Talk:Syntax Rules
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 12:29, 17 October 2012 (edit) Katrin (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 12:39, 17 October 2012 (edit) Katrin (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) Next diff → |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| === Comment-02 === | === Comment-02 === | ||
| RH: THis is a new construct: a concept being a resource? I think something else is meant. | RH: THis is a new construct: a concept being a resource? I think something else is meant. | ||
| + | KH: This question should be answered by Victor. | ||
| === Comment-03 === | === Comment-03 === | ||
| RH: At one time there was discussion of having cube/table dependent labels on items (don't know just primaries or also members). This was done through assigning label relationships into the same ELR as the cube was made in. This idea has been left? | RH: At one time there was discussion of having cube/table dependent labels on items (don't know just primaries or also members). This was done through assigning label relationships into the same ELR as the cube was made in. This idea has been left? | ||
| + | KH: Table related labels are going to be defined because the DPM labels can differ. As far as I know they are defined by generic labels. | ||
| === Comment-04 === | === Comment-04 === | ||
| RH: verboseLabel is NOT the place to put the definition of a concept. The documentationLabel was intended for that. See 2.1 spec. documentation. This would set a bad precedent. | RH: verboseLabel is NOT the place to put the definition of a concept. The documentationLabel was intended for that. See 2.1 spec. documentation. This would set a bad precedent. | ||
| + | KH: Why not use the reference linkbase? Extensions will be possible on COREP. | ||
| + | I think verbose labels are used to store the labels according to the table/template. | ||
| + | |||
| === Comment-05 === | === Comment-05 === | ||
Revision as of 12:39, 17 October 2012
Contents |
Comments
Comment-01
RH: Is it also mandatory to have dates and/or dateTimes in them? Is the first modification date equal to the creation date? KH: I'd propose to ask Victor. In my opinion there should be only a date and their should be a mandatory creation date. For me it is not clear when the modification date must be set. There could be changes on labels, references or attributes on the concept.
Comment-02
RH: THis is a new construct: a concept being a resource? I think something else is meant. KH: This question should be answered by Victor.
Comment-03
RH: At one time there was discussion of having cube/table dependent labels on items (don't know just primaries or also members). This was done through assigning label relationships into the same ELR as the cube was made in. This idea has been left? KH: Table related labels are going to be defined because the DPM labels can differ. As far as I know they are defined by generic labels.
Comment-04
RH: verboseLabel is NOT the place to put the definition of a concept. The documentationLabel was intended for that. See 2.1 spec. documentation. This would set a bad precedent. KH: Why not use the reference linkbase? Extensions will be possible on COREP. I think verbose labels are used to store the labels according to the table/template.
Comment-05
RH: documentationLabels and (legal) references are two completely different animals. Legal references cannot be in plain English as suggested in the source document. A reference is always something of a pointer, possibly a set of pointers (law, article, paragraph etc.). If the structured approach of these references using link:part is too complex for the users, another (single) reference (maybe even custom) may be in order, but DO NOT try to put structured information concatenated into a label resource.
Comment-06
RH: Making these attributes optional introduces 'default' behaviour for non presence. I would vote to make them mandatory (explicit) and work with the 'xbrli:Forever' name for the content of the model:toDate if appropriate.
Comment-07
RH: Including these attributes not for the reporting process but for managing the taxonomy is a bad idea. Information that is not intended for the reporters should not be included. It is very easy to create a proprietary linkbase holding these attributes (as part of a resource for instance) and keep this linkbase for internal use only.
