Use case from xBRL regarding interoperability with CIQ

Ignacio Hernandez-Ros

XBRL International Inc. - Technology Development

Cell: +34 609027754

From: Ignacio Hernandez-Ros [mailto: ihr@xbrl.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:14 AM
To: 'Ram Kumar'; 'Hugh Wallis'
Cc: 'Pedro Souss - XBRL'
Subject: RE: xBRL interoperability with CIQ

Hello,

Find enclosed a ZIP file that demonstrates the "integration challenge" we have in front of us.

Statement of the challenge:

Imagine you have a concept in a XBRL taxonomy called "CostOfSales" and you want to define a breakdown of that concept by the "office" dimension. The "office" dimension may be very well defined using a PartyName element from your CIQ schema ( xNL.xsd).

In the XBRL declaration of the typed dimension we put a reference to the element that defines the content of that dimension. But the current spec also requires the xNL schema be part of the DTS (it must be imported).

CIQ and XBRL are using xlink but we are not using the same schema for xlink elements. This is the root of the problem. We both have a different schema file for the same namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" due to the reason the W3C has not provided a normative schema for XLink.

Regards,

IHR

Ignacio Hernandez-Ros

XBRL International Inc. - Technology Development

ihr@xbrl.org

From: Ram Kumar [mailto: kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:39 PM
To: Hugh Wallis
Cc: Ignacio Hernandez-Ros
Subject: Re: xBRL interoperability with CIQ

Hi Hugh,

Thanks. We look forward to the use case from your team on this. When xBRL raised

this interoperability issue with CIQ, we concluded that a use case exists whereyby xbrl is

trying to interoperate with CIQ. Now is the time to know what the use case is. Thanks again

and thanks for all your help.

Regards,

Ram

On 12/12/06, Hugh Wallis < hughwallis@xbrl.org> wrote:

Thanks Ram

I apologise for the delay in respnding - we had out semi-annual conference last week and so, as you can imagine, we had many things on our plates!!

Anyway, first and foremost we need to be sure that if a processor encounters schemas from both XBRL and CIQ when it is processing any set of XML artefacts, there will not be a conflict resulting from inconsistencies between any of those schemas that define any particular namespace. That is the crux of the technical issue.

Deeper than that, of course, is the question of "why might a processor encounter schemas from both XBRL and CIQ when processing a set of XML artefacts?". To answer that question obviously a use case would be helpful. By copy of this e-mail I am asking my colleague, Ignacio Hern�ndez-Ros, to provide a short writeup of the use case where this arose in his testing of our Dimensions specification that I hope will help.

Cheers

Hugh

Hugh Wallis - Standards Development

XBRL International

From: Ram Kumar [mailto:kumar.sydney@gmail.com]
Sent: December 3, 2006 6:42 PM
To: Hugh Wallis
Subject: xBRL interoperability with CIQ

Hi Hugh,

The incompatibilities in xlink implementation between xBRL and CIQ were

identified by xBRL as they wanted interoperability between xBRL and CIQ.

Can you provide us details of what level of interoperability xBRL is aiming for

with CIQ and the requirements with examples. The CIQ TC is keen to know

more details about this requirement.

Thanks

Regards,

Ram

ciq message