1 / 11
Télécharger la présentation

Standard XBRL Validation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

Playing audio...

  1. I R F O R M A T • Multidimensional system: • - IR Loader • Calculation of (sub)totals • Validation rules Taxonomy Simplified Taxonomy (xml) XBRL Instance Instance data Backend system XBRL2IRv2 Conversion tool into Internal IR format Standard XBRL Validation Validation errors Mapping Numerical / String Data & Errors

  2. Examples of files used • Mapping file example • Taxonomy component files examples

  3. Backend system • Table structure like TEMPLATES • subtable, row, column, dim1, dim2, … • Multi-dimensional, but with a limited number of free dimensions • Easy-to-use parser for validation rules, including cross-table validation

  4. Approaches (2007 & 2012) • Mapping oriented solution • Ease of maintenance • Reduction of number of european dimensions to a useful number of local dimensions • Re-use of existing multi-dimensional backend-system without a change • XBRL can be treated like « yet another reporting format » alongside with some existing local ones (XML, Excel, Edifact) • Minimal programming in proprietary XBRL APIs • BUT: Taxonomies extended to fit national needs (despite maintenance problems)

  5. Problems & solutions (2007-I) • Local instructions imposed • one single reference reporting period (rather opening balances of period n than closing balances of period n-1) • one single entity per instance • one single consolidation status • one single audit status • XBRL multiple currencies • Checks during instance parsing that the capital currency was the one single currency per instance (« Pure » was allowed for non-monetary items)

  6. Problems & solutions (2007-II) • Calculation linkbase error message readability • Deactivation of XBRL calculation links & re-implementation of formulas via backend system’s validation • Typed dimensions • Request in local instructions to make use of « Typed dimensions » as if they were « Explicit dimensions » i.e. determination of a limited set of authorized values • Corep CRIRB ObligorGrade = « 01 » … « 99 » • Corep MKR SA COM  d-ty_Commodity = « Total » • Dimension defaults • Deactivation of Dimension defaults

  7. Goals for 2012 architecture • Enhancement of: • Support of dimension defaults • Dynamic management of typed dimensions • Pre-generation of mapping using the information in the table linkbase

  8. Problems & solutions (2012) - european • Solved problems: • Information rendering (table linkbase)  visualisation of instances should be fine • Common european encoding • of technical data cell identifications (existed before) • (p, d1, d2, …dn) • of business cell identifications (to be added) • (t1, r, c, d1, …dn) • Readable error messages using business cell identifications

  9. Problems & solutions (2012) - local • Data of reporting periods T & T-1 in one XBRL instance • map « instant / startDate / endDate » to one dimension of the backend system • The size of some codes of the « Common european encoding » may exceed the size foreseen in the local interface format • a local mapping tables may be required for some codes (at present rows & columns are ok, while table ids exceed local size) • UTF-8 values in typed dimensions • local instructions will impose english transcription of names into ISO-Latin-1

  10. Validation approaches • Doubts on taxonomy validation • No supervision data until fully valid instance delivered • Too small set of formulas  necessity for local validation anyway? • Will quality of error messages be fully self-explainable for business users?

  11. Free or commercial validator? • Under investigation • Arelle? (NOFORMULAS) • Market-leading commercial validators? (SOFTFORMULAS, HARDFORMULAS modes)

More Related