Talk:European Data Point Methodology V2.0

From XBRLWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 13:33, 23 August 2013 (edit)
Thierry.Declerck (Talk | contribs)
(Comment-03)
← Previous diff
Current revision (12:14, 11 October 2013) (edit)
Anna-Maria.Weber (Talk | contribs)
(Comment-17)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
=== Comment-01 === === Comment-01 ===
[TD] Or better "Introduction" for section title? (comment "b" in the file Comments about CEN/TC XBRL) [TD] Or better "Introduction" for section title? (comment "b" in the file Comments about CEN/TC XBRL)
 +
 +Comment accepted. TD to adapt
=== Comment-02 === === Comment-02 ===
-[TD] Ignacio suggests here to repleace the sentence above the comment with: +[TD] Ignacio suggests "In the page 7, figure: Figure 1 —Structural Perspective, the cardinality of 1 is not necessary. [TD: I can not change the graphics]
-"In the DataPointModel a Hierarchy forms are sets of concepts of a domain (DefinedMembers) of a dimension (EnumerableDimension) arranged in a hierarchical disposition."+ 
-Myself I note a problem with the expression: "a Hierarchy forms are sets" (should it bee "a Hierarchy forms sets ..."?+Comment rejected.
=== Comment-03 === === Comment-03 ===
[TD] Ignacio suggests here to repleace the sentence above the comment with: "In the DataPointModel a Hierarchy forms are sets of concepts of a domain (DefinedMembers) of a dimension (EnumerableDimension) arranged in a hierarchical disposition." Myself I note a problem with the expression: "a Hierarchy forms are sets" (should it bee "a Hierarchy forms sets ..."? [TD] Ignacio suggests here to repleace the sentence above the comment with: "In the DataPointModel a Hierarchy forms are sets of concepts of a domain (DefinedMembers) of a dimension (EnumerableDimension) arranged in a hierarchical disposition." Myself I note a problem with the expression: "a Hierarchy forms are sets" (should it bee "a Hierarchy forms sets ..."?
 +
 +Comment accepted: "are sets" -> "a set" TD to adapt.
=== Comment-04 === === Comment-04 ===
 +[TD] Suggestion by I. replace "A Module is a group of [[European_Data_Point_Methodology#DataCube|DataCubes]] that carry relevant identical semantics and may serve the reporting process" with "A Module is a group of DataPoints with its appropriate Dimensions and concepts of the dimension (DataCubes) ...."
 +
 +Comment to be further processed: make sure that ref links are present in the Word Document.
 +
=== Comment-05 === === Comment-05 ===
 +[TD] Suggestion by I.: “4.3.10 Dimension, …. A Dimension can refer to a Domain. ….”. I would exchange by in “4.3.10 Dimension, …. A Dimension must refer to a Domain. ….”.
 +
 +Comment rejected.
 +
=== Comment-06 === === Comment-06 ===
 +[TD] Comment by I. :“4.6 Hierarchical Perspective …. 1) When using multiple DimensionedElements on a single Dimension that has a Hierarchy in its DefinedMembers, the required math may not be possible to perform.”. I don’t understand. Only, it is possible to define a data point with only a member domain by dimension. Is this that you want to say?
 +
 +Comment accepted. Roland to edit the segment.
 +
=== Comment-07 === === Comment-07 ===
 +[TD] Comment by I. : h. In page 18, “4.6.2 RuleRelationship … The list of possible signs in a DataPointModel is not determined. Examples are: + (plus sign) or - (minus sign). ….”. Can have in a hierarchy “*” or “/”? I think: “4.6.2 RuleRelationship … The list of possible signs in a DataPointModel must be “+” or “-“. Examples are: + (plus sign) or - (minus sign). ….”.
 +
 +[TD] But I think this comment refers to a previous version of the document.
 +
 +Comment reject.
 +
=== Comment-08 === === Comment-08 ===
 +[TD] comment by I.: figure 5, the arrow to tablesheet is longer. [TD: I can not modify the graphics
 +
 +Comment accepted. Katrin to modifiy.
 +
=== Comment-09 === === Comment-09 ===
 +it is a doubt. “Rule 1.9 — There MUST NOT be a doubling of DefinedMembers in the same Dimension. A DefinedMember MUST only be references once in a Dimension.”. I understand that a member domain can belong to several dimensions, cannot it?
 +
 +Comment rejected.
 +
 +
 +
=== Comment-10 === === Comment-10 ===
 +
=== Comment-11 === === Comment-11 ===
 +
=== Comment-12 === === Comment-12 ===
 +
=== Comment-13 === === Comment-13 ===
 +
=== Comment-14 === === Comment-14 ===
 +
=== Comment-15 === === Comment-15 ===
 +
=== Comment-16 === === Comment-16 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-17 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-18 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-19 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-20 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-21 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-22 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-23 ===

Current revision

Contents

Comments

Comment-01

[TD] Or better "Introduction" for section title? (comment "b" in the file Comments about CEN/TC XBRL)

Comment accepted. TD to adapt

Comment-02

[TD] Ignacio suggests "In the page 7, figure: Figure 1 —Structural Perspective, the cardinality of 1 is not necessary. [TD: I can not change the graphics]

Comment rejected.

Comment-03

[TD] Ignacio suggests here to repleace the sentence above the comment with: "In the DataPointModel a Hierarchy forms are sets of concepts of a domain (DefinedMembers) of a dimension (EnumerableDimension) arranged in a hierarchical disposition." Myself I note a problem with the expression: "a Hierarchy forms are sets" (should it bee "a Hierarchy forms sets ..."?

Comment accepted: "are sets" -> "a set" TD to adapt.

Comment-04

[TD] Suggestion by I. replace "A Module is a group of DataCubes that carry relevant identical semantics and may serve the reporting process" with "A Module is a group of DataPoints with its appropriate Dimensions and concepts of the dimension (DataCubes) ...."

Comment to be further processed: make sure that ref links are present in the Word Document.

Comment-05

[TD] Suggestion by I.: “4.3.10 Dimension, …. A Dimension can refer to a Domain. ….”. I would exchange by in “4.3.10 Dimension, …. A Dimension must refer to a Domain. ….”.

Comment rejected.

Comment-06

[TD] Comment by I. :“4.6 Hierarchical Perspective …. 1) When using multiple DimensionedElements on a single Dimension that has a Hierarchy in its DefinedMembers, the required math may not be possible to perform.”. I don’t understand. Only, it is possible to define a data point with only a member domain by dimension. Is this that you want to say?

Comment accepted. Roland to edit the segment.

Comment-07

[TD] Comment by I. : h. In page 18, “4.6.2 RuleRelationship … The list of possible signs in a DataPointModel is not determined. Examples are: + (plus sign) or - (minus sign). ….”. Can have in a hierarchy “*” or “/”? I think: “4.6.2 RuleRelationship … The list of possible signs in a DataPointModel must be “+” or “-“. Examples are: + (plus sign) or - (minus sign). ….”.

[TD] But I think this comment refers to a previous version of the document.

Comment reject.

Comment-08

[TD] comment by I.: figure 5, the arrow to tablesheet is longer. [TD: I can not modify the graphics

Comment accepted. Katrin to modifiy.

Comment-09

it is a doubt. “Rule 1.9 — There MUST NOT be a doubling of DefinedMembers in the same Dimension. A DefinedMember MUST only be references once in a Dimension.”. I understand that a member domain can belong to several dimensions, cannot it?

Comment rejected.


Comment-10

Comment-11

Comment-12

Comment-13

Comment-14

Comment-15

Comment-16

Comment-17

Comment-18

Comment-19

Comment-20

Comment-21

Comment-22

Comment-23

Personal tools