Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/annual report

< Wikidata:Property proposal

annual report edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Not done
Descriptionreport on the activity and/or financials of the organization for a given year. Qualify with P582 to indicate the year.
Data typeURL
Domainorganizations
Allowed valuesurls
ExampleWikimedia Deutschland (Q8288) → url, qualifier end time (P582): 2015
Motivation

(Add your motivation for this property here.)
--- Jura 11:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • Given the WikiCite way of always having items for sources, why is the datatype url instead of item? ChristianKl (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Danish businesses, we have that Danish Business Authority (Q12310258) distributes both eXtensible Business Reporting Language (Q959950) and Portable Document Format (Q42332). I suppose one can just link to both and use a qualifier? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I have same concerns as ChristianKl, item is better datatype. It is currently impractical and time-consuming to create item for each annual report, but hope that will change in future (some tools may help). Having item for each annual report is the best option that simplify and speed up the referencing.--Jklamo (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Public companies file a gazillion documents: quarterly & annual financial reports, income statements, directors reports, etc. No need to create separate props for those. Use the prop "URL" with qualifier "of", eg:
    • URL <whatever>; of: annual financial report; point in time: 2016; format: PDF. Even better to make prop "periodicity" and do:
    • URL <whatever>; of: financial report; periodicity: annual; point in time: 2016; format: PDF. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment @Vladimir Alexiev: I hadn't thought of using URL (P2699), but that might be an alternative. I'm a bit hesitant about P2699 as it doesn't really go beyond defining the datatype. I expected the question about related reports. Personally, I'd focus on annual reports. I think we'd want to have the most comprehensive one listed. If others would be included, their scope would need to be described by a qualifier. As mentioned above, I think this property is mainly of interest for reports that are published at some random location, not if they are already centrally filed and freely accessible.
      --- Jura 07:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I'm looking at the entire "company" and related object hierarchy (more here). So, only preliminary ideas for this property. Here you might want to think about "generalizing" to Public financial statement preferably with a URL to the real thing. (perhaps as an entity of its own, not a property). Adding "public" qualifies that the statements issued are publicly accessible without restriction. Private financial statements are of little use to WikiData. Under that you might want periodicity (week/month/quarter/annual - annual only would be very restrictive), typical release date, accounting principles followed (enumerated list with link back to accounting standard setter, and year), dates released. If possible have a Legal Entity Identifier (what legal entity is publishing these financial statements). Would be good to mark statements audited or unaudited. If audited it would be good to have an enumerated list of audit opinions (clean, subject to (specifically stating what that is), going concern questioned, etc. The auditor should be identified, and the date of the audit opinion. Special care should be taken to extract as much of this as possible from public XML repositories such as EDGAR in the U.S. and 990 Public Tax Filings from the IRS for non profits. Also need to remember that many entities issue public financial statements are not for-profit entities (cities, municipalities, non profits, PACs, non profits via 990 tax filings, charitable groups, etc. In centrally planned governments there are often public financial statements of various state owned entities. These vary from limited "production reports" to full, detailed accounting statements. Any "financial data" released to the public in the form of a regular statement is within scope for WikiData. Rjlabs (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is meant for organizations in general, not just companies. I fail to see the advantage of adding "public". If there is an url, it is publicly available.
      A general problem we have with Wikidata:Property proposal/Economics is that many properties are requested and created (see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Sample_items.3F), but not necessarily used. This is possibly due to people attempting to follow schemes without much interested in actually contributing to the project or even the capacity to create sample items with their proposals (Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Sample_items.3F). This leads to huge overhead of unused properties.
      A capacity limitation of Wikidata is also that we can't mirror financial statements in their entirety.
      Even with this property, I think people can still create items for specific reports or other reports, but apparently none is actually interested in doing this (at least, I only found 4 (four) items when I checked). Items for annual reports could easily be cross-referenced with statement is subject of (P805).
      --- Jura 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rjlabs: Your comments show good domain expertise, but you're fairly swamping us with info, and as a result it's unlikely that info will be acted upon. Please look around some other property proposals: they're focused and describe one property only. Please study how some other domains are structured to get a feel of the Wikidata data structure. Certainly read the intro about "claims" and "qualifiers". --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further dialog responding to @Jura1: and @Vladimir Alexiev:

  • Agree if there is a URL, its public, so no need for that word in the label (provided all instances actually have the URL). Not sure I like "annual" as quarterly (and other time periods) are very important.
  • Would like to hear much more about A capacity limitation of Wikidata is also that we can't mirror financial statements in their entirety I think I've been misinformed on company data scope from other project posters. The lead goal on the Company project page used to be to build a system to rival Bloomberg. (that is a LOT of data!) Who at WikiData/Wikimedia is the final authority on "scope" for company data here, or is there authoritative written guidance?
    • @Rjlabs: There is no authority, like on all wikipedias it's by consensus. You make property proposals (like this one), and they get discussed (but you have muddled this one). I'm not familiar with the Bloomberg data but if it's in-depth data about important companies, maybe that would be appropriate. However, I personally don't believe WD is the place to store full accounting reports in a structured way: URLs to such, and income/networth/profit yes, but all the numbers no. It's not so much about the tech capacity, it's about the people/crowd capacity. WD currently has 25M items: before talking of adding 100M items, you need to have a plan who'll maintain them and use them. A separate WD (WikiBase) instance could be created for that sort of data, like the EC project EAGLE has done for Epigraphy. Of course, it takes effort and enthusiasm to maintain such instance, EAGLE may have died, see https://www.facebook.com/groups/Wikidata.GLAM/permalink/933245130111585/ --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to create a category: Economic properties and go through the property pages and tag them to category: Economic properties if possible. It would be a great benefit to easily know what has already been established.
  • It strikes me that other standard schema, outside of Wikidata, need to be followed where standardization of data already exists vs. brewing up something quick and "homemade" for one off projects here at WikiData. Company data is pretty complex and very advanced outside of WikiData. How much of that does WikiData ultimately want to try to "improve" upon? Wouldn't it be better, and much more efficient, to identify and merely follow the best external standards/schema? And, to work towards better linking between various standing standards around the globe (further developing concordances, cross references, etc.)
  • In terms of scope. Here is an estimate of data items covering just the basic financial statements in the U.S. alone. 10,000 companies file in xml at EDGAR; each year 3 quarterly statements on form 10-Q, and one annual on form 10-K; each of those contain four main statements (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow statement, changes in equity); guessing each of those have 100 "mainstream" data points. So over a 10 year period that is 160 million data points. Ultimately you need much more than that to include the data in the annual proxy statements (including all the officers, directors, major shareholders, etc) plus the detailed notes to the financial statements (many running more than 100 pages), managements discussion and analysis, and additional Reg SK disclosures etc.
  • What "slice" of that data does WikiData want to store directly, and how is it going to import that automatically from EDGAR on a timely basis? Will the schema at WikiData accommodate the xBRL schema at EDGAR or will a transformation be required? Wouldn't it be better to talk EDGAR into offering a SPARQL node, store and serve up the data "through" WikiData?
  • re please study how some other domains are structured to get a feel of the Wikidata data structure - would like to look at domains that are currently well structured on WikiData that are most similar to the large amounts of "table data" as outlined immediately above. Recommendations as to which domains to study?
  • Would also like to have pointers to tools that "visualize" or at least output the WikiData class hierarchy, class properties, inheritance, specific enumerations, data types, etc. Anything like XML spy documentation generators? Is there and xsd for WikiData I can just load in XML spy and look at it? I know there are some tools available but am totally new here.
  • re Certainly read the intro about "claims" and "qualifiers" Pointers to these? Any pointers to how enumerations are implemented?
  • re you're fairly swamping us with info Sorry, do not intend to be overwhelming. Oddly, I have the same feeling here trying to acclimate. I have limited time to devote to this so I'm really trying to avoid being misinformed or mislead (as in the "duplicate Bloomberg here" comment in the company project page.)Rjlabs (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose; use URL, per Vladimir Alexiev. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose entire ontology of entity financial statements needs more thought. See more comments originally posted here, but moved to the Annual Report section of Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_CompaniesRjlabs (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rjlabs, Pigsonthewing, Vladimir Alexiev, Jura1, Fnielsen, Jklamo: Not done, no support votes and three opposing votes. ChristianKl (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/annual_report&oldid=471352388"