Quality of Data Standards: Empirical Findings from XBRL

Semantic Standards Quality Measured for Achieving Enterprise Interoperability: The Case of the SETU Standard for Flexible Staffing

“…Zhu & Wu have introduced how relevance and completeness can be measured in standards' implementations (Zhu and Fu 2009;Zhu and Wu 2010;Zhu and Wu 2011). The completeness and relevancy of the same data standard can be different to different users.…”

Quality of semantic standards

“…For example completeness and relevance have been extensively researched and a measurement instrument has been developed specifically for these two measurable concepts (Zhu & Fu, 2009;Zhu & Wu, 2010.…”

“…For "process quality" and "quality in practice" in particular more build and evaluation iterations needs to be done, and finally the measures need to be constructed. For now, we advise the use of BOMOS (Folmer & Punter, 2011) as a guidance on process quality and the work of Zhu et al (Zhu & Fu, 2009;Zhu & Wu, 2010 for a guidance on (partly) measuring quality in practice.…”

“…Other research in the financial reporting domain show the same lack of interoperability, related to the implementations of the standard and its quality (Bovee, Ettredge, Srivastava, & Vasarhelyi, 2002;Zhu & Fu, 2009;Zhu & Wu, 2010). Also issues related to health care standards that tamper interoperability are widely-acclaimed ( Figure 1), but have broad and even contradicting origins.…”

“…Direct measurement can be automatically done by measuring two quantifiable metrics: completeness and relevance, based on counting the use of XML elements within the implementations (Zhu & Fu, 2009;Zhu & Wu, 2010). Standard quality can also be indirectly measured by assessing interoperability of data instances (Zhu & Wu, 2011).…”