I have reached a big milestone in updating the business reporting use cases which I am putting together. You can get to those from this index page which contains the use cases plus some other things relating to the use cases. This is a direct link to 31 business use cases.
Several points about these business use cases.
- You can download the complete set, see the download link on the page.
- Each use case has been validated by 4 different XBRL validators and all of those validators report no errors. (The XBRL Formula stuff used is only validated by one validator.)
- I would consider these use cases "very safe" areas of XBRL. This is because of the consistency in the validation across 4 different validators, each provides the results expected, XBRL extension works as expected, and all approaches used come from years of fiddling around with different approaches to articulating these use cases in XBRL. (Considers techniques use in the most current US GAAP taxonomy, IFRS taxonomy, COREP, etc.
- All the visual stuff in the taxonomy such as the "[Fact Group]", "[Member]", "[Measure-Concepts]", "[Roll Forward]", "[Roll up]" (and so forth) is only visual eye candy and is unnecessary. Those things appended to the concepts and labels only helps one visualize the taxonomy given the lack of assistance provided by software these days.
- While I did provide a presentation linkbase, the presentation linkbase is not necessary. Basically, the presentation linkbase can be autogenerated from the definition linkbase.
- The presentation, calculation, and definition linkbases are consistent.
- While I did use the substitutionGroups of the business reporting logical model schemaand doing so is very helpful in creating a consistent XBRL taxonomy, doing so is not necessary.
- While I did use the measures of the financial reporting logical model schema, I really did not have to because these taxonomies are only demos. However, the technique of using those measures does enhance comparability across XBRL taxonomies if that is desired.
- These XBRL instances and XBRL taxonomies do follow the useful practices of the Financial Reporting Instance Standards (FRIS) and Financial Reporting Taxonomy Architecture (FRTA), they do not necessarily follow the useless syntactic constraints imposed by FRIS and FRTA. On the other hand, the XBRL instances and XBRL taxonomies do follow a number of best practices which would be a good idea for something like FRIS or FRTA (or whatever replaces them) should make use of. So, don't expect that these comply with FRIS or FRTA validation.
I do intend to provide additional documentation which explains the subtle characteristics of these use cases which one can miss if they are not pointed out. Not sure when. My next goal is to create a comprehensive example which tests these use cases by seeing how they interrelate with one another within one larger business report.