[Gnue] RE: [xbrl-public] Requesting an official report on GL schema

[Coffin, Zachary P]

Todd, Hi.  First, I said you were way off in left-fied with your remarks that XBRL is trying to keep its membership to a minimum so we can maximize consulting fees.  That's wrong, and there's no excuse for you to make such accusations.

 

Your questions about XBRL are good ones, and I hope that you and others on this list may be served by whatever answer I can provide.  Simply put, XBRL was created to be an internet standard for business information, reporting and analysis.  We met our first goal, which was to create a specification and taxonomy for XBRL for Financial Statements (Consumer & Industrial product companies, US GAAP).  We are now working on XBRL for IAS Financial Statements and XBRL for US GAAP Federal Agencies and several other reporting needs.  All of this is public information on www.xbrl.org

 

During the course of our work, early on, we recognized the need to do XBRL for other kinds of financial and business reporting.  XBRL for G/L is one of them.  Frankly, having just completed the first Financial Statement work, we are at the early stages of working on XBRL G/L.  So, in short, we don't have any answers for you.  It's a work in progress.  That said, I am particularly keen on leveraging the very good work of EDIFACT G/L in Europe, and we are pursuing this angle as a starting point.

 

Re scope, my own view is that every one of the e-commerce standards eventually will link to XBRL for e-reporting.  XBRL, in effect, will become the magnet specification for internal financial issues, as well as external.  This will be done by collaboration and coordination with industry-specific transaction languages and with some of the over-arching frameworks as well.

 

Re CDEA, etc., this obviously is a very large topic.  I will say that some are conservative in their thinking and some rather progressive.  So, again, it's a work in progress.  But i think the only real answer I can provide is that as XBRL gains strength and momentum in its other forms of reporting, it may be well positioned to move in the direction you espouse.  Certainly, your thinking is not out of the question.  But, I personally don't think we'll have momentum to force the issue until later in the game, say, 6 months.

 

Does this help?

 

Btw, please excuse the multiple postings but, as a subscriber to Gnue, I think it would be useful to hear others' feeling about what XBRL ought to be doing in this space.  Thanks for your attention.

 

Regards,

 

Zack

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Boyle [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:47 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: [xbrl-public] Requesting an official report on GL schema

	My Groups | xbrl-public Main Page | Start a new group!

The message of Zack Coffin should raise alarms, both inside
the XBRL and among the general public.

> Todd, you're way off in left-field on this
> one and just guessing where the ball is.

Yes-- since the XBRL has never published a single word or sentence
about its plans for the General Ledger schema.  Without paying
the $5000 plus $2000 per meeting, flying to XBRL meetings,
usually on the East Coast, there is no way for anybody outside
the XBRL to know anything about your General Ledger schema.  
Isn't that convenient?  It allows you, the official representative
of XBRL, to lampoon the public.

> >> I'm having great fun with this-- prove me wrong. Publish your work in
> progress.
>
> You may be having fun poking us with irresponsible statements but I just
> don't have the time.  It's 4:41 a.m., I've got a plane to catch.  Let's
> start again, Todd; per Derek's suggestion, please ask single issue
> questions, and I'll respond.  Thanks again for your continued interest.
>
> Regards to all,
> Zack

Asking an organization the size of XBRL to post its
work in progress is not irresponsible.  It is the XBRL, and this
representative, who are irresponsible, and unresponsive.

The message of Zack Coffin is a perfect example of the level of
priority that the XBRL committees place in informing the public. 
I.E., it is our problem to make simple digested questions, and then,
you might flick us an answer if you have time at 4 AM before
catching a flight to your important client matters.

I asked single-issue questions.  They have been listed and asked
several times.  Here you go:

1.   will XBRL GL schema use a flat XML schema that is
backward compatible to small business GLs?  Will small business
be required to buy new operating systems and software applications,
in order to export and import the new, global standard General Ledger
format?   Simple question. 

2.   what is the scope and natural boundaries of a "general ledger",
envisioned by XBRL GL?  What is the thinking of the XBRL group?

3.   does AICPA and XBRL plan to continue to support CDEA (classic
double-entry accounting) semantics and the A=L+OE equation, or does
XBRL find persuasive, the arguments to move away from double entry?

Does XBRL favor more flexible, arbitrary hierarchies of transactions
formatted in XML, anchored upon an XML tree such as the XBRL financial
statement?  --this issue is obviously important to future commercial
competitiveness of software products which compete with XBRL members'
designs, because the XBRL and AICPA have statutory and regulatory
roles.

4.   does XBRL envision any structures within XBRL GL schema which
enable ending redundancy for shared elements of multiparty transactions.
Here again, a longer explanation is necessary to make this point
unambiguously  http:www/gldialtone.com/endredundancy.htm and
http://www.gldialtone.com/transaction04.htm

Todd
* Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/
* address@hidden    Kirkland WA    (425) 827-3107
* XML accounting, web ledgers, BSPs, ASPs, whatever it takes


To Post a message, send it to:   address@hidden
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: address@hidden