Talk:European Data Point Methodology

From XBRLWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 09:02, 22 February 2013 (edit)
Katrin (Talk | contribs)
(Comment-02)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 09:03, 22 February 2013 (edit)
Hommes (Talk | contribs)
(Comments)
Next diff →
Line 26: Line 26:
=== Comment 07 === === Comment 07 ===
RH: How does this notion of information on which components belong to which framework, actually looks in the model? Is it through some kind of relationship? That is not shown in the UML. Since framework and the other public elements are on the same level, no relationships between their content is being made. RH: How does this notion of information on which components belong to which framework, actually looks in the model? Is it through some kind of relationship? That is not shown in the UML. Since framework and the other public elements are on the same level, no relationships between their content is being made.
 +
 +=== Comment 08 ===
 +RH Which does not show in the UML since the classes of framework and taxonomy are side by side.

Revision as of 09:03, 22 February 2013

Contents

Comments

Comment-01

RH: this does not take anything away for authors not providing a clear definition of each of the aspects that forms a single data point (or cell in a table).

Comment-02

RH: The explanation is mixing elements with members. For DPM member hierarchies have more meaning than 'normal' element hierarchies may have.

KH: The name elements has been replaced by members.
RH: But the UML does not show a relationship between the classes member and hierarchies. Is the UML mixing how components are defined in XML and how they should be used in modelling?

Comment-03

TD: Editorial Comment: I would write : "data structures *that can be* represented in supervisory tables" //// (similar to the following clause)
KH: Changed accordingly.

Comment-04

TD: Editorial Comment: I think we should include in this section later all the terms and definitions the document is making use of , even if the terms and definitions are not imported from other documents.

Comment-05

TD: I think the the sentence: "the model components for the creation of a formal models on sets of data points for European supervisory reporting frameworks" could be rewritten like: "the components for the construction of a formal model that describes sets of data points relevant to European supervisory reporting frameworks" (or similar).
KH: Changed accordingly.

Comment 06

RH: Why would the attributes validFrom and validTo not apply to all public elements? Taxonomy already has them added, but I think the tables and hierarchies etc. are also only valid for a certain period in time. Or is this validFrom and validTo meant as a restriction within a certain version of the complete taxonomy? (maybe also indicating that if these attributes are not present, the dictionary element is valid for the whole version of the taxonomy?)

Comment 07

RH: How does this notion of information on which components belong to which framework, actually looks in the model? Is it through some kind of relationship? That is not shown in the UML. Since framework and the other public elements are on the same level, no relationships between their content is being made.

Comment 08

RH Which does not show in the UML since the classes of framework and taxonomy are side by side.

Personal tools