RE: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ram,

 

I'm not convinced here that this is all good yet!  They may have just "knee-jerked" this - and said - OK - then we need XLink - without even looking at use cases or such.

 

I do have some old contacts with the original XBRL crew - not spoke to them in five years however.

 

I'd just feel a whole lot better about this if we had concrete examples here - rather than a blanket executive level 50,000ft requirement.

 

I can see them aligning their own use of xlink methods - but I'm missing how the CIQ part plays - if we're the consistency layer - what else are they expecting to be able to do?  As I'd previously noted - we can support external referencing into address lists by IDs - rather than the xlink inline itself - whereas the reverse use case - xlinks within the address - that I'm struggling to relate to how that would work?

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL
From: "Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, December 02, 2006 4:18 pm
To: david@drrw.info
Cc: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>, ciq@lists.oasis-open.org

Hi David,

 

Tax XML requirement to xBRL was to provide ability to interoperability with CIQ.

I think this could be the reason why xBRL wanted interoperability with CIQ and

different implementations of xLink by both the groups made it a problem.

 

Regards,

 

Ram 

 

On 12/3/06, David RR Webber <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Ram,

OK - I'll have to see what you've done.

I'm still baffled while XBRL think this absolutely has to be in CIQ itself!?

Seems like its entirely external from the use case I posted.

I'm guessing they have some use case where they are XLinking from the CIQ
itself out to something else? We would most certainly need to make that
completely isolated and optional - so people not wanting that do not have to
include it at all?

DW

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Kumar [mailto:ram.kumar@oasis-open.org ]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:06 PM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: Ram Kumar; Max Voskob; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL

Hi David,

I have successfully included the xlink specs. into CIQ yesterday. I have
also included the reference key approach that we used to have in V2.0. BTW,
it gives the options to either use xlink or standard ref. approach.

I will be circulating the revised specs. with all documents soon for review
and I am working hard on getting everything done.

Regards,

Ram

David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> Ram,
>
> Ok - I just looked at that schema fragment - there's no magic there -
> its nothing more than just the W3C default definition of XLink statement.
>
> I think I'm beginning to fathom this out here (in amongst 1001 other
> distractions!).
>
> I understand why XBRL uses XLink - because its essentially a
> "spreadsheet" flattened into XML of an accounting statement and
> report.  Hence each column and each total in the spreadsheet needs to
> be dynamically labelled to indicate what the column or total
> represents in terms of the reporting vocabulary of the particular
> legal requirements for those reporters and reportees.
>
> This is not our world!  I don't see that we are going to dynamically
> label "PersonFirstName" or whatever - with some alternate meaning!!
>
> Therefore - we can expect that our adoptors are interested in
> continuing using our definitions "as is".
>
> However the use case appears to be that XBRL wants to dynamically
> reference to a reporter or customers, or reportees - a piece of
> explicit content as being external to that particular piece of XML
> content - statically defined by an XLink reference.
>
> This looks something like this:
>
> <XBRL>
>    <addresses>
>        <xlink - "points to external URL of content" ID="Jim"
> action="include"/>
>    </addresses>
>  </XBRL>
>
> External addresses XML contains
>                 <address-content>
>                    <!-- this content here is in CIQ schema format but
> external to the XBRL -->
>                     <an-address ID="fred"/>
>                     <an-address ID="jim"/>
>                 </address-content>
>
> I'm not sure at all why we have to start putting XLink into CIQ itself
> in order to support them using XLink addressing into content in this
> way?!?
>
> They should be able to use XPath references coupled with a named ID
> completely independently of us.
>
> And in their schema if they put #ANY as the structure returned from
> the XLink to the address - it will accept the CIQ formatted content.
> E.g. in the example above <addresses> is of type #ANY.
>
> Now if they want us to merely add an ID-type item into the CIQ
> structure at some strategic place - that should be fine - other people
> could use that just as is - as a regular ID-type element.
>
> We probably have one of these ID fields already though (I've not looked?).
>
> If this is all they want - then I suggest they clarify this and
> suggest what element they need the ID attribute to be associated with...?
>
> Thanks, DW
>
> "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
>
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL
>     From: "Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
>     Date: Fri, December 01, 2006 2:51 am
>     To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
>     Cc: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
>
>     CIQ TC,
>
>     Enclosed is the xlink specs. that xBRL is implementing soon.
>
>     Max,
>
>     Your assistance is sought here.
>
>     Is it possible to change the ciq v3.0 schemas to include this xBRL
>     specs?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Ram
>
>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     From: *Hugh Wallis* <hughwallis@xbrl.org <mailto: hughwallis@xbrl.org>>
>     Date: Dec 1, 2006 8:07 AM
>     Subject: RE: Hello
>     To: Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com
> <mailto: kumar.sydney@gmail.com>>
>
>
>     Sure - this should be in a published erratum very soon - hopefully
>     December 7th or 13th.
>
>     This is really the only schema that needs to be shared between
>     XBRL and other specs. Although we have modified other of our
>     schemas they are all in xbrl.org <http://xbrl.org/> owned
>     namespaces so you are probably not interested in them
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Hugh
>
>     Hugh Wallis - Standards Development
>     XBRL International
>     hughwallis@xbrl.org <mailto: hughwallis@xbrl.org>
>     Tel: +1 416 238 2553
>     Skype: hughwallis
>     MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com <mailto: hughwallis@hotmail.com>(NOT an
>     e-mail address)
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Ram Kumar [mailto: kumar.sydney@gmail.com
>     <mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com>]
>     *Sent:* November 29, 2006 6:19 AM
>     *To:* Hugh Wallis
>     *Subject:* Hello
>
>
>     Hi Hugh,
>
>     Can you send me a copy of the revised xlink specs. (with doc. if
>     available)
>     that the xBRL vendors will implement? CIQ will implement the same
>     specs.to <http://specs.to/>
>     ensure interoperability between the two standards.
>
>     Thanks for all your assistance. Appreciated.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Ram
>     OASIS CIQ TC
>

--
Ram Kumar
Manager - Technical Committee Development OASIS Post Office Box 455
Billerica,MA 0821 USA
+61 412 758 025 (Direct)
+ 1 978 667 5115 (OASIS HQ)
+ 1 978 667 5114 (Fax)
ram.kumar@oasis-open.org
http://www.oasis-open.org
"Advancing e-Business Standards Since 1993"