XBRL Specifications

Activity Main Points Comment

XBRL Strategic Initiatives Abstract Modeling Task Force Initial UML diagrams Task Force is working

Comparability Task Force Call for participation

Rendering Linkbase  Inline XBRLRendering Linkbase

New transformsRequirements (in work)

Table Linkbase(Eurofiling rendering)

Prototype implementation In progress

Formula features CR modules ‐> Prec Discussion of formula process steps

Versioning IFRS 2011 released with versioning report

XBRL 2.1 Specification Inferring Decimals (calc rollup) PER approved for review

Abstract Modeling is starting now

Initiative Primary Benefit Discussion Document GoalsMake XBRL easier for

developers

Improve XBRL comparability

Make XBRL data easier to consume

1 Create an abstract model

An abstract model provides a conceptual framework for understanding XBRL and gives developers a strong foundation for their implementations.

Yes Yes Yes

2 Produce training materials

High-quality training materials lend support to developers and those new to XBRL.

Yes Yes Yes

3 Define standard API signatures

API signatures assist developers with their implementation of XBRL solutions. Yes Yes

4 Reorganise existing specification

A reorganisation of the XBRL specification will make the specification easier to understand.

Yes

5 Enhance data comparability

Data comparability widens the applicability of XBRL data across project and international boundaries. Yes Yes

6 Develop application profiles

Application profiles reduce the scope of XBRL implementations by breaking up the XBRL specification into components. Yes Yes

XBRL◦ framework for modelling various domains◦ a meta-model, not a model

taxonomy models a domainUML◦ framework for modelling software infrastructuresXII’s relationship to XBRL is as OMG’s to UMLOMG Meta-Object Facility (MOF) models UML◦ XSB wishes the same for XBRL

Task force to define use cases and requirementWorking group to followInitial use cases◦ Base comparison◦ Extension comparison◦ Inference comparison

comparability@xbrl.org

Items reported in precision 0 always invalidItems reported in decimals with value 0◦ Infers precision 0◦ Technically always invalidChanging to infer decimals◦ Known financial reporting is in decimals◦ Eliminates issues with 0-valued items, edge cases◦ Test suite has been updated

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. CR features advancing to PRec2. Binding sets for fallback evaluation

inline XBRLtable specificaton linkbase

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.

18

Makoto Koizumi

koizumi.makoto@jp.fujitsu.com

Chair, Best Practice Board (CY2010-2011)

Fujitsu Research Institute

Overview of organization & Charter Changing

BPB 2011 Goals and Activities

Overview of organization & Charter Changing

BPB 2011 Goals and Activities

BPB Mission

The XBRL International Best Practices Board (BPB) actively manages the production, dissemination, and continual improvement of products and resources that describe practices, methods, and processes for successful implementation, integration, maintenance, and usage of XBRL specifications

• BPB charter can be found at: http://www.xbrl.org/BestPractices/

• Makoto Koizumi (MK) - Chair - Fujitsu Research Institute

(BPB Chair Blog - http://mk10016.wordpress.com/)

• Ignacio (Nacho) Boixo (IB) - Bank of Spain

• Diane Mueller (DM) – XBRLSpy Research Inc.

• Yossi Newman (YN) – Deloitte

• Richard Plotka (RP) - Data Communiqué

• Michele Romanelli (MR) - Banca d’Italia

• Shweta Gupta (SG) – IRIS Business Services

• Yoshiaki Wada – BoD Liaison

• Hugh Wallis – Director of Technical Standards at XII

The BPB charter enables the BPB to charter ad hoc Task Forces to develop work products.

Why did we select Ad hoc TF?: Ad hoc Task Force style fits better to recruit resources to create individual deliverable

How ?: As soon as target deliverables are set and approved by BPB, the board distributes “Call for Participation” to XII mailing lists to recruit resources

Call for Participation for Project Listing Database TF was distributed to the Mailing Lists (Feb 15, 2011)

Overview of organization & Charter Changing

BPB 2011 Goals and Activities

Provide XBRL value propositions to the market Project Listing Database

White papers (a.k.a Value Proposition Documents)

Best Practice Development Modeling Guidance & Rules for taxonomy development

Taxonomy Recognition◦ Improve Taxonomy Recognition Process

◦ New template to explain taxonomy (Taxonomy Evaluation Framework)

◦ New FRTA (Financial Reporting Taxonomy Architecture)

Before decision making XBRL Project

Decision making

White paper documents

& Project Listing DB:

• documents that helps

decision making

• For business side

• For IT side

Guidance documents:

• Resources and

documents that helps

XBRL projects

• For Project Managers

• For Technical

Taxonomy Recognition

Whitepapers – 3 to 5 pages short document◦ Consuming XBRL Data – SG (1st Priority)

◦ XBRL in External Reporting

XBRL and Banking – IB, Katrin Schmehl, MR, Mark Montoya (1st Priority)

XBRL and SBR – Lower priority

XBRL in Financial Research – YN (2nd priority)

XBRL in Charity reporting – 2nd Wave

◦ XBRL & Internal Reporting – MK (2nd priority)

Project Listing Database◦ Round 1 – done. Waiting for XII new web site development

◦ Round 2 – Additional fields to be added

FAQ:◦ Q1: Member’s projects only or include non member’s projects?

◦ A1: Both member’s and non member’s projects can be registered

◦ Q2: Definition of “project”? “EDGAR” counts as one project? Or US SEC VFP, EDGAR corporate filing, RR filing and US GAAP Taxonomy 2011 Development can be count as project?

◦ A2: Each project is different stage and different goal. Also, this database is for information sharing purpose for XBRL project participants and potential XBRL project participants. Both the latest information and past implementation steps information could be help for them. Therefore, registrants can input with US SEC VFP, EDGAR corporate filing level.

Call for participation for round 2 is ongoing.

Guidance documents◦ Taxonomy Modeling Guidelines

Guidelines to help taxonomy developers to making decision for taxonomy modeling:

Naming of Concepts (on website)

Precision, decimals and units (on website)

Dimensions and Tuples - MR

Usage of label roles - MK

…

◦ Project Manager’s Checklist

Check list for project manager at XBRL project is launched -2nd

Wave

Guidance documents – collaboration with XSB◦ Abstract Modeling Initiatives

SG involved in Abstract Modeling initiatives

◦ Comparability Initiatives Face to face meeting (for project planning) on March 4th in

London, UK

Some of BPB members participate the F2F meeting over the phone

Improve Taxonomy Recognition Process Rethink TRP based on market voice

New template to explain taxonomy (Taxonomy Evaluation Framework)

Based on TCF made by ITA Project

Initial project plan is submitted to BPB

YN, Pierre Hamon, MK are assigned (1st Priority)

FRTA (Financial Reporting Taxonomy Architecture) 1.5

Removing all outdated rules

Add new rules for dimensions 1.0 implementation

SG leads this initiative

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Planning Phase

(2011 Goals and Activities)

Brussels

Conference

Montreal

Conference

Timeframe for each BPB product is under development

XIV Eurofiling Workshop. European Banking Authority XBRL Operational Network.

London, 30th - 31st March 2011

EBA XBRL Operational Network

Everything changes and nothing remains still.Heraklit interpreted by Plato

• Reasons for changes to XBRL taxonomies– new business requirements (adjustments to regulations)

– to encounter a problem (bug)

– new technical requirements (adjustments to XBRL specs)

• Changes to XBRL taxonomies must be managed like any other software products– How to document changes to XBRL taxonomies?

– How to automise change processes?

How to manage changes?

XBRL Versioning – Modules

Base ModuleBase Module

Concept Basic ModuleConcept Basic Module

Concept Extended ModuleConcept Extended Module

Relationship ModuleRelationship Module

Instance Aspect ModuleInstance Aspect Module

Candidate Recommendation

Public Working Draft

Working Group NotesWorking Group Notes

current status

XBRL Versioning – Open issue

"It should be noted that use of a ConceptAdd Event places no constraints on what concepts are present in the From DTS, and similarly, use of a ConceptDelete Event places no constraints on what concepts are present in the To DTS. These Events communicate that concepts are Available For Use in the To DTS  and From DTS, respectively, and do not imply anything about the XBRL validity (or otherwise) of using a concept with the same or a similar name in the other DTS."

Independent of technicaldifferences

Independent of technicaldifferences

Concept activateConcept activate

Concept deprecateConcept deprecate

Concept addConcept add

Concept deleteConcept delete

Current usage of versioning

• Versioning reports have been created for documenting the changesbetween COREP taxonomy version 1.2.4 and 1.3.0 based on 

• Concepts Basic Module

• Concepts Extended Module

• IFRS has just published the first versioning report covering also the 

• Relationship Module

• Supporting tools• Fujitsu Interstage Taxonomy Editor

• arelle.org

XBRL Operational Network of the

www.eba.europa.eu

www.eurofiling.info

Katrin Schmehl+496995666584