Talk:European Data Point Methodology
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 08:47, 22 February 2013 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 08:55, 22 February 2013 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) Next diff → |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| === Comment 06 === | === Comment 06 === | ||
| RH: Why would the attributes validFrom and validTo not apply to all public elements? Taxonomy already has them added, but I think the tables and hierarchies etc. are also only valid for a certain period in time. Or is this validFrom and validTo meant as a restriction within a certain version of the complete taxonomy? (maybe also indicating that if these attributes are not present, the dictionary element is valid for the whole version of the taxonomy?) | RH: Why would the attributes validFrom and validTo not apply to all public elements? Taxonomy already has them added, but I think the tables and hierarchies etc. are also only valid for a certain period in time. Or is this validFrom and validTo meant as a restriction within a certain version of the complete taxonomy? (maybe also indicating that if these attributes are not present, the dictionary element is valid for the whole version of the taxonomy?) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Comment 07 === | ||
| + | RH: How does this notion of information on which components belong to which framework, actually looks in the model? Is it through some kind of relationship? That is not shown in the UML. Since framework and the other public elements are on the same level, no relationships between their content is being made. | ||
Revision as of 08:55, 22 February 2013
Contents |
Comments
Comment-01
RH: this does not take anything away for authors not providing a clear definition of each of the aspects that forms a single data point (or cell in a table).
Comment-02
RH: The explanation is mixing elements with members. For DPM member hierarchies have more meaning than 'normal' element hierarchies may have. KH: The name elements has been replaced by members.
Comment-03
TD: Editorial Comment: I would write : "data structures *that can be* represented in supervisory tables" //// (similar to the following clause)
Comment-04
TD: Editorial Comment: I think we should include in this section later all the terms and definitions the document is making use of , even if the terms and definitions are not imported from other documents.
Comment-05
TD: I think the the sentence: "the model components for the creation of a formal models on sets of data points for European supervisory reporting frameworks" could be rewritten like: "the components for the construction of a formal model that describes sets of data points relevant to European supervisory reporting frameworks" (or similar).
Comment 06
RH: Why would the attributes validFrom and validTo not apply to all public elements? Taxonomy already has them added, but I think the tables and hierarchies etc. are also only valid for a certain period in time. Or is this validFrom and validTo meant as a restriction within a certain version of the complete taxonomy? (maybe also indicating that if these attributes are not present, the dictionary element is valid for the whole version of the taxonomy?)
Comment 07
RH: How does this notion of information on which components belong to which framework, actually looks in the model? Is it through some kind of relationship? That is not shown in the UML. Since framework and the other public elements are on the same level, no relationships between their content is being made.
