Upload
nicholas-young
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
XBRL Taxonomy codification
Secrétariat général de la Commission bancaire
SGCB
Paris, October 1st, 2008
2
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
Introduction: XBRL consumptions for data Mining/Statistiques in back office applications
- Taxonomy creation
- Instance management InstanceDocument
BACKEND
Taxonomy
Financials institutions (submitters)
Databasesservers
Corporate Directory Server: BAFI …
InstanceDocument
InstanceDocument
InstanceDocument
InstanceDocument
Receipt Management
Reception ManagementTaxonomies
Taxonomy control
TaxonomyMistakes/Errors
Taxonomy management Control and
storageAmounts ctrl.
BAFI/COFINREPComparision
Reporting synthesis
• Conception• Reporting
calculation
ReportingExtraction
COFINREPReportingErrors
Reporting synthesisReference data management
Habilitations
Data Mining applications
3
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
I. A short unique ID
There is a need for a unique ID in order to select XBRL facts, dimension or
dimension value for data mining IT :
• For XQuery expressions on XBRL instances, XML files, XML databases
• For SQL queries in databases, XML databases…
•Through user friendly interfaces
The unique ID should be short for feasibility (max queries string size) and for
performance enhancement (speed and size).
The most obvious and simple unique ID in XBRL to find a facts, dimension or
dimension value, is by it’s:
QName ( = prefixe + element name)
4
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
II. Current taxonomy element names
In the latest taxonomies, element names are:
• Self explanatory and human understandable: A user can determine exactly the
business meaning of an the element.
• Follows the FRTA recommendation and uses LC3 convention (Label Camel Case
Concatenation) : Element meaningful label trimmed and without special
characters.
The consequence : up to 250 characters long string difficult to
remember and to manipulate.
5
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
6
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
III. Smaller code alternative
Alternative codes were studied:
• Hash of the element name, fixed size: complex and require collision detection algorithms. But would be
automatic.
• Direct code, fixed size: A unique compact code, as meaningful as possible for each Xbrli item (fact, dimension
and value of dimension). But not self explanatory and human understandable.
• Combination code, fixed size : A unique compact code, as meaningful as possible for each possible
combination of an Xbrl item fact + couples of( dimension and value of dimension). But not self explanatory and
human understandable. Is very complex, and would require the versioning specification dimensional Infoset
model which is not available yet.
In the end:
• We used the direct code (10 characters string).
• The Its can concatenate the code of fact with the codes of dimension/values of dimensions to create a single
longer code if needed.
• The business and technical needs were easily met with a simple code.
7
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
VI. Example with dimensions
Primary item p-cm-ca :CreditRiskCapitalRequirements
With the dimension CreditRiskDimension
And dimension value CreditRiskSASecuritization
Would become:
- Hash : f590d6fc (21d249c5, 2f7035e7)
- Direct code : CCCA_024 (CTCR_0001 , CDCR_0002)
- Combination Code : CCCA_024_0011
8
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
IV. Where should they be added?
They should be added with all other metadata concerning the reporting facts: in the taxonomy:
• As new labels, in the label linkbase. With a different role and/Or a different language.
• In the generic linkbase, by defining new arcs, arcroles, resources…
•Used as element names.
The choice was made to use the label linkbase given the current taxonomies are extensions of European taxonomies.
But to use short code as element names would have appeared to be the best option:
• More compact instances (40% size gain, mostly with contexts)
• No need for a conversion tables between element name and code in back end data mining ITs consuming only XBRL instances.
• Easier code to remember and use for business people.
• Instances are harder to read with no XBRL Tools. (I.e. notepad users?)
9
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
V. The french COREP, FINREP and SURFI codification
Feuille de calcul Microsoft Excel
Help document for non XBRL business people :
1 3 4 5 8
COREP Facts C version number
Dimension C
Dimension value C
FINREP Facts F version number
Dimension F
Dimension value F
SURFI Facts S version number
Dimension S
Dimension value S
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XXX Auto-incremental
Table code (1_1,1_2,31a,31b, 34_) Auto-incremental
Character position
2 6 7
CA_/CR_/MR_ Auto-incremental
10
SIGD XBRL format de reporting
SGCB
Conclusion
• Very simple short codes are needed for technical and business people whether they are reporting entities or receiving entity (the French banks have been asking for a codification).
• These codes should be in the taxonomy, preferably as element names for technical reasons.
• They should be included in reference (IFRS, US-GAAP, European FINREP and COREP) taxonomies so they are common to extended taxonomies users.