| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |
| dido:01-fdis-ra:02-background-and-motivation:start [2026/07/11 11:15] – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation nick_dido | dido:01-fdis-ra:02-background-and-motivation:start [2026/07/18 12:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| This section explains the regulatory, international, semantic, and architectural conditions that motivate the Federated Data Interpretation Systems Reference Architecture (FDIS-RA). It describes the broader context in which regulated reporting systems operate, the role of the [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:f:fdta|Financial Data Transparency Act (FDTA)]], the contribution and limits of the Standard Business Report Model (SBRM), the capabilities already present in reporting systems, and the architectural gaps that remain. | This section explains the regulatory, international, semantic, and architectural conditions that motivate the Federated Data Interpretation Systems Reference Architecture (FDIS-RA). It describes the broader context in which regulated reporting systems operate, the role of the [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:f:fdta|Financial Data Transparency Act (FDTA)]], the contribution and limits of the Standard Business Report Model (SBRM), the capabilities already present in reporting systems, and the architectural gaps that remain. |
| |
| The discussion distinguishes problems of data format and exchange from problems of interpretation, governance, provenance, version context, and comparability. It establishes why syntactic standardisation alone does not ensure shared meaning across systems, agencies, jurisdictions, or reporting periods. | The discussion distinguishes problems of data format and exchange from problems of interpretation, governance, provenance, version context, and comparability. It establishes why syntactic standardization alone does not ensure shared meaning across systems, agencies, jurisdictions, or reporting periods. |
| |
| The section also explains why a [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:r:reference_architecture|Reference Architecture]] is needed even where mature reporting formats, taxonomies, extraction tools, validation mechanisms, and analytical systems already exist. The central problem is not the absence of individual capabilities. It is the absence of a coherent architectural framework that coordinates those capabilities, preserves interpretive authority, and supports controlled evolution over time. | The section also explains why a [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:r:reference_architecture|Reference Architecture]] is needed even where mature reporting formats, taxonomies, extraction tools, validation mechanisms, and analytical systems already exist. The central problem is not the absence of individual capabilities. It is the absence of a coherent architectural framework that coordinates those capabilities, preserves interpretive authority, and supports controlled evolution over time. |