Re: Interoperability problems XBRL vs. CIQ

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

Hi Hugh,

OASIS CIQ TC would like to have formal liaison with XBRL to
work together to solve the XLink issue that is impacting the
interoperability between both the groups.

Following are the liaison members OASIS CIQ TC would like
to nominate:

- Max Voskob, max.voskob@paradise.net.nz
- Graham Lobsey, graham_lobsey@yahoo.com

Please let us know what is the next step to move forward to fix this issue.

Thank you

Regards,

Ram

On 6/10/06, Hugh Wallis <hughwallis@xbrl.org> wrote:
> Hi Ram
>
> We don't have such a formal category - however we do have a precedent that
> we have invited guests to participate in our working groups where there is a
> perceived need. Given our mutual interest in interoperability that should be
> the way to proceed here I think. So if you were to simply send me an e-mail
> stating that persons x, y and z would like to participate in a liaison
> capacity we will make it happen.
>
> Cheers
>
> 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 8:01 PM
> To: hughwallis@xbrl.org
> Subject: Re: Interoperability problems XBRL vs. CIQ
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> What is the procedure for CIQ TC member to be a liaison member of XBRL?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ram
>
> On 6/10/06, Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ---------- 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>