Public Comment

[comment-form@oasis-open.org]

Comment from: hugh@standarddimensions.com

Name: Hugh Wallis
Organization: Standard Dimensions
Regarding Specification: OASIS Customer Information Quality (CIQ) Version 3.0 dated 2006-04-13

Please note that, although I am Technical Director for the XBRL consortium (www.xbrl.org) as well as one of the editors of various XBRL specifications (see http://www.xbrl.org/SpecRecommendations/ ), this comment is submitted on my own behalf. As such this submission does not bind XBRL International Inc. to the terms detailed at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=ciq although it does bind me, as an individual, to those terms.

Having reviewed the referenced specification I respectfully submit the following comments.

Because the W3C has not defined a normative schema for the namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink, the OASIS Customer Information Quality (CIQ) TC have found it necessary to create one (xLink.xsd) for use by this specification. The same need has been found in XBRL and, I would imagine, in any other system that makes use of the XML Schema and the XLink specifications. In the CIQ schema there are a number of attribute group declarations (which therefore purport to belong to the namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink) that are then referenced elsewhere in the set of schemas. However, these attribute groups are nowhere defined as belonging to the namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink by the owners of that namespace (the W3C) in the specification which defines it (i.e. XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.0
W3C Recommendation 27 June 2001 - http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/).

Consequences of this are that interoperability with other standards and/or environments in which the XLink standard is used is compromised. Specifically, where others have of necessity created their own schemas in order to implement the XLink standard, a namespace clash will most likely occur. This is, indeed, the case with the XBRL standard which, as mentioned earlier, has also been required to define its own schemas to implement the XLink standard.

I recommend to the OASIS Customer Information Quality (CIQ) TC to review the XLink implementation in this standard with these considerations in mind and to confine the definitions contained in the implementation of the namespace http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/ to those defined in the relevant standard  (i.e. XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.0
W3C Recommendation 27 June 2001 - http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/). I am also making a similar recommendation to the XBRL consortium.

As a start, to ensure interoperability between these two standards in particular, I would recommend that the OASIS Customer Information Quality (CIQ) TC formally liaise with the XBRL consortium to ensure consistency of the XLink implementations in the two standards. I am also making a similar recommendation to the XBRL consortium. I will be pleased to work with all parties to facilitate such a liaison.

I have provided specific examples of the issues that arise by means of direct e-mail to Ram Kumar, Chair of the OASIS Customer Information Quality (CIQ) TC, however, since this webpage does not permit the inclusion of attachments, I am unable to provide them here.

Thank you

Hugh Wallis.