XBRL Tools – An Overview of the Current Status Copenhagen, Denmark – November 2007 Hugh Wallis Director of Technical Standards XBRL International Inc.

Welcome!! Welcome to XBRL Denmark as a full Jurisdiction of XBRL International

Agenda  Types of XBRL Implementation  Conformance  Types of Vendor and their Products  New Initiatives in XBRL  Taxonomy Recognition Process  Brief Demonstration  Questions Disclaimer: The list of named vendors in this presentation is NOT an exhaustive list – those not mentioned should not be offended

Types of implementation  What does it mean to have “implemented XBRL”?  Include some form of import/export in existing software  Write customised libraries for processing XBRL artefacts  Write analytic software that relies on source data being in XBRL format  Write stand-alone instance creation products  Write stand-alone taxonomy creation products  Write tools that process XBRL artefacts created using a subset of XBRL or a specific taxonomy or for a specific, narrow, purpose  For each of the above – provide support for optional modules such as dimensions, versioning, formulas (in PWD status) etc.

Conformance  For each of these types of tools how can we determine that they have correctly “implemented” whatever it is they claim to have implemented?  Limit our discussion to the XBRL claims  Conformance suite can only test a tool’s correct consumption (i.e. checking for “legal” XBRL)  To test correct production you need to run a product’s output through a consuming product which passes the conformance suite  XII provides conformance suites for all its standards which vendors can then use to test their products  Such testing is voluntary and claims are not checked by XII (at this time – there is no “certification” programme in effect currently)

Types of Vendor and their Products  Niche XBRL vendors  Large ERP type vendors  Multi-faceted vendors  Middleware vendors  Analytics vendors  “Filings” vendors  “Other” vendors  Open Source initiatives (Note: Consultants and Training organisations are omitted from this list)

Niche XBRL Vendors  Allocation Solutions - USA  Batavia – Netherlands  Corefiling/Decisionsoft - UK  Coyote Reporting - USA  Dynaxys - USA  NeoClarus - USA  Rivet Software - USA  Semansys - Netherlands  Snappy Reports - USA  UBmatrix - USA  etc.

Niche Vendors’ Offerings  Typically have been “in” XBRL for years and built large part of business around the technology  Pervasive throughout the other “categories” of Vendor  Taxonomy Creation  Latest generation include collaborative environments  Manual Instance Creation  XBRL Validation  “Plug ‘n Play” libraries  Frequently incorporated into other vendors’ tools “under the hood”  Report Generation – Rendering of XBRL  Custom add-ons  e.g. Upstream validation – FFEIC/FDIC implementation

Large ERP type Vendors  Microsoft  FRx, Navision  eReport eXelerator - Excel add-in  F.R.I.D.A. - Financial Reports Instance Documents Application in Microsoft Office InfoPathFinancial Reports Instance Documents Application  Oracle  In Japan for years – now slowly moving to mainstream support, esp. with various acquisitions, the latest being Hyperion – sponsor of Vancouver Conference next week.  SAP  XBRL 2.0 support (output only) in 2002  Not much since but believe they are quietly “getting ready”  Recent acquision of Cartesis and Business Objects gives some XBRL capability  IBM  Numerous partnerships with Niche vendors including UBmatrix and JustSystems  Recent acquisition of Cognos may produce additional XBRL capability  etc.  Issue is the typical “chicken and egg” – customer demand versus product availability conundrum so slow progress in this arena  These companies able to produce rapidly once they believe the time is right

Multi-faceted vendors  Fujitsu  Hitachi  JustSystems  Unisys Corp.  etc.

Middleware vendors  Almost all of the “niche” and “multi-faceted” vendors plus:  Ipedo  etc.  Dynaxys has a big XBRL GL focus  ETL (Extract, Transform and Load) vendors are a hole here

Analytics Vendors  Business Objects (Cartesis – now SAP)  Caseware  Cognos (now IBM)  CompSci Resources  EDGAR Online  Highridge Technologies  Hyperion (now Oracle) – output only though at this stage  Ipedo  IRA  Rivet (Crossfire)  Savanet  Template Software  etc.

United Technologies Corporation Future 10-Q Process Flow ERP Qtr FS in XBRL Edgar HFM XBRL Tagged ERP Supplemental Data XBRL Tagged Total Process Time: 700 Hours

“Filings” vendors  American Financial Printing  Bowne and Co.  Capital Systems  Command Financial Press  Corefiling (UK and USA)  CT Corporation  EDGAR filings  RR Donnelley  TNT Filings (Canada)

“Other” vendors/tools creators  Covers other kinds of support such as Big Accounting Firms’ customised tools  Often use libraries or customised products from niche vendors in combination with some “in house” development  Various European Central Banks  Various Stock Exchanges  Japan  China  Korea  etc.  SEC  “Software as a Service”  Microsoft/RR Donnelley – “FR Live” (in prototype)

Open Source  Code created either by individuals or companies and released under various forms of Open Source licence  Either published privately or on websites like Sourceforge  Galexy  SEC  UBmatrix  Various initiatives from China  Sourceforge publications often seek collaborative development input from others

Where to find them  Companies that are XBRL consortium members and have provided information to XBRL International are listed on our website as a service to them and the public.

New Initiatives in XBRL  Dimensions  Rendering  Functions  Versioning  XBRL GLs  All handled by Working Groups – see

Dimensions  Dimensions Specification 1.0 recommended  Provides standard way of expressing dimensional metadata  Builds on existing taxonomy syntax mechanisms  Design should facilitate code-reuse when implementing  In use today by numerous projects  Vendors already implementing it  Spec needs “care and feeding” based on implementation experience – both errata corrections and “best practices” documentation  Does not address metadata for time and entity dimensions  Task currently assigned to the Base Specification and Maintenance Working Group

Formulas  Formula spec designed to a)Overcome limitations of calculation linkbase b)Provide ability to express business rules for more complex instance validation – or quality analysis c)Provide mechanism to infer information from that carried in an instance – “fact producing”  Complex topic – significant discussions on many thorny aspects happening  Dependent on functions work

Formulas (contd.)  Very actively under development  CR of requirements originally published  Completely reworked and a draft specification published at PWD maturity level  Feedback solicited from the public and much received from many quarters 2 nd PWD produced and currently being commented on

Rendering  Provide a standard method to define an end user representation of the content of an XBRL instance  Builds on Market Analysis document prepared by former Domain WG  Functional Requirements PWD issued  Feedback received from many quarters  Currently evaluating numerous different technical approaches already implemented or in prototype  May eventually produce either a standard specification or a standard method or a combination of the two

Functions  XBRL Functions library  XBRL-aware function interfaces  Registry – proposal being evaluated  allows additional functions to be defined from time to time  encourage further development of the library in a standard way  First version of Requirements are CR –  First PWD of Specification released on  Many additional function interfaces needed – participation is the key

Versioning  The only constant in life is change  Over time rules change so  Taxonomies change  Instances, to be comparable, over time need to be interpreted in the context of those changes  Need to document in a standard way the changes to facilitate this  Becoming important to many parties  COREP/FINREP  National Bank of Belgium  IASCF  US-GAAP  Netherlands Taxonomy Project  First PWD should be released within the next week (approval to publish expected from the XSB today)

XBRL GL  Not a spec but a Taxonomy  Has specific, unusual, modular architecture  Supported by GLTFTA and GLIS (parallel FRTA and FRIS)  Achieved RECOMMENDATION Status – see  Provides means to represent ledger type information  Need to map to existing accounting systems  Can benefit from specific software implementations  Opportunity to build interface between ledger level and report level reporting – SRCD – first public working draft released recently

Taxonomy Recognition Process  Process necessary before XII will list your taxonomy on the XBRL.ORG website - optional  Two levels of recognition  Acknowledged  Approved  Both require taxonomy to be publicly available, royalty free (although copyright may be retained by the owner)  Acknowledged – requires only XBRL Specification Validity  Approved – requires additional “quality” constraints – must have been “Acknowledged” first  Revised (simplified based on feedback) process about to be published  Will need further refining to handle frequently updated taxonomies  See

Demonstration  JustSystems – Financial mashup

Mixing and Mashing Up XBRL with other Financial XMLs Stock Feeds & XBRL

InstancesTaxonomies XBRL enhances information at every stage Taxonomy BorrowerBank Loan Info. Financial Statements Financial Statements Data Acceptance Credit Decision Credit Risk Monitoring / Management Loan Application Publish Acceptance Approval Data Collection Web Services Credit Assessment Store Analysis Supplement Store Analysis Instance Store Validation Monitoring Management Store XML Object Repository

System-System Boundary ・・・

Man-Man Boundary ・・・

XML ・・・ Boundary をなくすための情報共通基盤

これまでの XML アプリの開発手法の限界

Stock price data XBRL Data Calculated data

これまでの XML アプリの開発手法の限界

Questions?