XBRL Specifications Activity Main Points Comment XBRL Strategic Initiatives 6 initiatives Participation needed Volunteer now!!! Highly participative discussions, wide interest Inline XBRL Browser html embeds XBRL Wide interest Rendering Linkbase , rendering user projects Formula features, formula user projects Versioning New specs in development, Opposite of inline XBRL custom pre-spec use New CR modules, Project reports (BE, CN, ES, JA) Starting IFRS use US-GAAP present Semantics and Databases High interest area International new faces China participates (I enjoyed meeting China formula users) Abstract Modeling is starting now Identifying the Goals Oct ‘09 What are the long term strategic goals for XBRL? Nov ‘09 Face-to-face Meeting in Brussels XSB summarized the suggestions into 3 main goals Feb ‘10 Publication of Discussion Document XSB published their recommendations Analyzing the Market Feedback Identifying the Initiatives XSB provided suggestions and debated them on weekly XSB calls Mar ‘10 Feedback window was opened XII reached out to the community to actively gather feedback Apr ‘10 Feedback window was closed XSB analyzed and summarized the feedback that was received May ‘10 Face-to-face meeting in Brussels XSB defined the framework for the six initiatives Aug ‘10 What exactly are the initiatives? XSB defined each initiative in much greater detail Sep ‘10 Internal Review of Initiatives XSB circulated the document internally for feedback Oct ‘10 Preserve. Promote. Participate. XSB released the document on October 6, 2010 Initiative Primary Benefit 1 Create an abstract model An abstract model provides a conceptual framework for understanding XBRL and gives developers a strong foundation for their implementations. 2 Produce training materials 3 Define standard API signatures 4 Reorganise existing specification 5 Enhance data comparability High-quality training materials lend support to developers and those new to XBRL. API signatures assist developers with their implementation of XBRL solutions. 6 Develop application profiles Application profiles reduce the scope of XBRL implementations by breaking up the XBRL specification into components. A reorganisation of the XBRL specification will make the specification easier to understand. Data comparability widens the applicability of XBRL data across project and international boundaries. Discussion Document Goals Make XBRL easier for developers Improve XBRL comparability Make XBRL data easier to consume Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes XBRL ◦ framework for modelling various domains ◦ a meta-model, not a model taxonomy models a domain UML ◦ framework for modelling software infrastructures XII’s relationship to XBRL is as OMG’s to UML OMG Meta-Object Facility (MOF) models UML ◦ XSB wishes the same for XBRL Primary model captures XBRL semantics: ◦ Core spec and Dimensions are mandatory ◦ Model should be void of syntactic details ◦ Should be portable across technologies, like SQL and OOP Secondary model binds primary model to XML ◦ This bridges the gap from model to current spec Domain (taxonomy) modelling not an objective ◦ Parallel modelling efforts will be considered with BPB involvement Formulas, Versioning, Rendering ◦ XSB will consider Focused group to delivery over 6-8 weeks ◦ Easier to get short commitments ◦ Deliverable is of high value to the community, so sooner the better ◦ Abstract model is a prerequisite to several other initiatives Format will be: ◦ 2 face-to-face meetings over a 4-6 week period 1st meeting scheduled for Boston on Jan 11-13 ◦ Conference calls daily, or every other day, in between the face-to-face meetings Dedicated project manager to drive the process ◦ Preparations and materials will be assigned prior to face-to-face meetings ◦ Face-to-face meetings will be divided into 90-120 minute segments, with firm deliverables defined Use cases ◦ What processes is XBRL intended to work in? Modelling the core specification ◦ Facts, units, periods, entities, labels, heirarchy, etc. Modelling the dimensions specification ◦ Primary item, domain, dimension, member, etc. Binding the models to the current XML syntax ◦ How to bridge the gap from abstract model to the current XML specs Review process will have to be open and as inclusive as possible: ◦ Review period will have to demonstrate community coverage ◦ Broad outreach (webcasts, conferences, etc.) will be a necessity ◦ Specific, targeted outreach will also need to be conducted where necessary Initiative 1 Create an abstract model 2 Produce training materials 3 Define standard API signatures 4 Reorganise existing specification 5 Enhance data comparability 6 Develop application profiles Resource Type Program/Project Managers UML Modelers Software Architects XBRL Practioners Business Reporting Domain Experts Publications Coordinator Software Developers Tech Writers Academics Program/Project Manager Software Architects XBRL Practioners Publications Coordinator Tech Writers Software Developers/Testers XBRL experts Domain Experts Financial Professionals XBRL Taxonomists XBRL Technologists XBRL Practioners Initiative Volunteers from 1 Create an abstract model US,CA, DE, ES, FR, PL, CN, AU 2 Produce training materials US, CA, DE, PL, AU 3 Define standard API signatures US, CH, DE, PL, AU 4 Reorganise existing specification US, CA, FR, PL, CN 5 Enhance data comparability US, CA, DE, FR 6 Develop application profiles US, CA, AU volunteers@xbrl.org http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2010Initi atives Number Description 368 Calculation linkbase checking currently infers precision, any value 0 implies precision 0, which is then always inconconsistent. Proposed spec change to infer decimals. (Testing SEC filings to determine impact of this change) Different dimensions share domain 272members. SharedDo main 396 424 Units with unbound xbrli prefix namespace for pure and shares s-equals, v-equals, functions: idattribute sensitivity, drop Xpath 2 eq use, assigned to Formula WG Testcases Date 200909 201004 304-v12a, 2010v15a 08 201001, 201009 Items reported in precision 0 always invalid Items reported in decimals with value 0 ◦ Infers precision 0 ◦ Technically always invalid Changing to infer decimals ◦ Known financial reporting is in decimals ◦ Eliminates issues with 0-valued items, edge cases ◦ Test suite has been updated The total of a binding calculation is defined to be the sum of the rounded values of the contributing numeric items in the binding, each multiplied by the value of the weight attribute on the item's associated calculationArc. This multiplication takes place after any necessary rounding is performed. The rounded value of a numeric item is the result of rounding the value of the numeric item to its precision decimals or inferred precision decimals (see Section 4.6.6 and ). A binding calculation is defined to be consistent if the rounded value of the summation item is equal to the total rounded to the precision decimals or inferred precision decimals of the summation item. (If any item of the calculation has a precision attribute value 0 then the binding calculation is deemed to be inconsistent.) Extension module Feature Status AspectCover Filters CR Concept Relation Filter CR Custom Function Implementation CR Generic Messages CR Validation Messages CR Instances (multi-instance, and variable-set chaining) CR Tuple output On-hold, PWD 1. 2. 3. 3. 4. CEBS member formula issues Dimensional aspects of fallback values Debugging capabilities Rendering of new FINREP and COREP Rendering ideas and formulae editoring status CR PWD 26 Unchanged from business perspective Concept and dimensions aspects changed Version 1 Version 2 A <==> X ( D = d1 ) B <==> X ( D = d2 ) C <==> X ( D = d3 ) A, B, C and X are primary items D is a dimension d1, d2 and d3 are domain members <verdim:aspectModelChange> <verdim:fromAspects> <verdim:concept href="../dts1.xsd#A"/> </verdim:fromAspects> <verdim:toAspects> <verdim:concept href="../dts2.xsd#X"/> <verdim:explicitDimension href="../dts1.xsd#D"> <verdim:member href="../dts1.xsd#d1"/> </verdim:explicitDimension> </verdim:toAspects> </verdim:aspectModelChange> Predicate expression (Xpath 2) ◦ Identifies fact by relative location <gl:entryDetail> <gl:amount>500</gl:amount> <gl:xbrlInfo> <gl:summaryReportingElement>Cash</gl:summaryReportingElement> </gl:xbrlInfo> </gl:entryDetail> <verdim:concept href=“…gl.xsd#amount"/> <verdim:location> ../gl:xbrlinfo/gl:summaryReportingElement eq ‘Cash’ </verdim:location> <fr:cash>500</fr:cash> <verdim:concept href=“…fr.xsd#cash"/> <verdim:aspectModelChange> <verdim:fromAspects> <verdim:concept href=“…gl.xsd#amount"/> <verdim:location> ../gl:xbrlinfo/gl:summaryReportingElement eq ‘Cash’ </verdim:location> </verdim:fromAspects> <verdim:toAspects> <verdim:concept href="../fr.xsd#cash"/> </verdim:toAspects> </verdim:aspectModelChange> <xbrli:xbrl> <gl:accountingEntries> <gl:entryHeader> <gl:qualifierEntry …>balance-brought-forward</ …> <gl:entryDetail> <verdim:concept href=“…gl.xsd#amount"/> <gl:account> <gl:a ccountMainID…>5100</ …> <verdim:location> <gl:accountMainDescription …>Supplies</ …> ../../gl:qualifierEntry eq ’balance-brought-forward’ <gl:accountType …>account</ …> </gl:account> and <gl:amount …>242678.26</ …> ../gl:account/gl:accountMainID eq ‘5100’ <gl:debitCreditCode …">D</ …> and <gl:xbrlInfo> <gl:xbrlInclude …>beginning_balance</…> ../gl:xbrlinfo/gl:xbrlInclude eq ‘beginning_balance’ </gl:xbrlInfo> </verdim:location> </gl:entryDetail> … </ gl:entryHeader> <gl:entryHeader> <gl:qualifierEntry …>standard</ …> <gl:entryDetail> … </gl:entryDetail> … </ gl:entryHeader> </ gl:accountingEntries> </ xbrli:xbrl> Inline XBRL - REC ◦ embeds XBRL fragments into an HTML document Requirements for linkbase – Drafting Linkbase spec – Modularized & new specs inline XBRL Requirements Linkbase Future Separation of Specification ◦ Improve understanding and extendsibility New Models ◦ Inheritance mechanism ◦ Injection model New Specifications ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Identification and Ordering Context Grouping Generic Preferred Label Manifest 42 Public Taxonomy author Identification and ordering Taxonomy Taxonomy 2.1 spec dimensions Detailed rendering structure Put as much as information here Data preparer Extension Taxonomy Extended table of contents Instance / Inline XBRL User specific Rendering Structure Less information here 43 Public Taxonomy author Identification and ordering Taxonomy Taxonomy 2.1 spec dimensions Report from Taxonomy information Create report Ex: Manual Guidelines etc… Detailed rendering structure 44 Current spec provides document model to rendering modeling: ◦ document layered model. Uses linkbase mechanism to represent entire reporting document model. Additional model introduced: ◦ Injection model. Uses existing rendering format (such as XHTML ) then inject rendering definition into the format. 45 Legend XLink arc Component Container XLink resource Document relationships relationships Document Containers Components 46 Tables, lists, paragraphs are injected into exiting format (XHTML as such) image Legend Rendering Components XHTML etc.. 47 Heavy use of definition link by XBRL Dimensions, same mechanism such as preferred label in presentation link solves rendering issues. Generic preferred label is a new mechanism to ‘preferredLabel’ attribute on definition/calculation/generic arcs. 48 Specification are separated into: ◦ Semantics Semantic modeling definition regarding the specifications One basic model to represent reporting document structure Set of axis definitions which could be used to rendering component Set of component definitions that could be used in the report structure Set of value definitions that could be used to represent cell pattern. Set of rule definitions that could be used from any part of rendering information. Mechanism to identify statements (build table of contents explicitly) Mechanism to create group of contexts Mechanism to specify preferred label into linkbases other than presentation linkbase. Mechanism to package XBRL doucments ◦ Structure ◦ Axes ◦ Components ◦ Values ◦ Rules ◦ Identification and Ordering (Table of Contents) ◦ Context Grouping ◦ Generic Preferred Label ◦ Manifest 49