1 / 10

Standardizing Metadata Transmission and Submission in XBRL Reporting

This draft deliverable focuses on standardizing the transmission of metadata and submission instances in XBRL reporting, including encryption, digital signatures, and compression. It outlines objectives, deliverables, and history of the project. Feedback mechanisms, extensibility of headers, and container alternatives are discussed. The document emphasizes the importance of standardization and addresses file naming conventions and container integration for automatic processing. Various container transport methods are also explored.

elyse
Download Presentation

Standardizing Metadata Transmission and Submission in XBRL Reporting

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. CEN/WS XBRLKick-off meeting CWA2 deliverable - DRAFT 26 September 2012 Emile Bartolé CWA2

  2. Objectives CWA2 Dual objective of CWA2: standardize • The way of transmitting the usual metadata that determine the context of an xbrl reporting instance • the sender of the document • type of reporting • contact details • date and time of submission • … • The way of submitting instances, i.e. a container with standardized • Encryption • Digital signature • Compression • …

  3. Deliverables of CWA2 CWA2 Official CEN Deliverables • Specification documents metadata taxonomy • Specification documents submissioncontainer • Specification documents feedback container? • Taxonomies / xml schemata used for the preceding Auxiliary deliverables • Test facilities (standards adherence) compliance tools

  4. History of Header CWA2 May 2009 in Eurofiling: Survey on Eurofiling header requirements • http://xbrlwiki.info/index.php?title=Best_Practices_on_Common_European_Reporting_Structures January 2011 in Core Team: Proposition of header implementation • Annexed document from Katrin Heinze • Datapoints & Dimensions In 2012: Core vocabularies published by EU • Defines physical persons, entities, …

  5. Extensibility of header? Static header restricted to the destination community: EUROFILING Page 5 CWA2 • Extensibility required for header? (central banks, business registers, …) • List of static datapoints • Inflexible, maintenance-prone • Choice of modules of predefined per-reporting substructures • In case of multiple destination communities • Basic header to be extended according to local needs • That’s not the goal of standardization!

  6. Feedback: XML or XBRL? Page 6 CWA2 • Definition of a standardized feedback to a submission container • might contain • Instance name • Submission date & time • Generic list of error messages with • message id • Severity • error text • … • Implementation in XBRL or rather in the better suited XML?

  7. Container alternatives Single XBRL instance with digital signature and encryption (W3C standards XML-DSig and XML-Enc) Compressed container for multiple XBRL instances <EncryptedData …> … </EncryptedData> Signature & encryption (pkcs7) zip Instance-1 … Instance-n

  8. Remarks on containers Page 8 CWA2 • No file naming conventions need to be defined by the CEN standard, all names for containers and / or instances may be defined by the actual data taxonomy owner (european or national supervisor) • only .xml or .xbrl file extension should be defined by CEN • n feedback files in the feedback container, each having the same name than the original instance it refers to (adding e.g. a processing datetime) • Signature certificate will be integrated into the container for automatic processing on the authority’s side • Feedback container should be structurally identical with submission container

  9. Remarks on containers (2) Page 9 CWA2 • Containers may be combined with any transport: • Webservice • Upload via portal website • E-mail • Ftp • …

  10. Thanks for your attention emile.bartole@cssf.lu Comments or questions? Page 10 CWA2

More Related