Re: [xbrl-public] Re: [ebxml-dev] ebXML with XBRL Payload

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

Noordzij, Marcel wrote:

 > The XBRL *framework* is not competitive with ebXML. It is just one of
 > the vertical XML standards that nicely fits into the ebXML
 > infrastructure... .. XBRL intended or was going to us ebXML for its
 > transport layer...

I agree, the XBRL framework is not competitive with the Messaging
specification.  I got that from private email, also.  The ebXML messaging
service  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/ is indeed
an essential complement to XBRL --and the whole W3C XML stuff, IMO.

    The specification defines a flexible enveloping technique, permitting
    messages to contain payloads of any format type. This versatility
    ensures legacy electronic business systems employing traditional
    syntaxes (i.e. UN/EDIFACT, ASC X12, or HL7) can leverage the advantages
    of the ebXML infrastructure along with users of emerging technologies.
  ...
    An ebXML Message is a communications protocol independent MIME/Multipart
    message envelope, structured in compliance with the SOAP Messages with
    Attachments [SOAPAttach] specification, referred to as a Message
    Package.

Thus it can be used for reliable delivery, signing, authenticating,
idempotency etc. just about anything.  I hope this replaces email. :-)

Are you saying, there is *no* relationship between XBRL and
ebXML, other than XBRL wanting to use reliable messaging?
Warning: this question is a troll of galactic proportions.  All of
traditional accounting is about describing economic events, in
the aggregate, while, all of the layers of ebXML above the
messaging layer, are about describing them in their factual
specific instances.  And there is a huge, intergalactic collision
somewhere in the future, in the absence of formal work to align
GAAP classifications with native transaction attributes.  You
would need a truly automatic GAAP classification of most of
the ordinary forms of trade, and at that point heck yes, the
XBRL and ebXML vocabularies are a total overlapping collision.

In closing your position that ebXML and XBRL are orthogonal,
does not stand up to logical reasoning,

Thanks
Todd

At 12:11 AM 11/4/2002, Noordzij, Marcel wrote:
>Hi Todd,
>
>The XBRL *framework* is not competitive with ebXML. It is just one of the
>vertical XML standards that nicely fits into the ebXML infrastructure
>(unless you look at Core Components, where there is a different approach
>compared to XBRL). And I noticed in real life that each business transaction
>leads to several business reporting issues. XBRL is indeed useless in
>describing the actual transaction, but for the whole process that follows a
>single transaction it is key. So my feeling is that UN/CEFACT or a similar
>organization should bother.
>
>I remember last year there was a pressrelease (or similar) stating that XBRL
>intended or was going to us ebXML for its transport layer. I haven't heard
>anything about this since then, which is a pity, since the two standards
>could and should strengthen eachother.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marcel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Boyle [mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
>Sent: zondag 3 november 2002 0:38
>To: zack2@cris.com; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>Cc: xbrl-public@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [xbrl-public] Re: [ebxml-dev] ebXML with XBRL Payload
>
>
>At 08:52 AM 11/2/2002, Zachary Alexander wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >Are there any efforts underway to implement ebXML MS with a XBRL payload?
> >
> >zack
>
>If so, I would be eager to work on it.
>
>I believe the XBRL *framework* is competitive with ebXML,
>and the XBRL taxonomies for financial reporting are wholly
>irrelevant to UN/CEFACT which is trade facilitation. And
>needless to say they would be useless in describing business
>transactions.
>
>However, the XBRL full taxonomy for GL would have been a very nice
>horizontal vocabulary for the individuals and small business "context".
>http://www.xbrl.org/gl/gl.htm   The usefulness in getting a small doc.
>such as invoice, order or remittance from one small bus. software to
>another, cannot be overstated.   (the market leaders in SME accounting
>software indicate privately they will never agree to their competitors'
>XML vocabularies, nor, join in standards efforts for interoperability.)
>
>I can't seem to find the full version of XBRL GL anymore.  I guess
>they removed it from the XBRL site.  That is ominous.  What hope
>is there for any standard, when its own sponsoring organization
>stops publishing it?
>
>XBRL full taxonomy for GL if loaded into the registry of core
>components, would have been capable of describing transactions
>about as well as some other vocabularies advocated as
>ebXML payloads such as OAG.  (the light version seen on
>the website is incapable, lacking even product/service identifiers)
>
>Respectfully,
>Todd Boyle
>http://www.gldialtone.com