[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ciq] xLink implementation of xBRL
David, two days ago I posted you the draft xml schemas for v3.0 with the xlink version from xBRL as part of my email. I have not put this draft in kavi yet. I have enclosed it again here. Regards, Ram David RR Webber wrote: > 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" > > > > -- 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]