1 / 14

FINREP COREP architectural issues Bartosz Ochocki Víctor Morilla

20 th XBRL International Conference “XBRL: Linking Businesses, Public Regulators & Citizens” April 20-22, 2010 Rome, Italy. FINREP COREP architectural issues Bartosz Ochocki Víctor Morilla. A deeper look at an instance document. A reference to the taxonomy files (DTS)

garnet
Télécharger la présentation

FINREP COREP architectural issues Bartosz Ochocki Víctor Morilla

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

  1. 20th XBRL International Conference“XBRL: Linking Businesses, Public Regulators & Citizens”April 20-22, 2010Rome, Italy FINREP COREP architectural issues BartoszOchocki VíctorMorilla

  2. A deeper look at an instance document • A reference to the taxonomy files (DTS) • http://www.c-ebs.org/fr/.../2006-12-07/t-ca.xsd • For each single figure • A set of “coordinates” to identify the financial concept (primary items, dimensions and domain members) • Coordinates are based on qualified names: a namespace + a name • Example: {http://www.c-cebs.org/fr/…/2006-12-07/t-ca}CapitalRequirements

  3. XBRL “traditional” modular approach Module A Module B Module C Namespace A Namespace B Namespace C Linkbases Linkbases Linkbases

  4. What’s wrong? • Tight coupling between modules and namespaces • If a concept is moved to another module it has a direct impact on preparers and extensions • Namespace cloud! • Our best effort should focus on preparers!!!

  5. Eurofilling proposed approach Conceptual layer Common namespace Common modules ECB statistics modules COREP modules FINREP modules Relational layer FINREP COREP ECB statistics FINREP linkbases COREP linkbases ECB linkbases

  6. What’s right? • Modules and namespaces are decoupled • Changes in modules don’t have an impact on preparers • Reduced and sensible use of namespaces • Simpler way to build instance documents

  7. Version management (traditional approach) Taxonomy V1 Namespaces V1 URI V1 Taxonomy V2 Namespaces V2 URI V2 To URI V1 To URI V2 Instance for V1 Instance for V2 DB Mapping V1 DB to namespaces + names DB Mapping V2 DB to namespaces + names DDBB DDBB

  8. Version management (new approach) Conceptual layer Stable namespace Taxonomy V1 URI V1 Taxonomy V2 URI V2 To URI V1 To URI V2 Instance for V1 Instance for V2 DB Mapping V1 DB to namespaces + names DB Mapping V1 + mapping of new concepts DDBB

  9. Naming convention change proposal • Primary items: m10i145 • Dimensions: xd10.1, xt10.1… • Domain members: x10.0, x10.1… • Proposal: mi145, xd.1, x.1, … • ISO related concepts: • ISO based coding • It would allow a ECB alike notation

  10. Benefits for preparers • If the concept doesn’t change, the mapping doesn’t change • Reduced number of namespaces • Short and abstract names (independent of the language)

  11. Presentation linkbase Primary items

  12. Rendering linkbase Set of pairs of aspects / values Primary item: Assets Amount: Carrying amount Category: Held for trading Cons. Scope: CRD Axys = Hierarchy of sets of coordinates

  13. Rendering linkbase Axys (X) Table Axys (Y) Axys (Z) Axys = Hierarchy of sets of coordinates

  14. Table specific references and labels Financial assets held for trading CEBS Guidelines paragraph xx… Generic label Generic reference Primary item: Assets Amount: Carrying amount Category: Held for trading Cons. Scope: CRD Axys = Hierarchy of sets of coordinates

More Related