Converging and matching frameworks, standards, and ontologies is crucial for achieving semantic interoperability, integration, and alignment of information across different systems and domains. The corporate reporting domain, like many others, is governed by a complex array of accounting, financial reporting, and sustainability standards. This paper presents a novel approach to addressing the convergence challenge between the IFRS and US GAAP Conceptual Frameworks for Financial Reporting by grounding them in UFO-based upper ontologies. A converged ontology is developed and modeled in OntoUML, with the resulting converged concepts defined and discussed.
grounded in unified foundational ontologies, in this case in UFO [
The ontological analysis of IFRS and converged standards has uncovered further opportunities
for generalization and convergence, extending to the framework level. Upon review and discussion
of the proposed ontologies, as well as comparing them with other U FO-based economic and legal
ontologies, such as OntoFine [
The problem of engineering ontology for economics and accounting has been regarded before, e.g.
[18], however [
The research goal of this study is to study the problem of ontology convergence and to create an
analysis and core ontology artifact – Converged Conceptual Framework (CCF) Ontology, grounded
in the UFO and Core Ontology for Financial Reporting Information Systems (COFRIS) [20], as a
formal model for convergence of the frameworks of the International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS CF) [
The overall research frame is Design Science Research where COFRIS [20, 21], as it has been developed along several cycles so far, is the core artifact. The current paper represents a new design cycle; the primary research goal is to validate the usefulness of COFRIS by applying it to the practical purpose of CF convergence and to extend COFRIS if needed.
We start with a concise overview of the IFRS Conceptual Framework, its counterpart within the U.S., and definitions of the used social concepts from UFO-C and COFRIS, in Section 2. In Section 3, we introduce the CCF Ontology in OntoUML and propose motivated suggestions for convergence and generalization of frameworks. Section 4 concludes and outlines further validation work.
The International Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards Conceptual Framework (IFRS CF)
[
The Objective of Financial Reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity (aka Enterprise) that is useful to existing and potential investors and creditors in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.
Financial Reports provide information about (a) the nature and amounts of the entity’s Economic Resources and the Claims against the Entity; (b) the effects of Transactions and Other Events that change an entity’s economic resources and claims; (c) the efficiency and effectiveness with which the entity’s management discharged their stewardship [and custody] responsibilities.
Numerous other accounting and financial reporting frameworks exist, each tailored to different
activities and jurisdictions. A significant counterpart to the IFRS CF is the United States Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting (US GAAP CF) [
Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) is an axiomatic domain-independent formal Theory. UFO is
divided into three layered compliance sets: UFO-A, an ontology of concrete endurants – of
substantials and aspects [
Social commitments and claims specialize social aspects [
Conversely, if the entity is expected to manifest in the future (e.g., a Tesla Model Y specified within a purchase order), it is represented as a higher-order type. Unfortunately, the OntoUML currently does support modeling of different sorts of higher-order types as discussed in [22].
For similar reasons, we utilize primitive relations, such as creation and termination, to associate not only events with
objects but also to associate modes that represent the intention behind the creation or termination of objects specified by
higher-order types.
mode, a social commitment is a characterization of the committer, has externalDependence on
the claimer, and causes the creation of an internal commitment in the committer [
Reciprocity Relators [
COFRIS [20] adds economic resource flow and affected resource stock concepts to the commitments/
obligations and their fulfillment conceptualized in [
In COFRIS Economic exchanges are specialized institutional actions in which two economic agents (A and B) establish and fulfill reciprocal performance obligations, typically through a contract. These obligations involve the transfer of control over economic resources and the provision of services, ultimately impacting both parties' resources and activities. The primary objective of such exchanges is to generate economic benefits for either or both parties involved.
The accounting for economic exchanges begins with the recognition of performance obligations. Fulfillment of these obligations occurs through the transfer of economic resources, which are specified by the resource types outlined in the contract.
The transfer of resources entails the execution of one agent’s control or power over the resource, resulting in the termination of that agent’s rights and the simultaneous creation of equivalent rights for the other agent. This transfer assumes that the receiving party can generate economic benefits from the acquired resource, either independently or in combination with other transferred resources or those freely available to the other party. A transfer action (1) may involve the actions of conduct – (2) service provision and (3) object delivery. Service provision refers to a simultaneous transfer of service rights and execution of specified action for the benefit of the other party. Notice a difference between service rights transfer, whereby a service provider is hired to stand ready for their execution, and service provision which is rights transfer with their simultaneous execution.
Fulfillment of performance obligation causes Accrual of a reciprocal conditional economic claim against the other party, fulfillment of all performance obligations of a contract creates an unconditional claim. Besides resulting from the fulfillment or valuation of a contract, economic claims can be constructive or created by law.
In addition to economic resources, economic claims can be transferred and exchanged. The transfer of claims entails the execution of one agent’s agreed control or power over the claim of the other party, resulting in the termination of that agent’s obligation and the simultaneous creation of an equivalent obligation for the third party, usually with the consent of the other party. The opposite operation of the transfer of an economic claim against one party is the assumption of this claim by the other party.
This Section presents the Converged CF Ontology by (1) presenting core concepts used in both frameworks (IFRS and US GAAP), (2) conducting ontological analysis by visually representing and exploring the nature of these concepts through OntoUML diagrams, (3) suggesting and motivating the core concepts of the converged ontology. Our primary focus in this paper is on the convergence of elements within financial statements. The questions to be answered in a converged way are:
What are the economic resources and claims of the enterprise, their control and deployment rights and obligations?
What are the core economic events and their dispositions, participants, and effects? Building upon the foundation laid by COFRIS, CCF Ontology takes a broader perspective by encompassing not only “pure” economic exchanges, but also production and transactions with owners that are “analytically useful to treat like” exchanges [27, 17], service provision, and other events, roles, and phases of resources and claims additionally required for the frameworks.
We consider the roles and phases of enterprise Economic Resources and Claims in Subsection 3.1, Table 1, and Figure 3, then transactions and other events and their effects on Resources and Claims in Subsection 3.2, Table 2, and Figure 4.
The concepts and terminology have been refined to align closely with those used in established frameworks, with particular attention given to cross-lingual validation using GPT-4 for term testing, including the nuanced selection of terminologies, such as differentiating between Transferred Resource and Resource Transferred. It is assumed that for most concepts, corresponding higherorder types and correlative counterparts of concepts exist.
The UFO foundational concepts will be denoted in camelCase Arial italics, such as roleMixin but CCF Ontology concepts in Arial italics, starting in uppercase – Economic Resource.
The Terms Enterprise and [Reporting] Entity are used interchangeably. The existing frameworks and CCF Ontology have the reporting entity perspective as opposed to the independent view [18, 20]. We assume that the Enterprise is a Market Participant in some Environment and holds Economic Resources and Economic Claims against the Entity from other parties that are affected by Economic Events - transactions and other events with enterprise participation. Within its Business Activities, the enterprise enters into transactions with other market participants to maximize equity for its owners.
An Economic Claim against the Entity from other parties is abbreviated as Claim From Others or simply Claim, while an Economic Claim of the Entity to other parties is a Claim To Others.
We combine the institutional actions of Economic Resource Transfer to the other party and Claim Assumption from the other party as an Outflow. Conversely, Inflow combines Economic Resource Receipt from the other party and Claim Transfer to the other party.
To achieve the ontological convergence, we follow the ontology matching procedure of [23]. We
start with identifying similar or equivalent elements reflecting financial position across the
frameworks. Table 1 shows the definitions of elements by frameworks and our suggestions and
preferences for the convergence in italics. In certain instances, we identify elements, such as
Revenue, related to one framework in the standards of another (i.e., on a lower level). In suchcases,
the element from the second standard can provide additional context or enhancement to the first
framework. Subsequently, we establish semantic mappings between entities from different
ontologies and consolidate equivalent or aligned entities into unified representations. Any semantic
conflicts, such as naming discrepancies, variations in definitions, and inconsistencies in constraints,
are resolved by prioritizing the definitions provided by IFRS. All these steps are aligned with the
shared Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) and its sub-ontologies. If a concept does not align with
or specialize an existing concept in the upper ontology, it is redefined accordingly. However, in the
past, we have experienced a situation when our conceptualization influenced upper ontologies [
An Economic Resource, such as homeownership, is a subkind of Reciprocity Relator mediating the enterprise with the Market Society relating an Enabling Right to Exchange, e.g., a right to sell a house, and reciprocal Economic Benefit Potential, e.g., receiving a payment. The rights to exchange may either arise from ownership over a particular physical or social Object, e.g., a house, rights to receive Services or other resources of a certain type, e.g. housekeeping services, or Rights to Transfer a Claim of the other party, e.g. transfer of a mortgage to the buyer of a house. The latter right is overlooked in accounting framework definitions but is implicitly recognized in actions described by standards such as IFRS 13 [24]. Therefore, it has been incorporated into the converged definition.
The US GAAP Conceptual Framework does not differentiate economic resources as a separate
element, considering them synonymous with assets. The earlier UFO conceptualization in [11] is less
detailed but also follows the synonymous approach. Our preference for the IFRS treatment of
economic resources, as noted in [
An [enabling or entitling] right that has the potential to produce economic benefits, including the right to transfer an economic claim against the entity. Economic Benefit Asset Control IFRS: US GAAP:
IFRS Right to Deploy
An entitling right that corresponds to an obligation of another party Future Increases in economic resources or decreases in economic claims against entity A present economic resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events.
A present right of an entity to an economic benefit.
An entity controls an economic resource if it has the present ability to direct the use of the economic resource and obtain the economic benefits that may flow from it, either directly or through an agent acting on behalf of the controlling entity.
Control includes the present ability to prevent other parties from directing the use of the economic resource and from obtaining the economic benefits that may flow from it.
An agent may facilitate the obtaining of economic benetfis or the prevention of others from obtaining such benetfis, but the principal retains ultimate control.
It follows that, if one party controls an economic resource, no other party controls that resource.
An entity has the present ability to direct the use of an economic resource if it has the right to deploy that economic resource in its activities, or to allow another party, such as an agent, to deploy the economic resource in that other party’s activities.
Goods or services received and immediately consumed.
See Services in Subsection 3.2.
A combined right and obligation to exchange economic resources. The right and obligation are interdependent and cannot be separated. Hence, the combined right and obligation constitute a single asset or liability.
Liability or Equity Claim.
An obligation that has the potential to sacricfie economic benetfis, including the obligation to assume a new economic claim against the entity.
A present obligation of the entity to transfer an economic resource to provide services or to assume a new claim against the entity as a result of past events.
A present obligation of an entity to transfer economic benetfis - either to transfer cash or convey assets or to provide services or stand ready to do so.
The residual interest in the assets of the entity after deducting all its liabilities.
A present obligation of an agent to transfer to a third party an economic resource controlled by the principal.
The right to inflow or the group of rights, the obligation to outflow or the group of obligations, or the group of rights and obligations, to which recognition criteria and measurement concepts are applied. This highlights the added dimension that an entity brings to its economic resources beyond what is reflected in generic market definitions. For example, intangible economic resources like software, control features as an asset include not only the software itself but also the rights to access, update, or use it, which may be specific to the enterprise holding the asset. Similarly, a house that has been acquired by an enterprise is classified as being used for production purposes, but not for sale.
US GAAP CF does not differentiate between enabling rights and entitling rights§, thereby omitting the "potential to produce" characteristic found in the IFRS definition of economic resource. US GAAP suggests a more stringent recognition criterion. We prefer to emphasize enabling rights and the inherent uncertainty, as this distinction aligns with the asset-resource differentiation, allowing for a more nuanced and comprehensive characterization of economic resources. By focusing on enabling rights and uncertainty, a broader perspective is introduced, accommodating the various aspects of economic potential and resource utility beyond the more rigid asset recognition criteria.
§ Sometimes also referred as in rem and in personam rights respectively.
Economic claims against other parties - when enabling rights have been Extinguished for the benefit of the other party, the Entitling Rights over economic benefits, such as receivables, are raised and the economic resource enters into the Claim to Others phase.
Economic Benefits are understood as a result of the creation of economic resources or termination of claims, thereby enhancing the entity’s economic position. These benefits are the foundation of financial value and serve as the outcome of economic exchanges. This is our suggestion instead of rather long definitions in the frameworks, that as one standard-setter answered, “economic benefit is difficult to define”.
Economic rights and obligations are modes inhering in the enterprise and other parties and are manifested by actions. These rights and obligations govern future transfers and receipts (assumptions and transfers) of economic resources (resp. claims). Consequently, specified economic resources and claims are modeled as higher-order types. Modes progress through different phases, raising phases of economic resources and claims.
Assets, such as crude oil (economic resource) as a raw material (role) or homeownership as an investment property, specialize economic resources that are held and controlled by an enterprise. These assets serve specific purposes aligned with the enterprise's objectives and are subject to unique restrictions, controls, and accounting treatments, including recognition, measurement, and valuation based on their intended use and the economic benefits they are expected to generate.
Control encompasses both the ability to direct the use of a resource and to obtain economic benefits from it, as well as the right to manage outflows and facilitate inflows.
Control to Exchange and Control to Inflow refer to the ability of the enterprise to realize the potential of the resource within some business activity type. Unlike IFRS, US GAAP CF does not explicitly recognize the concept of control, which we find particularly important, especially when considering transfer and agency issues. Control involves the Ability to Direct and Ability to Obtain Economic Benefits and the Ability to Deploy Outflow and Ability to Facilitate Inflow. For the latter two an Exchange Engagement with an Agent is possible, potentially separated for deployment and facilitation of obtaining and prevention. It also brings up the question about the transferability of control, assets, and liabilities, as regarded in Subsection 3.2.
An Exchange Contract, another subkind of Reciprocity Relator, mediates the enterprise with the Other Party that specializes Market Participant. Contracts have inseparable Rights and Obligations to Exchange economic resources or claims, mutually agreed upon between two parties. Executory Contract is a phase of an equally unfulfilled contract with the net cash flow value typically equal to zero. Contracts, resources, and claims are not static; they are subject to fulfillment, extinguishment, and fluctuating valuations. Therefore, we conceptualize them as distinct but interconnected phases within their lifecycle.
A Claim to Others, such as [account] receivable, arises from a contract when Rights to Exchange are predisposed to yield economic benefits—specifically, eventual inflows that are either greater than outflows of the related Obligation to Exchange or no such obligations exist.
A Claim from Others, such as payable, arises from a contract if the outflows are greater, or no rights exist and stems from the fulfillment of the Obligation to Exchange or the valuation of the contract. It can also be a participant in transactions as Claim Transferred.
A Liability specializes Claim from Others that the enterprise has no practical ability to avoid. In its definition in Table 1 we emphasize the transfer of services because in this case, the transfer of rights takes place simultaneously with service provision.
An Equity Claim specializes residual Claim from Others – from the entity’s Owners and represents the owners’ interest in the Equity - the assets of the entity after deducting all its liabilities.
The Outflow Engagement with the Agent Obligation to Deploy specifies a present obligation of an agent to transfer to a third party an economic resource controlled by the principal.
The US GAAP does not include control and agency-related concepts in CF, which is the reason for choosing more comprehensive IFRS CF definitions, elaborated in IFRS 15.
The Unit of Account, a collective of Reciprocity Relators, is the right or the group of rights, the
obligation or the group of obligations, or the group of rights and obligations, to which recognition
criteria and measurement concepts are applied [
Per [25] much of financial reporting is currently transaction-based and will continue to be so. Transactions and other events result in [gross] increases in equity (such as income) and [gross] decreases in equity (such as expenses), typically accompanied by corresponding changes in assets and liabilities, ensuring that the fundamental equation, Assets = Liabilities + Equity Claim, remains balanced and intact. In Table 2 we have accumulated definitions of changes in equity from both frameworks and standards grouped by Transaction or Other Event type as a main criterion for naming these changes, allowing us to combine the differences in naming. 1.2 Changes from not ordinary activities Increases in equity from transactions and other events and circumstances afecting an entity except those that result from revenues or investments by owners.
Decreases in equity from transactions and other events and circumstances afecting an entity except those that result from expenses or distributions to owners. 2. Changes in economic resources and claims not reflecting nfiancial performance 2.1. Transactions with Owners Increases in equity of an entity resulting from transfers to the entity from other entities of something valuable to obtain or increase interests (or equity) in the entity.
Decreases in equity of an entity resulting from transferring assets, rendering services, or incurring liabilities by the entity to owners. Distributions to owners decrease ownership interest (or equity) in an entity. 2.2. Other changes
Exchanges of assets or liabilities that do not result in increases or decreases in equity.
Investments from US GAAP Owners Distributions to US GAAP Owners None
Both In Figure 4 we depict the converged ontology of transactions and other events grounding it in UFO. Economic Outflow and Inflow events are fundamental components of Transactions and Other Events. These events may occur independently as environmental or market phenomena, such as impairments or value changes, or as manifestations of Obligations and Rights arising constructively, by law, or through exchange contracts. In the latter scenario, the fulfillment of non-terminal phases of Obligations or Rights to Exchange also triggers accrual** or reciprocal events.
Outflows involve the Resource Transfers to other parties and the Assumptions of Claims from other parties. These actions result from the Decreases in Assets, Increases in Liabilities, and the consumption of Services Provided, leading to Decreases in Equity.
Extinguished Obligations. Furthermore, outflows advance unfulfilled Rights to Exchange into Entitling Rights which trigger the Accrual of Claims to Others leading to Increases in Equity. view††, ‡‡ Sections: 1. Transfers, 2. Accounting effects, and 3. Changes in equity specialized by economic event type.
** Accrual accounting depicts the effects of transactions and other events and circumstances on a reporting entity’s
economic resources and claims in the periods in which those effects occur, even if the resulting cash receipts and payments
occur in a different period. [
†† One reviewer questioned the validity of the <<characterization>> relation between <<kind>> and <<subkind>> in Figure 4. However, we, along with the OntoUML verifier, have confirmed its validity. The <<characterization>> relation in question is appropriately established between the Enterprise and the Obligation, which is a <<subkind>> of the Social Commitment <<mode>> depicted in Figure 3.
‡‡ Aggregation relations between events are used instead of <<historicalDependence>> relations.
Inflows involve the Resource Receipts from other parties or the Claim Transfers to other parties. These actions result in Increases in Assets, Decreases in Liabilities, and the consumption of Services Provided, leading to Increases in Equity.
The Fulfillment of Rights to Exchange or Entitling Rights results in Extinguished Rights. Furthermore, inflows advance unfulfilled Obligations to Exchange into Entitlement Obligations which trigger the Accrual of Claims from Others leading to Decreases in Equity.
The progression of both obligations and rights into their extinguished phases results in the exchange contract transitioning into its Extinguished Contract phase.
All changes in equity are categorized based on the type of Economic Event, the Nature and Roles (Functions) of the agentive and non-agentive participants in the entity's business activities, and the methods used to measure these changes.
In addition to the general pattern described above, changes in equity are recognized specifically depending on the type of event. First, the transaction or event is categorized as whether it is within the scope of the Financial Performance of the enterprise. In this case, the Expense specializes Decrease in Equity and the Income specializes Increase in Equity.
Second, within the first, the transaction or event is categorized as whether it is within the scope of Ordinary Activities of the enterprise. In this case, the Operating Expense specializes Expense and Revenue specializes Income. This follows from the US GAAP CF and IFRS 15.
Otherwise, if not within ordinary activities, Loss specializes Expense and Gain specializes Income.
For changes in economic resources and claims that do not reflect financial performance, we have
Operations with Owners and Other Changes. For operations with owners, Distributionspecializes
Decrease in Equity and Investment specializes Increase in Equity. The US GAAP CF in contrast
with IFRS has special elements for owner transactions [
The remaining are “Exchanges of assets or liabilities that do not result in increases or decreases
in [net] equity” [
However, under US GAAP, transactions with owners are included as separate elements of financial statements—specifically, 'Investments by Owners' and 'Distributions to Owners.' This inclusion, along with discussions on defining elements in terms of cash inflows and outflows (as elaborated in paragraph C4.97 of the Basis of Conclusions on the IFRS Conceptual Framework [25]), supports the perspective that categorizing changes in equity at the transaction level for each inflow and outflow provides ontologically meaningful insights into the economic events of an entity. Whether this categorization is significant for presentation or disclosure purposes depends on the specific requirements of the applicable accounting standards.
Important components of transactions and other events are transfers of economic resources and claims, and service provision - services received that are immediately consumed.
Using legal concepts regarded in [13] we define Transfer of Rights as institutional action in which a holder of an economic resource, leveraging its legal power to create or modify legal relations, terminates the holder’s rights to the resource and simultaneously creates equivalent rights for another party who is initially under a legal disability.
IFRS 15 [14] and the converged ASC 606 [26] introduce the concept of Transfer of Control as a criterion for revenue recognition. Additionally, they treat assets (and liabilities in other standards) as the objects of transfer. We question this approach, as control encompasses certain capabilities of an enterprise, as understood in the [12], which are inherently complex to identify and transfer. This distinction directs us back to the fundamental difference between economic resources and assets. Economic resources encompass transferable rights and are understood not only in terms of their legal status but also either by the market society’s (or shared by the agreement with the other party) understanding of the resource’s capabilities and the availability of other components necessary to realize those capabilities.
Consequently, the transfer of control should include rights and capabilities of economic resources underlying assets but not the rights and capabilities specialized by the assets inhering in the enterprise.
Both frameworks introduce a Momentarily Asset concept for goods or services received and
immediately consumed. That makes the definitions of the elements shorter. However, in UFO [
An example of a sales transaction scenario is represented in Table 3, formatted as an event table [32]. In transaction #1, the enterprise—a car dealership—transfers a car to a customer as part of its ordinary activities for $29,500, plus $1,000 worth of cleaning services provided by the customer. The cleaning services are immediately received and consumed. The cost of the car to the dealership is $20,000.
In transaction #2, the dealership assumes a $500 registration fee payable to a third party (the DMV), which is reimbursable by the customer (as part of the other events of the enterprise).
The third transaction is the fulfillment (F) of the registration fee payable to the DMV assumed in transaction #2. In the table, “+” indicates an increase, while “-” indicates a decrease.
Grounding in UFO and COFRIS social and economic endurants, events, and their primitive relations we have developed a Converged Ontology of the IFRS and US GAAP Conceptual Frameworks for Financial Reporting. This ontology is a novel attempt to describe the core transactions and other events, the elements for financial reporting. It charts the path for setting standard ontologies through framework specialization, framework improvement via convergence, theory and technology adaptation, and standard generalization.
In our development process, we have refined the distinctions between economic resources and assets, clarified the dual nature of economic claims against an entity, and identified the participants involved in inflows and outflows. Additionally, we have addr essed issues surrounding the transfer of economic resources, differentiated between services and “momentarily assets”, and developed a converged taxonomy of economic transactions and other events.
The need to converge concepts necessitates their unification while excluding contradictions, ensuring that the converged concept is grounded in an upper-level ontology and effectively specialized at the lower levels. Convergence can significantly enhance or refine a concept; however, care must be taken to prevent it from becoming overly broad or abstract. Achieving convergence between frameworks requires an in-depth analysis of standards to identify a shared conceptual foundation. Success in this process is marked by identifying higher-level concepts rooted in established theories or the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO).
The bias toward IFRS in a converged framework arises from the desire for global applicability, principles-based flexibility, alignment with economic substance, and regulatory preferences for simpler, more uniform standards. This makes IFRS a more appealing foundation for a unified set of global accounting standards compared to the more detailed and rules-heavy US GAAP.
The observed need to delve into the IFRS 15 and converged US GAAP ASC 606 is because this standard reflects the core concepts of economic exchange, and in some sense is more fundamental than the frameworks.
UFO Ontology matching and convergence remains mostly a costly manual process. However, the attempts to automate it open a new perspective by using the means of LLM [28, 29] and exporting to OWL of OntoUML diagrams [30].
The resulting converged framework serves as a validation of COFRIS. Furthermore, the validation of the CCF Ontology itself should involve the modeling of converged standards, such as IFRS 13 [24], and addressing emerging challenges, like climate-related and other uncertainties in financial statements [31], which are pertinent to both frameworks. This approach not only verifies ontology’s robustness but also ensures its relevance to contemporary financial reporting issues.
The CF Ontology diagrams were syntactically verified using OntoUML tools. The successful development of the CCF Ontology demonstrates the conceptual richness of the UFO and COFRIS ontologies and their suitability as ontological analysis means.
The CCF Ontology is submitted for publishing in OntoUML/UFO Catalog. [11] Azevedo, C.L.B., et al.: an ontology-based well-founded proposal for modeling resources and capabilities in ArchiMate. In: 17th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2013). pp. 39– 48. IEEE Computer Society Press (2013) [12] Calhau, R.F., JPA. Almeida, S. Kokkula, G. Guizzardi, Modeling competences in enterprise architecture: from knowledge, skills, and attitudes to organizational capabilities. Software and Systems Modeling, 1–40 [13] Griffo, C., JPA. Almeida, JAO. Lima, TP. Sales, G. Guizzardi Legal powers, subjections, disabilities, and immunities: Ontological analysis and modeling patterns Data & Knowledge Engineering 148, 102219 [14] IFRS Foundation. IFRS 15: Revenue from contracts with customers. 2014. [15] Blums, I., H. Weigand, Toward ontology-guided IFRS standard-setting. CAiSE Forum 2024: 7381. [16] IFRS Foundation. IFRS S1 general requirements for disclosure of sustainability-related financial information. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org, 2023. [17] Ijiri, Y.: Theory of accounting measurement. American Accounting Association (1975). [18] ISO/IEC FDIS 15944-4: 2015. Information technology – business operational view – part 4: business transactions scenarios – accounting and economic ontology. ISO 2015. [19] Massin, O, E. Tieffenbach, The metaphysics of economic exchanges. Journal of Social Ontology 3(2), 167–205 [20] Blums, I., H. Weigand, Consolidating economic exchange ontologies for financial reporting standard setting, Data & Knowledge Engineering, Volume 145, 2023, 102148. [21] Blums, I., H. Weigand: Towards a core ontology of economic exchanges for multilateral accounting information systems, EDOC 2020: 227–232. [22] Fonseca, C.M., G. Guizzardi, JPA. Almeida, TP. Sales, D. Porello, Incorporating types of types in ontology-driven conceptual modeling. International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, 18– 34, 2022. [23] Euzenat, J. & Shvaiko, P. (2013). Ontology matching (2nd ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [24] IFRS Foundation. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. Retrieved from https://www.ifrs.org, 2011. [25] IFRS Foundation. Basis for conclusions on conceptual framework for financial reporting. (2018) [26] Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). ASC 606: revenue from contracts with customers. Norwalk, CT: FASB, 2014. [27] System of National Accounts, EC, IMF, OECD, UN, World Bank, 2009. [28] Amini, R., S.S., Norouzi, Pascal Hitzler, and Reza Amini, Towards complex ontology alignment using large language models, ArXiv, 2024. [29] https://oaei.ontologymatching.org/ [30] Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A., & Guizzardi, R.S.S. (2021). gUFO: A lightweight implementation of the unified foundational ontology (UFO) in OWL2. Applied Ontology, 16(2), 109–143. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-200240 [31] IFRS Foundation. climate-related and other uncertainties in the financial statements. Exposure draft, 2024. [32] 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