Talk:European Filing Rules

From XBRLWiki

Revision as of 19:08, 16 October 2012 (edit) Thierry.Declerck (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 09:23, 18 October 2012 (edit) Katrin (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) Next diff →
Line 19:		Line 19:
	=== Comment-05 ===		=== Comment-05 ===
-	Rule to be added that no extension of reporting entities on European taxonomies are allowed.	+	KH: Rule to be added that no extension of reporting entities on European taxonomies are allowed.
	=== Comment-06 ===		=== Comment-06 ===
-	The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace.	+	KH: The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace.
	=== Comment-07 ===		=== Comment-07 ===
Line 51:		Line 51:
	I think that the concept "Entry Point" should be defined before		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.

---

Revision as of 09:23, 18 October 2012

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 Comment-01 1.2 Comment-02 1.3 Comment-03 1.4 Comment-04 1.5 Comment-05 1.6 Comment-06 1.7 Comment-07 1.8 Comment-08 1.9 Comment-09 1.10 Comment-10 1.11 Comment-11 1.12 Comment-12

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.

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)

Comment-03

KH: Rule should be reformulated.

Comment-04

KH: Should it be allowed ot define units?

Comment-05

KH: Rule to be added that no extension of reporting entities on European taxonomies are allowed.

Comment-06

KH: The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace.

Comment-07

In general: the word to be defined should not appear in the definition

Comment-08

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

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

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

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.