# Since risk is in the eye of the beholder while GAAP is in the eye of FASB, it will be interesting to compare how robust the first draft of a risk taxonomy is compared to the GAAP taxonomy. How many standard tags? How many extensions? What will be the process for determining whether a particular fact merits a standard tag?

# Is a crowdsourced development process possible in this space like it was in the GAAP space?

# The comment process for the GAAP taxonomy was fully transparent to anyone who wanted to watch it. Will the same be true for the risk taxonomy?

# How will this integrate with the work XBRL US has done to create taxonomies for RMBS, TARP, and particularly the mutual fund risk/return taxonomy? The credit rating agency taxonomy? Can a risk taxonomy be made to wrap-up into summary concepts that can be understood by people with undergraduate math skills, or will it take an advanced degree to understand even high-level concepts?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but that last thought prompts another: is there a metric to measure complexity itself? Computers can analyze the complexity of language - according to Word, this post is written at a 9th grade level with a 59.8 reading ease score. Of course, that was before adding the past few sentences. Perhaps those are metrics that could help answer the question left by yesterday's New York Times op-ed on credit ratings: what now? Perhaps prospectuses should be data tagged for the complexity of their prose disclosure!