Talk:European Filing Rules
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 08:16, 8 November 2012 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) (→Comment-01) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 08:17, 8 November 2012 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) (→Comment-02) Next diff → |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| TD: Is this aspect of file naming not something that should be in the Architecture Document (Roland saying that the author of a taxonomy must provide for a file naming convention. So that instance documents generated on the basis of such a schema will have per definition a file name)<br/> | TD: Is this aspect of file naming not something that should be in the Architecture Document (Roland saying that the author of a taxonomy must provide for a file naming convention. So that instance documents generated on the basis of such a schema will have per definition a file name)<br/> | ||
| RH: CEN meeting 2012-10-29: Rules should be made explicit, also when the rule is 'to have no rule'. | RH: CEN meeting 2012-10-29: Rules should be made explicit, also when the rule is 'to have no rule'. | ||
| + | <span style="background-color:#BCF5A9">The discussion is closed, the following action has been taken: Rules have been explicit by RH</span> | ||
| === Comment-03 === | === Comment-03 === | ||
Revision as of 08:17, 8 November 2012
Contents |
Comments
Comment-01
RH: Can we use only 'instance' as the term for a report, XBRL document, filing document etc.?
KH: I agree. I'm going to change it to instance document.
The discussion is closed, the following action has been taken: Changed by KH
Comment-02
RH: This 'rule' states that there is no rule for instance naming. I suggest to alter the rule to: Any taxonomy author MUST prescribe instance file naming conventions. We can make a couple of suggestions on how other projects have created such rules.
KH: There need not be any file name conventions. So I would suggest to use CAN instead of MUST.
RH: This touches on a more basic point; if we do not set rules on anything, should we mention it at all? Are examples than still appropriate? IMO it is required to have it explicit (I always favor explicit to implicit). For rules MUST and MAY are the most appropriate terms. So this one should revert to a MAY rule.
TD: Is this aspect of file naming not something that should be in the Architecture Document (Roland saying that the author of a taxonomy must provide for a file naming convention. So that instance documents generated on the basis of such a schema will have per definition a file name)
RH: CEN meeting 2012-10-29: Rules should be made explicit, also when the rule is 'to have no rule'.
The discussion is closed, the following action has been taken: Rules have been explicit by RH
Comment-03
KH: Rule should be reformulated.
Comment-04
KH: Should it be allowed ot define units?
RH: CEN meeting 2012-10-29: No scale on numerics is allowed. Rather: NSA's should conform to the utr of XII and put any new units in there.
Comment-05
KH: Rule to be added that no extension of reporting entities on European taxonomies are allowed.
RH: CEN meeting 2012-10-29, not extensions by reporters allowed
Comment-06
KH: The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace.
Comment-07
TD: In general: the word to be defined should not appear in the definition
Comment-08
TD: I would add a definition for the "filer" and include there the fact that the filer should own the name of the authority. I would also add a defintion for "to file", in case this is a technical term here.
Comment-09
TD: For "entity" I found this deinfition (http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/SAC1_8-90_2001V.pdf)
"entity" means any legal, administrative, or fiduciary arrangement, organisational structure or other party (including a person) having the capacity to deploy scarce resources in order to achieve objectives; and
again, we should avoid to have the (parts of) term we define, inside the definition.
Comment-10
TD: The additional sentence "A listing of all taxonomy files respective modules recognised in the filing system should be provided on a web location. " is not necessary
Comment-11
TD: I think that the concept "Entry Point" should be defined before
Comment-12
KH: A rule should be added that always the complete package (file) should be sent, not only an update.
DDB: I think this makes it less flexible, partial submission can be very efficient.
RH: CEN meeting 2012-10-29: Allowing partial data brings a lot of technical complexity because validation and presentation of the instance is no longer possible. OTOH the internal processes at reporters may be designed to create only parts of certain reports. Forcing only complete submissions would force internal restructuring with these reporters. Golden rule is that every XBRL instance is XBRL standards valid.
Interesting case: if, because of size restrictions, the instance is being split across multiple instances, a 'total' assertion may not be functioning correctly. In this case the 'golden rule' is being broken because of technical reasons. The DTS owner allowing partial submissions need to guarantee ex-post that all original rules of the DTS are processable.
Sending partial submissions by reporters becomes a choice of the NSA. The header of the message will cater for an element that states if the instance is a 'full' replacement or a 'incremental' submission.
All risks involved with partial submissions are upon the NSA allowing it. The recommendation will be to sent complete packages. (the term Package is not defined!)
Comment-13
RH: Where is the 'default' language declared? Better not have any implicit meaning since every country will allow it's own 'default' which would result in a mess at central European regulators.
