or institutional agents exchange valued Eco-
nomic Resources. The concept of Markets and thus Market IS, however, is wider than
the concept of exchange because it includes the structural macro-effects that result from
a large number of exchanges, for example, changes in the overall price level, exchange,
participant, resource, and object provenance and typification. The ultimate location of
the Market IS is the net (cloud). The market is a truth-maker of a product and thus
involved resources.
Market IS emerge when they provide exchange, resource, object, and participant
matching, typification and valuation of substantial impact. The goal of the Market IS is
to be better off by facilitating a substantial network effects, in contrast to Exchange IS
that facilitates partner relationships, and Enterprise IS that have a minimal goal of arm’s
length transactions.
Market IS services can be provided in both – commitment and resource exchange
phases. The service and possibly other resources are provided to both parties and evalu-
ated separately, according to their contracts with Third-Party. Through Market IS the
information is shared with all participants.
Market IS usage does not necessarily imply financial agreements. A Third-Party may
collect transaction fees indirectly through the provision of marketing information, or
collecting data about parties and their behavior, exchanges, resources, prices and then
monetizing this data.
Often service fees are not accrued at commitment exchange but collected in a pay-
ment transaction for the whole exchange process.
Note that in the OntoUML diagrams Events have BEGIN and END points as properties
and are past occurrences [12]. Thus, the Fig. 1 shows the situation after the events have
already taken place. Substantial information about the exchanges can be depicted in a
form of the correlative and consensual effects of their lifecycle events.
3 Sometimes one party (a principal) engages another party (an agent) to act on behalf of, and for
the benefit of, the principal. If an agent has custody of an Economic Resource (ER) controlled
by the principal, that ER is not an Asset of the agent. Furthermore, if the agent has an obliga-
tion to transfer to another party an ER controlled by the principal, that obligation is not a
Liability of the agent, because the ER that would be transferred is the principal’s ER, not the
agent’s. [2, para 4.25]
4 An online platform is defined as a digital service that facilitates interactions between two or
more distinct but interdependent sets of users (whether firms or individuals) who interact
through the service via the Internet. [19]
197
Further, in this paper, economic exchanges will be represented as potential or actual
contracts with “bound to” exchange parties, and contractual obligations of the exchange
parties in different phases of fulfillment, as well as the related (posting) assessments and
postings (see Fig. 2).
The direction of the relation between a party and a contract shows whether the party
is a seller (incoming arrow), a buyer (outcoming arrow), or is undefined.
The direction of the relation between obligations of a specified party and a contract
shows whether the fulfillment of these obligations causes contract realization/settlement
(incoming arrows), or these obligations become claims/fulfilled after the contract reali-
zation/settlement (outcoming arrows) or is undefined.
Fig. 2. COFRIS. Exchange Standard Parties, Contracts, Obligations, and Postings (shown as at-
tributes in a Debit/Credit notation, separately for each party) in a Market IS example.
In Fig. 2 we have shown complex Standard Exchange participants, contracts, obliga-
tions, and postings in an Airbnb5 like Platform IS provided by a company 3P for illus-
trative purposes.
In this simplified illustration, the depicted Standard Exchange leads to the following
happy-path scenario. In phase (1), after (i) publishing and searching of accommodation
listings by Members (Guests and Hosts), (ii) the Guest G accepts by booking request,
5 https://www.airbnb.com/
198
and (iii) the Host H accepts or rejects6. If rejected, the (ii) is reversed. If accepted, the
GUEST TOTAL FEES are collected through the Platform’s Payment Service which is an
Agentive part of its Platform Services (i.e. the 3P is an agent). Total Fees are allocated
towards GUEST FEE for Platform Services and LISTING FEE PREPAYMENT.
Per SERVICES AGREEMENTs with exchange parties, the company 3P by providing its
Platform Services has facilitated and captured in its Market IS the matching (Commit-
ment Exchange) between the Host and the Guest, resulting in their ACCOMMODATION
LEASE CONTRACT.
Furthermore, in phase (2), (i) and (ii) - The Host realizes a complete lease (a revenue)
for the Guest, that rises an unconditional LISTING FEE CLAIM (a receivable). (iii) Per
Service Agreement with the Platform the Claim is exchanged for HOST FEE for Platform
Services and PAYOUT TO THE HOST, taken from the Guest’s Prepayment. Members ex-
change reviews and ratings – experience information – within Market IS. All three par-
ties [de] recognize their exchanges as Assets’/Liabilities’ and Equity changes in their
Enterprise IS.
4 Discussion and Conclusions
Market IS together with coordinated Enterprise IS provide the most faithful, relevant,
comparable, verifiable, timely, understandable, and less costly information for financial
and other reporting. The abovementioned qualitative characteristics are defined in [2]
as fundamental and enhancing for financial information.
Faithfull information should be complete, neutral and free from error. All transac-
tions of an enterprise facilitated through a Market IS should be reported thus ensuring
a higher level of completeness. Higher neutrality end error minimization is achieved by
a three-way consensus about the information captured in the Market IS. The infor-
mation gathered is additionally enriched by multiple participants’ experience and con-
text.
Relevant financial information is capable of making a difference in the decisions
made by users. It has predictive value and/or confirmatory value. First, an aggregated
Market IS information is relevant by itself – an investor can understand how a particular
market or product performs. Second, for an enterprise, the full exchange lifecycle in-
formation allows for better confirmability and predictability, particularly because all
unaccepted offers and other cancelations are captured. Third, Market IS facilitates as-
sessments by similar transaction and price information comparison.
Comparability with similar information about other enterprises and with similar
information about the same enterprise for another period or another date is facilitated
by Enterprise and Market transaction history. The vast amount of transactions of even
millions of enterprises are captured by a particular platform in the same data format,
involving objects of the same type and shared meaning that allows for unprecedented
comparability among different enterprises and time periods.
6 In the U.S., Airbnb hosts had rejected more than 40% of guests’ reservations in recent years.
199
Verifiability means that different knowledgeable and independent observers could
reach consensus, although not necessarily complete agreement, that a particular depic-
tion is a faithful representation - the Market IS transactions are at least in a three-way
consensus.
Understandability Classifying, characterizing and presenting information clearly
and concisely makes it understandable – the Market IS transactions are understood at
least in three-ways, but transaction types by two large market groups and a Third-Party.
Cost constrain - providers of financial information expend most of the effort in-
volved in collecting, processing, verifying and disseminating financial information. Re-
porting financial information imposes costs, and it is important that those costs are jus-
tified by the benefits of reporting that information – these and other costs are reduced
due to Market IS. Of course, the count of the transactions increase exponential and more
compared to the aggregated reports count of enterprises. However, the transactions are
captured within the enterprises anyway and that at least triples the count, besides that
the transaction information can be aggregated over three parties. Of course, the ability
of an FR system to process the aggregated transaction information is a serious threshold
for a full implementation.
In addition, the Market IS provide fast regulation responsiveness to market experi-
ence, typification, and provenance of economic exchanges, market participants, re-
sources and claims, their valuation and underlying objects. Market IS are objective and
especially objective if they provide for independent exchange facilitating services and
payment agencies.
Since the Market IS facilitates and executes an exchange parties’ actions, it also can
restrict them to comply to general and platform rules. Restrictions are also built in En-
terprise IS, but again they can be less objective and more manipulated than in the Mar-
ket IS. In addition, a Market IS it can sanction or escalate, if such rules are violated.
However, Market IS based reporting is challenged by many problems, such as infor-
mation disclosure, legislation and reporting standards, information processing re-
sources. Nevertheless, many current activities, especially in tax reporting trend towards
the right direction.
So, several platform companies including Airbnb [16] have opened or required ac-
cess to their data for tax authorities. Similarly, banks, e-health systems, POS terminals
share transaction information with authorities. Companies, in general, provide VAT,
payroll, and building companies even timesheet information on a regular basis or on-
demand. Registers of companies, transaction histories involving many resources such as
drug provenance, motor vehicle registration, and claims, are public.
Another evidence is the emergence of contract preparation platforms. Recently sev-
eral leading mobile providers in Russian Federation have announced such systems -
“The ecosystem of the Digital Lawyer includes the “Document Designer”, which works
on the principle of a neural chatbot in the web interface. The necessary information is
collected through dialogue with the user, and a finished document is obtained at the out-
put”, in addition, a service is offered for integration with accounting or ERP systems.7
Our proposal is not - "open ledger for everyone” (nor even for Reporting authorities).
To start with Market IS Reporting one only needs to know that the transactions reported
7 https://www.cnews.ru/news/top/2020-01-29_novyj_servis_megafona
200
are marked as consensual, correlative, and marketed, and output derecognitions and in-
put recognitions (in contrast to internal postings) are in sync with the transfers and with
the lifecycle.
Factors that affect the relationship between Transaction and Posting information is a
topic for our future research.
References
1. IASB homepage, http://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards, IASB, 2019
2. IASB Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, IASB, 2018.
3. FASB Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, FASB, 2016.
4. System of National Accounts, European Commission, IMF, OECD, UN, World Bank, 2009
5. Blums, I., H. Weigand: Towards a Reference Ontology of Complex Economic Exchanges
for Accounting Information Systems. EDOC 2016: 119-128.
6. Blums, I., H. Weigand: A Financial Reporting Ontology for Market, Exchange, and Enter-
prise Shared Information Systems, IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise
Modeling: 83-99 (2019).
7. The PROV Ontology. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/.
8. Guizzardi, G., et al, Endurant Types in Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modeling: Towards
OntoUML 2.0, ER 2018, Xi’an, China.
9. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural Conceptual Models. Ph.D. thesis,
CTIT, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Enschede (2005).
10. Nardi, J.C., et al., A commitment-based reference Ontology for services. Inf. Syst. 54, 263–
288 (2015).
11. Griffo, C., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., From an Ontology of Service Contracts to Con-
tract Modeling in Enterprise Architecture, EDOC 2017.
12. Almeida, J.P.A., R. A. Falbo, G. Guizzardi, Events as Entities in Ontology-Driven Concep-
tual Modeling. ER 2019: 1-14.
13. Guarino, N., On the Semantics of Ongoing and Future Occurrence Identifiers. ER 2017:
477-490.
14. Guarino, N., Guizzardi G. (2016) Relationships and Events: Towards a General Theory of
Reification and Truthmaking. AI*IA 2016. LNCS, vol 10037. Springer, Cham.
15. 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).
16. Ritchie, C., and Brendan Grigg, No Longer Unregulated, but Still Controversial: Home
Sharing and the Sharing Economy. (2019) 42(3) UNSW Law Journal 981.
17. ISO/IEC. Information Technology — Business Operational View — Part 4: Business Trans-
actions Scenarios — Accounting and Economic Ontology.
18. Recker, J., M. Indulska, P. Green, A. Burton-Jones, R. Weber, Information systems as rep-
resentations: A review of the theory and evidence, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 20 (6), 5 (2019)
19. OECD (2019), "What is an “online platform”?", in An Introduction to Online Platforms and
Their Role in the Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/19e6a0f0-en.
20. Weigand, H., I. Blums and J.d. Kruijff, Shared Ledger Accounting — Implementing the
Economic Exchange Pattern, Information Systems (2019) 101437,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2019.101437.
201