Agreed upon hierarchical relations

[mhoullier]

We distinguish:

1. Strict inclusions A < B, that denote that all sections tagged with A should also be tagged with B
2. Frequent inclusions A ≲ B, that denotes that tag B should strongly be considered as well when using tag A

• DisclosureOfInvestmentsAccountedForUsingEquityMethodExplanatory < DisclosureOfInterestInOtherEntities

• DisclosureOfInvestmentsOtherThanInvestmentsAccountedForUsingEquityMethodExplanatory < DisclosureOfInterestsInOtherEntitiesExplanatory

• DisclosureOfNoncontrollingInterestsExplanatory < DisclosureOfSignificantInvestmentsInSubsidiariesExplanatory

• DisclosureOfFairValueOfFinancialInstrumentsExplanatory < DisclosureOfFairValueMeasurementExplanatory

• DisclosureOfFairValueOfFinancialInstrumentsExplanatory < DisclosureOfFinancialInstrumentsExplanatory

• DisclosureOfSignificantInvestmentsInAssociatesExplanatory ≲ DisclosureOfInvestmentsAccountedForUsingEquityMethodExplanatory

[Phamon]

If in a hierarchy you have:
A<B<C<D, this means that you would have to tag the note A with 4 tags!
This is not always the case, for the notes, A<D may be sufficient and acceptable.
The hierarchy gives you a way of navigating the taxonomy.
The only hierarchy that could be mandatory is the hierarchy of abstracts that helps organizing the specific taxonomy in accounting sections.
BUT, for the notes, there are no abstracts to organize the textblocks.