Very Basic XBRL Primer
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Accounting Certification Quick Guide
Accounting Certification Quick Guide CPA CMA CIA CFE EA CGMA Accounting Courses Required to Sit for Exam Yes No Yes No No Yes Work Experience Needed to Sit for Exam No No No Yes No 2 years Bachelor's Degree Yes (150 credit hours) Yes (can sit b/f graduated) Yes Yes* No Yes Estimated Cost of Exam $ 3,000 $ 1,750 $ 1,500 $ 400 $ 1,000 $ 325 Estimated Total Costs** $ 4,500 $ 2,230 $ 2,300 $ 1,395 $ 1,500 $ 2,600 Exam Dates Per Year 4 Windows (9 Mo.) 4 Windows (6 Mo.) Year Round Year Round May 1-Feb 28 3 Windows Exam Length 16 Hours 8 Hours 6.5 Hours 8 Hours 12 Hours 3 Hours Work Experience Needed for Certification Yes* 2 Years 1 - 2 Years Yes* No 3 Years Number of Exams 4 2 3 4 3 1 Memberships Required to Sit for Exam None IMA Member None ACFE Member None AICPA Member CFA CGAP CBA CISA CFSA CITP Accounting Courses Required to Sit for Exam No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Work Experience Needed to Sit for Exam No* 1-5 Years* No No No No Bachelor's Degree Yes No (associate) Yes No No (associate) Yes Estimated Cost of Exam $ 2,500 $ 855 $ 498 $ 670 $ 2,000 $ 500 Estimated Total Costs** $ 4,600 $ 2,500 $ 900 $ 2,240 $ 2,250 $ 650 Exam Dates Per Year 1-2 Times/ Year Year Round 3 Times/ Year June 1-Sept 23 Year Round 3 Windows Exam Length 18 Hours 3 Hours 4 Parts 4 Hours 3 Hours 4 Hours Work Experience Needed for Certification 4 Years 1-5 Years 2 Years 3 Years* 1-5 Years 1,000 Hours Number of Exams 3 1 4 1 1 1 Memberships Required to Sit for Exam CFA Institute None None None None AICPA Member * Work experience varies by state **Includes study material, fees, test, etc. -
Accountant Exempt, Full-Time Administrative Department
Accountant Exempt, Full-Time Administrative Department Job Summary: Under general supervision of the Finance Director, responsible for accounting and support services. The employee must routinely use independent judgment when performing tasks. Equipment Used / Job Locations / Work Environment: The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this class. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. The employee will operate a computer, fax machines, copier and other modern office equipment. The employee generally works indoors in an office. Essential Functions & Job Responsibilities: The duties listed below are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to this class. Responsible for accounting and financial records of all funds, including reconciling bank statements and invoices, reconciling General Ledger (G/L) accounts and sub ledgers, bond payments, verifying accounts payable, and payroll; balances all receipts and tax collections monthly; responsible for journal entries to G/L; records fixed assets; assists with annual audit; assist with annual budget preparation; assist with annual and monthly financial report; assists users in resolving problems on various accounting systems. Additional Work Performed: Prepares social security and tax withholding reports; prepares quarterly unemployment reports; maintains general records of account according to established accounting classifications, including various ledgers, registers, and journals; posts entries to books and computer from supporting records, makes adjustments, and prepares financial statements. -
V a Lida T in G R D F Da
Series ISSN: 2160-4711 LABRA GAYO • ET AL GAYO LABRA Series Editors: Ying Ding, Indiana University Paul Groth, Elsevier Labs Validating RDF Data Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, University of Oviedo Eric Prud’hommeaux, W3C/MIT and Micelio Iovka Boneva, University of Lille Dimitris Kontokostas, University of Leipzig VALIDATING RDF DATA This book describes two technologies for RDF validation: Shape Expressions (ShEx) and Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), the rationales for their designs, a comparison of the two, and some example applications. RDF and Linked Data have broad applicability across many fields, from aircraft manufacturing to zoology. Requirements for detecting bad data differ across communities, fields, and tasks, but nearly all involve some form of data validation. This book introduces data validation and describes its practical use in day-to-day data exchange. The Semantic Web offers a bold, new take on how to organize, distribute, index, and share data. Using Web addresses (URIs) as identifiers for data elements enables the construction of distributed databases on a global scale. Like the Web, the Semantic Web is heralded as an information revolution, and also like the Web, it is encumbered by data quality issues. The quality of Semantic Web data is compromised by the lack of resources for data curation, for maintenance, and for developing globally applicable data models. At the enterprise scale, these problems have conventional solutions. Master data management provides an enterprise-wide vocabulary, while constraint languages capture and enforce data structures. Filling a need long recognized by Semantic Web users, shapes languages provide models and vocabularies for expressing such structural constraints. -
Deciding SHACL Shape Containment Through Description Logics Reasoning
Deciding SHACL Shape Containment through Description Logics Reasoning Martin Leinberger1, Philipp Seifer2, Tjitze Rienstra1, Ralf Lämmel2, and Steffen Staab3;4 1 Inst. for Web Science and Technologies, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany 2 The Software Languages Team, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany 3 Institute for Parallel and Distributed Systems, University of Stuttgart, Germany 4 Web and Internet Science Research Group, University of Southampton, England Abstract. The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) allows for for- malizing constraints over RDF data graphs. A shape groups a set of constraints that may be fulfilled by nodes in the RDF graph. We investi- gate the problem of containment between SHACL shapes. One shape is contained in a second shape if every graph node meeting the constraints of the first shape also meets the constraints of the second. Todecide shape containment, we map SHACL shape graphs into description logic axioms such that shape containment can be answered by description logic reasoning. We identify several, increasingly tight syntactic restrictions of SHACL for which this approach becomes sound and complete. 1 Introduction RDF has been designed as a flexible, semi-structured data format. To ensure data quality and to allow for restricting its large flexibility in specific domains, the W3C has standardized the Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)5. A set of SHACL shapes are represented in a shape graph. A shape graph represents constraints that only a subset of all possible RDF data graphs conform to. A SHACL processor may validate whether a given RDF data graph conforms to a given SHACL shape graph. A shape graph and a data graph that act as a running example are pre- sented in Fig. -
Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation
Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh, and Erik Mannens Ghent University - imec - IDLab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its in- gredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines con- suming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base them- selves on a combination of dierent formalisms, eg Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to sup- port the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates dened in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough. Keywords: N3, RDF Validation, Rule-Based Reasoning 1 Introduction The amount of publicly available Linked Open Data (LOD) sets is constantly growing1, however, the diversity of the data employed in applications is mostly very limited: only a handful of RDF data is used frequently [27]. One of the reasons for this is that the datasets' quality and consistency varies signicantly, ranging from expensively curated to relatively low quality data [33], and thus need to be validated carefully before use. -
Bibliography of Erik Wilde
dretbiblio dretbiblio Erik Wilde's Bibliography References [1] AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference, San Francisco, California, December 1968. [2] Seventeenth IEEE Conference on Computer Communication Networks, Washington, D.C., 1978. [3] ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, March 1982. ACM Press. [4] First Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 1986. [5] 1987 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, November 1987. ACM Press. [6] 18th IEEE International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, Tokyo, Japan, 1988. IEEE Computer Society Press. [7] Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, Oregon, 1988. ACM Press. [8] Conference on Office Information Systems, Palo Alto, California, March 1988. [9] 1989 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 1989. ACM Press. [10] UNIX | The Legend Evolves. Summer 1990 UKUUG Conference, Buntingford, UK, 1990. UKUUG. [11] Fourth ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Hilton Head, South Carolina, November 1991. [12] GLOBECOM'91 Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [13] IEEE INFOCOM '91 Conference on Computer Communications, Bal Harbour, Florida, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [14] IEEE International Conference on Communications, Denver, Colorado, June 1991. [15] International Workshop on CSCW, Berlin, Germany, April 1991. [16] Third ACM Conference on Hypertext, San Antonio, Texas, December 1991. ACM Press. [17] 11th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, Houston, Texas, 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. [18] 3rd Joint European Networking Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, May 1992. [19] Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext, Milano, Italy, November 1992. ACM Press. [20] GLOBECOM'92 Conference, Orlando, Florida, December 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. http://github.com/dret/biblio (August 29, 2018) 1 dretbiblio [21] IEEE INFOCOM '92 Conference on Computer Communications, Florence, Italy, 1992. -
EAN.UCC XML Architectural Guide Version 1.0 July 2001
EAN·UCC System The Global Language of Business ® EAN.UCC XML Architectural Guide Version 1.0 July 2001 COPYRIGHT 2001, EAN INTERNATIONAL™ AND UNIFORM CODE COUNCIL, INC.Ô EAN.UCC Architectural Guide EAN·UCC System The Global Language of Business ® Table of Contents Document History........................................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Overview......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Extensions in UML............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1.1 Common Core Components ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 In A Nutshell: A Business Process Document......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Other Related Documents ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2. Implementation Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Schema Language ........................................................................................................................................................ -
SHACL Satisfiability and Containment
SHACL Satisfiability and Containment Paolo Pareti1 , George Konstantinidis1 , Fabio Mogavero2 , and Timothy J. Norman1 1 University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom {pp1v17,g.konstantinidis,t.j.norman}@soton.ac.uk 2 Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy [email protected] Abstract. The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) is a recent W3C recom- mendation language for validating RDF data. Specifically, SHACL documents are collections of constraints that enforce particular shapes on an RDF graph. Previous work on the topic has provided theoretical and practical results for the validation problem, but did not consider the standard decision problems of satisfiability and containment, which are crucial for verifying the feasibility of the constraints and important for design and optimization purposes. In this paper, we undertake a thorough study of different features of non-recursive SHACL by providing a translation to a new first-order language, called SCL, that precisely captures the semantics of SHACL w.r.t. satisfiability and containment. We study the interaction of SHACL features in this logic and provide the detailed map of decidability and complexity results of the aforementioned decision problems for different SHACL sublanguages. Notably, we prove that both problems are undecidable for the full language, but we present decidable combinations of interesting features. 1 Introduction The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) has been recently introduced as a W3C recommendation language for the validation of RDF graphs, and it has already been adopted by mainstream tools and triplestores. A SHACL document is a collection of shapes which define particular constraints and specify which nodes in a graph should be validated against these constraints. -
CHOOSING a BOOKKEEPING SOLUTION Step 1
CHOOSING A BOOKKEEPING SOLUTION Step 1: Determine skill requirements (The chart below is offered as a general guide to creating a job description.) Basic Bookkeeping Advanced Bookkeeping Accounting Finance Recording basic daily Recording more Handling accounting Handling other financial transactions such as: complex transactions functions such as: and managerial ‐Receipts & Deposits such as: ‐Processing payroll activities such as: ‐Disbursements ‐Payroll ‐Maintaining fixed asset ‐Budgeting ‐Vendor bills & credits ‐Credit card activity schedules ‐Projections ‐Customer invoices, ‐Journal entries ‐Inventory valuation ‐Cash flow analysis credits and statements ‐Inventory ‐Work‐in‐process ‐Financing ‐Project/Job costing Accounting ‐Tax preparation or ‐Estimates ‐Overhead allocations interfacing with your ‐Purchase orders ‐Cost of good/services CPA ‐Allocation by profit accounting center ‐Tax reporting (sales & ‐Bank and credit card use, gross receipts, account reconciliation 1099, payroll taxes) ‐Interfacing with a point of sale system ‐Internally prepared financial statements Job titles may include: Job titles may include: Job titles may include: Job titles may include: ‐Data Entry Clerk ‐Bookkeeper ‐Office Manager ‐Accounting Manager ‐Payables and/or ‐Senior Bookkeeper ‐Staff Accountant ‐Director of Finance Receivables Clerk ‐Full charge Bookkeeper ‐Accountant and/or Accounting ‐Entry Level Bookkeeper ‐Junior Accountant ‐Payroll Accountant ‐Chief Finance Officer ‐Bookkeeper ‐Office Manager ‐Senior Accountant Education required: Education -
Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh, and Erik Mannens Ghent University - imec - IDLab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its in- gredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines con- suming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base them- selves on a combination of dierent formalisms, eg Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to sup- port the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates dened in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough. Keywords: N3, RDF Validation, Rule-Based Reasoning 1 Introduction The amount of publicly available Linked Open Data (LOD) sets is constantly growing1, however, the diversity of the data employed in applications is mostly very limited: only a handful of RDF data is used frequently [27]. -
Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants Contents
June 2005 Revised July 2006 CODE OF ETHICS FOR ♦ PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS CONTENTS Page PREFACE ...................................................................................................... 1102 PART A: GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE CODE ............................... 1103 100 Introduction and Fundamental Principles ........................................ 1104 110 Integrity ........................................................................................... 1110 120 Objectivity ....................................................................................... 1111 130 Professional Competence and Due Care .......................................... 1112 140 Confidentiality ................................................................................. 1113 150 Professional Behavior ...................................................................... 1115 PART B: PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS IN PUBLIC PRACTICE ... 1116 200 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1117 210 Professional Appointment ............................................................... 1123 220 Conflicts of Interest ......................................................................... 1127 230 Second Opinions .............................................................................. 1129 240 Fees and Other Types of Remuneration .......................................... 1130 250 Marketing Professional Services ..................................................... 1133 260 Gifts and -
Roles and Practices In
Cost Management Roles and Practices in Management Accounting Today RESULTS FROM THE 2003 IMA-E&Y SURVEY B Y A SHISH G ARG,DEBASHIS G HOSH,JAMES H UDICK, AND C HUEN N OWACKI anagement accounting is at a critical juncture. themselves against their peers. What’s more, more than Increased competition and uncertain business 200 members indicated that they would like to participate Mconditions have put significant pressure on in detailed interviews about industry-wide best practices corporate management to make informed business deci- in management accounting. sions and maximize their company’s financial perfor- mance. In response, a range of management accounting KEY FINDINGS tools and techniques has emerged. The survey revealed six major findings: Given this abundance of solutions, what decision- 1. Cost management is a key input to strategic decision support tools and cost analytics methodologies are makers. finance professionals employing? And what are the fron- 2. Decision makers and decision enablers alike identify tier issues in cost management? Surprisingly, there have “actionable” cost information as their topmost priori- been few contemporary broad-based surveys that illumi- ty.(For purposes of this analysis, we presumed that nate and identify cutting-edge issues in cost management decision makers run the finance or accounting depart- today. That’s why the Institute of Management Accoun- ment and decision enablers include all other manage- tants (IMA) and Ernst & Young (E&Y) undertook a sur- ment accountants.) vey to understand the evolving role of management 3. Several factors impair cost visibility. accountants, the goals of the organizations they serve, 4. Adopting new cost management tools isn’t a priority and the tools they use to meet those goals.