[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL
Hi David, If you can modify the CIQ schemas to show how this can be done, it will be great. I will try to get some examples from xBRL on how they want to see interoperability between CIQ and xBRL. Thanks Regards, Ram David RR Webber wrote: > > Ram, > > I forgot to add – in the alias method – the XLink alias would be the > XLink reference URL – so it should just work with existing XLink… > again – we’d need to work up some examples from real XBRL / legalXML – > so we know it works for sure… > > DW > > *From:* David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:25 AM > *To:* 'Ram Kumar' > *Cc:* 'Max Voskob'; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL > > Ram, > > Yes – I apologize – I’ve just not had the cycles I would like to > dedicate to this – and unfortunately the W3C really has not addressed > this in any systematic way – since they view this as out-of-scope of > their prime XML-for-documents-and-web mission. XLink has its advocates > and detractors and was somewhat of a W3C in conflict during the > development of XLink itself. > > I’m mindful of the fact that in the original XML/edi work architecture > – this referential information linkage was one role explicitly > assigned to the registry – and all the attendant information security > and access control that is therefore inherent in that technology. And > its just a case of using simple ID-ref values then to link out. > > Meanwhile people don’t want to use registries because as yet there is > no quick and easy methods there (BTW – sidebar – we’re working on > aggressively changing that in 2007 with registry-lite extensions via > REST and AJAX support priorities). > > So therefore we are back to using XML-based non-registry methods. I’m > just REALLY nervous about doing this and then people wrongly thinking > that “Oh you need XLink to do CIQ now”. However we structure this – it > has to be optional. > > Just brainstorming on this – maybe we can package this as a > functionality – and then offer extensible methods? > > If we have base ID-ref values – then those look-ups can be implemented > in a variety of outward ways - XLink, REST / Registry, SQL/RPC, > xinclude. We developed this in CAM templates – where you had an > optional section to declare your external referencing address method – > and assign an alias to it. Then you provide the alias/ID-ref – pairing > – and then implementers can build their preferred methods themselves. > > Applying this technique to CIQ – you would have an include for the > <access-method> xsd – and that then would define the structure of that > method you wanted to use. You have one already the <XLink>; people > would then be free to define other alternate methods in that > <access-method> include? > > I’m just thinking aloud on this – I can find the sample <XML> from CAM > as well – to compare and contrast what we did there… > > Thanks, DW > > *From:* Ram Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2006 12:33 AM > *To:* David RR Webber (XML) > *Cc:* Max Voskob; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL > > Hi David, > > Use of xLink in CIQ is not just for xBRL support only. It is also a > requiement for > > CIQ to handle external name and address referencing as we discussed > before. Given that we have been talking about alternative approach to > xLink for the past 6 months and that we do not have any solution that > we have come up with, we have to move on. > > I do not know what else to do. So, I decided that we stick to xLink > and also include key > > ref as an option (as was with V2.0). > > Any advice? > > Regards, > > Ram > > On 12/3/06, *David RR Webber (XML)* <david@drrw.info > <mailto:david@drrw.info>> wrote: > > 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 > <mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com>> > Date: Sat, December 02, 2006 4:18 pm > To: david@drrw.info <mailto:david@drrw.info> > > Cc: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz > <mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz> >, ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com>> > > Date: Fri, December 01, 2006 2:51 am > > To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Cc: "Max Voskob" < max.voskob@paradise.net.nz > <mailto: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> <mailto: 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> > > <mailto: 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/> > <http://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> <mailto: > hughwallis@xbrl.org <mailto:hughwallis@xbrl.org>> > > Tel: +1 416 238 2553 > > Skype: hughwallis > > MSN: hughwallis@hotmail.com > <mailto:hughwallis@hotmail.com><mailto: 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> > > <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/> < 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 <mailto:ram.kumar@oasis-open.org> > http://www.oasis-open.org <http://www.oasis-open.org/> > "Advancing e-Business Standards Since 1993" > -- 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"
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]