RE: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Ram,

I just looked for the link to the latest v3.0 schemas in the docs in kavi -
did not see it - is it somewhere else?

Thanks, DW

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Kumar [mailto:ram.kumar@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 3:31 PM
To: david@drrw.info
Cc: 'Ram Kumar'; 'Max Voskob'; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
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"