Fwd: Interoperability problems XBRL vs. CIQ

["Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hugh Wallis <hughwallis@xbrl.org>
Date: Jun 9, 2006 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: Interoperability problems XBRL vs. CIQ
To: Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>


Thank you Ram.

The issues I raised were described in more detail in the e-mail I sent you
on May 1st, a copy of which is attached here.

I am currently in the process of providing this input formally via the web
page at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=ciq.
Unfortunately this page does not provide the means to include attachments
and so the TC will have to obtain them from you via this e-mail.

Thanks

Hugh


Hugh Wallis
XBRL International Inc. - Standards Development
hughwallis@xbrl.org
+1 416-238-2553
Skype: hughwallis
MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com (but do not send e-mail to this address)
Yahoo IM: hughwallis

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 6:18 AM
To: Hugh Wallis
Subject: Re: Interoperability problems XBRL vs. CIQ

Hi Hugh,

As you know, OASIS CIQ 60 day Public review is coming to an end on 12 June.
If you want to give feedback, please do so by then.

Thanks

Regards,

Ram

On 4/30/06, Hugh Wallis <hughwallis@xbrl.org> wrote:
>
> OK - thanks for getting back to me - that will give me plenty of time to
put
> together a short writeup of the issue to share with you.
>
> Safe travels
>
> Hugh
>
> Hugh Wallis
> XBRL International Inc. - Standards Development
> hughwallis@xbrl.org
> +1 416-238-2553
> Skype: hughwallis
> MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com
> Yahoo IM: hughwallis
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ram Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 10:37 AM
> To: Hugh Wallis
> Subject: Re: Interoperability problems XBRL vs. CIQ
>
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> I am currently travelling overseas. Will return to Sydney on 14 May. I
will
> then set up a date` and time to discuss
> about this.
>
> Regards
>
> Ram
> On 4/29/06, Hugh Wallis <hughwallis@xbrl.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Ram
> >
> > I think we have just discovered a significant interoperability problem
> between XBRL and the latest draft of the CIQ spec that will require both
of
> us to modify the way the XLink portion of the schemas is defined. I think
we
> have both made a similar (but, unfortunately, incompatible) error. I want
to
> discuss this with you informally first before making any formal comment.
> >
> > Would there be a good time to talk on the phone next week perhaps?
> >
> > Please let me know when would be convenient
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> > Hugh Wallis
> > XBRL International Inc. - Standards Development
> > hughwallis@xbrl.org
> > +1 416-238-2553
> > Skype: hughwallis
> > MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com
> > Yahoo IM: hughwallis
> >
>
>
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hugh Wallis" <hughwallis@xbrl.org>
To: "'Ram Kumar'" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:20:56 -0400
Subject: FW: [INT-SPEC] Interoperability problems due to differing
implementations of the XLink schemas by different standards

Hello again

Here is a copy of the e-mail I have sent to the XBRL Specification WG
on the topic that I alerted you to yesterday, just to keep you
infomally in the loop. I hope that it will be sufficiently clear to
explain the issue.

I will keep you abreast of how the discussion goes in the XBRL Spec WG

Thanks

Hugh

Hugh Wallis
XBRL International Inc. - Standards Development
hughwallis@xbrl.org
+1 416-238-2553
Skype: hughwallis
MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com
Yahoo IM: hughwallis

________________________________
From: International Specification Working Group
[mailto:INT-SPEC@XBRL.ORG] On Behalf Of Hugh Wallis
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:35 PM
To: INT-SPEC@XBRL.ORG
Subject: [INT-SPEC] Interoperability problems due to differing
implementations of the XLink schemas by different standards


While investigating the consequences of requiring external schemas to
be included in the DTS for the Dimensions spec, Ignacio produced an
example which exposed the following issue which I think is potentially
rather serious (although the solution is not difficult from our point
of view). Before I go on, however, please note that this topic is NOT
a discussion about the Dimensions spec itself but about a deeper
issue.

In our implementation of the schemas for XLink we have created a
schema "xlink-2003-12-31.xsd" which purports to define the namespace
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";. This consists of a set of global Type
declarations and some attribute declarations that use them. In
addition we have created another schema "xl-2003-12-31.xsd " which
defines the namespace "http://www.xbrl.org/2003/XLink";. This second
schema references the global type declarations that we created in the
namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";.

Now when we take a look at the schemas (attached) produced by the
OASIS CIQ TC, which also make use of the XLink spec, we can see that
they have done a similar thing, except that they have done it
differently. Of particular note is the fact that they have created a
schema "xLink.xsd" which purports to define the namespace
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"; and which consists of a set of
attribute group declarations which are then referenced by other
schemas in their system.

Now when you come to use all of these schemas in one cozy environment
you hit upon a namespace definition conflict since the definitions of
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"; are not the same. If you try to, for
example, import the CIQ schemas into an XBRL taxonomy schema (e.g. try
XBRL validating instance-B.xml), XBRL processors will fail to schema
validate the whole set since they have already decided that the XBRL
definition of the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"; namespace is what
they are going to use and they (justifiably) fail to follow the
schemaLocation hint provided by CIQ because of this.

I think that both the OASIS TC and XBRL have made the same mistake
here - and that is to define something in the
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"; namespace that does not belong there
since the XLink spec does not define either the types or the attribute
groups I mentioned. As a result we have prevented interoperability.

I believe that both XBRL and OASIS must change their schemas that
define the namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"; to bring them into
line with just the minimum that is defined by the XLink spec and then,
even if we take slightly different approaches (e.g. use of NMTOKEN vs.
token), we should achieve consistency and hence interoperability.

It is instructive that this issue has taken until now to surface.
Hitherto we have been living in our own world where no other XLink
users have managed to come close enough to surface this issue and so
there have been no consequences of our misbehaviour in respect of the
definition of "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";. Similarly for the CIQ
folks.

Once we are agreed on this (changing our XLink schema to make it
"legal") I think that we should liaise with the OASIS TC group on the
issue (suggesting they change there XLink schema to make it "Legal")
as well as with the W3C XLink 1.1 WG (pointing out the consequences of
not providing a normative schema for their namespace or at least clear
guidance as to how to go about creating interoperable schemas for it)

Thanks

Hugh

Hugh Wallis
XBRL International Inc. - Standards Development
hughwallis@xbrl.org
+1 416-238-2553
Skype: hughwallis
MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com
Yahoo IM: hughwallis

XBRL-CIQ Interop.zip