Patent Grant
9600842
Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to data processing systems, and more particularly to a computer markup language for financial accounting and a related data browser and manipulator.
Background
In today's world, increasing use of computers, computer applications and communication networks such as the Internet has created many different communication and data protocols. The variety of protocols and lack of standardization poses a significant problem for many industries, such as the financial industry. Conventionally, different companies, industries, and governments use different accounting systems and technological means for handling their financial information, and therefore cannot interact with each other efficiently. The lack of reporting standards and technological standards greatly impedes efficiency in communicating financial information, which, in turn, has led to the increasing desire for the development of technological standards for many industries and entities.
Currently on the Internet, transmissions and communications are commonly conducted using a communication protocol called the HyperText Transfer Protocol (“HTPP”) which can be used to pass files and documents formatted in the HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”). A markup language is implemented by embedding markup “tags”, special sequences of characters, that describe the structure as well as the behavior of a document and instruct a web browser or other program in the manner in which to display the document. Typically, documents or web pages formatted in HTML are simply ASCII text files that mix ordinary text with the markup tags.
However, the extensible Markup Language (“XML”) is rapidly becoming the lingua franca for data exchange across the Internet. XML is a free-form markup language with unspecified tags, which allows developers to develop their tags and, in effect, create their own markup languages geared toward specialized tasks. In XML, the tags are organized according to certain rules, but their meaning is flexible. As such, different professions may develop their own specialized markup languages. For additional reference, XML is described in greater detail in “XML Bible,” Elliotte Rusty Harold, IDG Books Worldwide, 1999, which is herein incorporated by reference.
The extensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”), a markup language which has an underlying syntax defined in XML, is the creation of an international XBRL project committee (XBRL.org) formed under the auspices of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”). In creating XBRL, the committee's goal was to develop a standard, computer-readable reporting language for financial information for businesses.
Generally, XBRL includes two major elements: (1) a “taxonomy,” which defines the financial terms which can be reported and the interrelationships between these terms, and (2) an “instance document,” which includes reported values for the terms of the taxonomy and references to the terms. An XBRL taxonomy is normally maintained by some controlling national authority such as the AICPA, which defines the actual accounting terms and their interrelationships in a jurisdiction. XBRL instance documents, on the other hand, are generally produced by business entities in a jurisdiction. Simply put, an instance document is a report from a financial institution, and the referenced taxonomy forms the context in which to read the report. For the purposes of this specification, the term “instance document” and “report” may be used interchangeably. A report is a further formatted instance document.
More specifically, XBRL taxonomies form the context for XBRL instance documents; that is, they define the names, data types (e.g., textual, monetary, numeric), and relationships (account/sub-account) that XBRL instance documents can reference. XBRL instance documents report values for elements (not necessarily all elements) defined in a taxonomy. The XBRL instance document is responsible for providing information about quantitative values such as the currency (monetary types), precision (e.g., values reported + or −10%), and magnitude (e.g., numbers in thousands, millions, etc.).
Table 1 below shows a sample XBRL document fragment from a taxonomy, and Table 2 shows an instance document fragment referencing the terms of the taxonomy. An excerpt from an exemplary taxonomy document may be seen at Appendix A, while a full instance document may be seen at Appendix B.
The following is a brief explanation of the contents of the instance document fragment and the interrelation between the taxonomy and instance document fragments of Tables 1 and 2. In the instance document fragment, the “xmlns” lines and the schema line of the first group may be ignored. For the purposes of this explanation, the groups are identified by bracketed comments including the group number. The balance of the elements in the first group define default reporting parameters. Parameters for an entry (indicated by an item tag) are determined by examining the entry and its containing groups, inward to outward. The first value found for a parameter is the value for that item.
Furthermore, the first group encompasses all others, so it defines the defaults. In particular, the defaults for the above instance document fragment are id (“ ”), entry type (“statements”), reporting entity (“Alaska Air Group, Inc.”), currency type used (US $), scale factor (all values in millions), significant digits in numbers (10), decimal pattern (standard US with commas and decimal point at cents), and format (“ ”). In the above defaults, the empty brackets (“ ”) indicate that there is no entry.
The second group tag establishes a report segment, in this instance a balance sheet. The third group tag specifies that the items it contains report on taxonomy item “cashCashEquivalentsAndShortTermInvestments.cashAndCashEquivalents.” The elements of this taxonomy item are identified in the taxonomy document fragment provided above in Table 1. By calling the taxonomy item from within the instance document, the values from the instance document are assigned to the elements of the taxonomy document.
Within the third group, the “label” tag specifies that a new label is being provided to overide a label in the taxonomy document. The “lang” tag indicates that an english language label is being overridden. The new label (cash and cash equivalents) follows the “lang” tag definition. The next two items identified by “item period” provide reports for the periods ending Dec. 31, 1998 and Dec. 31, 1999. Using the defaults from the first group tag, these items indicate that Air Alaska's cashAndCashEquivalents were US$29.4 Million in 1998 and US$132.5 Million in 1999. A similar report would follow for shortTermInvestment.marketableSecurities, which is the next call within the balance sheet report segment. This, again, is a call relating to the elements of an item within the taxonomy document. The elements of this taxonomy item are not shown in the above taxonomy document fragment.
In addition to defining a taxonomy, XBRL also provides a mechanism whereby taxonomies can be extended to include company-specific accounting practices by adding new elements (e.g., for a baseball team, ground keeping expense may be added to the taxonomy). Thus, a company can maintain an internal accounting structure at any level of sophistication. XBRL takes advantage of the fact that approved accounting systems roll up to the elements defined in a jurisdiction's Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (“GAAP”). This means that all companies in a jurisdiction can report (at some perhaps aggregated level) with reference to the GAAP-based taxonomy. This permits true “apples-to-apples” comparison of a company's financial data without placing new requirements on the company's internal accounting practices. In keeping with this methodology, XBRL.org has published, in association with the AICPA, a “standard” taxonomy based on U.S. GAAP. XBRL.org is also currently working with the U.S. Federal Government to publish a standard U.S. Government Taxonomy and with the International Accounting Standards Committee (“IASC”) to publish an international taxonomy which can serve as a basis for each member state's GMP taxonomy. This taxonomy is described in greater detail in “XBRL Essentials,” Charles Hoffman, Carolyn Strand, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc., 2001, which is herein incorporated by reference.
XBRL is an XML-based language used for reporting financials such as balance sheets, cash flow reports, and the basic information that is reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Conventionally, users (1) manually compose files to be submitted to the SEC or (2) pay someone to put the files in computer-readable form. XBRL, however, provides a computer-readable format for companies to report their financials to the SEC on Electronic Data Gathering Analysis and Retrieval System (“EDGAR”) forms. EDGAR is the SEC database where companies report their financial performance to the SEC.
Although XBRL is well-defined, tools are not available for users to build XBRL reports. Currently, users may not automatically build financial reports and SEC filings that are acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Conventional systems also do not enable reports to be automatically scheduled and transmitted in XBRL format. Furthermore, users cannot automatically link a current accounting system to an XBRL document to generate an XBRL report. They also do not have an efficient and automatic means to analyze and manipulate data in an XBRL document. It is therefore desirable to overcome the aforementioned problems and other related problems.
Methods and systems consistent with the present invention provide a data processing system for developing reports comprising: a parser that receives one or more text documents and creates software elements having a format with a hierarchal relationship between the software elements based on the one or more text documents; and an editor that develops reports by referencing the software elements created from the text documents and retrieving data from one or more sources to represent one or more values within the report. In one implementation, the format with the hierarchal relationship between the software elements is the Numerator Document Object Model (“NDOM”), which is developed by interpreting tags included in the text document.
In accordance with the present invention, the editor enables the modification of the software elements to create a new combination of software elements representative of a new text document. In one implementation, the editor also enables the editing of the parameters associated with the software elements.
Furthermore, in another implementation, methods and systems consistent with the present invention provide a manager, which manipulates the software elements and enables browsing, editing, loading, and storing of the software elements. Also, the systems and methods consistent with the present invention provide a mapper for generating a relationship between data from one or more sources and the one or more values to be placed within the report. The mapper working in conjunction with a report template generates the report. The template contains data that is directly inserted into the report and instructions to enable the mapper to retrieve data from the one or more sources for insertion into the report.
Further, in yet another implementation, methods and system consistent with the present invention provide a means for transforming the software elements to new software elements and importing the new software elements into the RDL system. The software elements are transformed to the new software elements by retrieving a tag associated with each of the software elements in a dictionary and invoking a translation routine associated with the tag.
Introduction
Methods and systems in accordance with the present invention allow users to efficiently build, manipulate, analyze and transmit XBRL documents and reports. They allow users to automatically build financial reports, such as SEC filings, that are acceptable to governing agencies such as the IRS. Methods and systems in accordance with the present invention also enable reports to be automatically scheduled, in one implementation, by gathering desired information from an accounting system, formatting the information into an XBRL document, and transmitting it to an end source. Therefore, these systems may automatically link a current accounting system with an XBRL instance document to generate a report. Furthermore, systems in accordance with the present invention allow a user to translate an XBRL instance document into RDML format and use the RDML system to manipulate and analyze it. RDML is referred to as the Reusable Data Markup Language (“RDML”) in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/573,778, which provides a detailed explanation of RDML systems and methods and was previously incorporated herein. For the purpose of this description hereinafter RDML will be referred to as RDL.
One of the advantages of the systems and methods in accordance with the present invention is the functionality to hide the technical complexities of XBRL schema and instance document creation. For example, XBRL taxonomy creation, which is typically a complex process resulting in the creation of an XML document with a very explicit, highly technical format, is experienced by the user as the creation of a simple set of definitions grouped by subject. Similarly, the creation of the XBRL instance document, another complex XML structure with complex ties to a specific XBRL taxonomy document, is experienced by the user as a simple “drag and drop” process, where taxonomy elements for reporting are selected by mouse click and subsequently “dropped” into the target document. A similar “drag and drop” process enables a technically unsophisticated user to define for the program how data should be located in the user's database, and be translated and inserted into an XBRL instance document. The RDX system maintains the results of these processes for later reuse, which reduces the time the user must spend preparing reports by allowing the user to specify templates corresponding to report types that may be reused at each reporting interval.
In addition to simplifying a complex technical procedure for use by financial personnel minimally skilled in XBRL, the systems and methods of some implementations of the present invention may provide many other technical innovations such as:
Methods and systems in accordance with the present invention may also aid an XBRL user in at least two ways: XBRL document development and XBRL document analysis. In accordance with the present invention, XBRL document development is simplified by the Numerator Document Object Model (“NDOM”), discussed below, which provides a standard document object which can be easily managed, manipulated, edited and stored using variants on tools developed to manage Reusable Data Markup Language (“RDL”) objects. In one implementation, document templates in accordance with the present invention make regular financial reporting a “one-click” process, since they provide for the specification within the document of the location of all the data elements in advance and the ability to actually create the document later, perhaps, at timed intervals.
It may be appreciated by one skilled in the art that other text documents may be input and manipulated by systems and methods in accordance with the present invention to develop instance documents and reports. For example, other text documents such as Electronic Business XML (“ebXML”), RDL, and XML may be manipulated to create instance documents and reports that may also be in other formats other than XBRL.
With respect to document analysis, methods and systems in accordance with the present invention provide extended analysis of XBRL data by providing a conduit into the RDL system, which is described in greater detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/573,778 entitled “Reusable Data Markup Language,” and filed on May 18, 2000, and which was previously incorporated by reference. The RDL system itself permits the efficient browsing and manipulation of numerical data and extends the numerical data by utilizing an XML-based format. Existing data, including XBRL data, can be converted to RDL format and used with an RDL browser to perform data analysis, viewing, and management. In addition, using RDL-based data, comparisons with information from other sources, not just XBRL sources, become possible with a click of the mouse, for example. This process opens analysis possibilities that would normally remain closed to XBRL users.
It may also be appreciated by one skilled in the art that other text documents may be manipulated and converted, in accordance with the systems and methods of the present invention, into RDL format for data analysis.
System Overview
In accordance with embodiments consistent with the present invention, RDX system 100 is designed to speed up and simplify the creation of XBRL taxonomies, instance documents, and reports, and to bring the analysis and data management capabilities of RDL system 106 to the information contained in these documents.
RDX parser 204 accepts documents such as ASCII text documents containing XBRL tags and transforms them into internal RDX documents or NDOMs. NDOMs are software elements of a standard format corresponding to the sections of the XBRL taxonomy document. The NDOMs form a tree structure corresponding to a structure described in the XBRL taxonomy document. In other words, the NDOMs as a group are software representations of an XBRL taxonomy document in a standard format. After RDX parser 204 translates the text documents, creates the NDOMs and links them in a structure analogous to the input taxonomy document, the NDOMs can be used by RDX manager 206. RDX manager 206 provides XBRL-specific capabilities such as the browsing, editing, loading, and storing of NDOMs. In addition, RDX manager 206 provides capabilities for the creation of new NDOMs and the restructuring of both new and previously created NDOMs into software structures corresponding to new XBRL taxonomy documents. RDX manager 206 also contains specific capabilities for the management of new XBRL taxonomy and instance documents, which are created from the NDOMs and may be stored and retrieved from local storage 203.
RDX document editor 208 is used to define document templates 214, which the system may use to create XBRL instance documents 222. Document templates 214 contain two types of information: (1) data to be directly inserted into XBRL instance documents 222; and (2) instructions enabling XBRL instance document 222 data to be inserted at the time of document creation from the user's accounting and computer systems. The user may use RDX document editor 208 to manually input data of type (1) into the document template 214 in a manner similar to a word processor.
Document templates 214 produced by these operations provide instruction for RDX mapper 210 to draw data both internally and from local or remote sources such as databases 216, files 218, and accounting software package 220 to create XBRL instance document 222. Document templates 214 may also be used for generating deferred XBRL reports 224.
RDX mapper 210 creates and links the NDOMs to form a software representation of an XBRL document that will be used to build the actual XBRL instance documents 222 and XBRL reports 224. XBRL reports 224 are XBRL instance documents that have been formatted into a user friendly report. RDX mapper 210 may be used to build a report upon request or at a user specified time. In one implementation, RDX mapper 210 is a translation mechanism for acquiring data from an accounting system (e.g., an accounting database or files) and placing the data in the appropriate location within XBRL report 224, as instructed by one or more document templates 214. Once RDX mapper 210 has processed document templates 214, which defines the data for XBRL report 224, RDX mapper 210 may be instructed to immediately execute or to schedule execution of XBRL report 224 at a later time. In the first case, a report reflecting the information immediately available is produced. In the second, the report will contain information available at the time of its scheduled execution.
RDX mapper 210 also provides a facility whereby potential XBRL instance documents 222 elements are displayed on the right side of the computer screen and potential sources for this data from local or remote computer systems, for example, are displayed on the left side. The user indicates that an instance document element should be included in the XBRL instance document 222 under construction by “dragging” it from the right side with the computer's mouse. The user indicates where the information for this element can be found in the computer database by “dropping” the dragged element on a data element on the left side of the computer screen. This process will be illustrated below in the description of
RDL tagger 212 supports translation of XBRL instance document data into RDL format for analysis in RDL system 106. The RDL system, in turn, provides data browsing, data manipulation, data viewing (for example, in the form of charts, spreadsheets, etc.), and a general user interface for RDL documents.
System Hardware Components
Main memory 304 may include the RDL data viewer 316, which may be a personal computer-based program. Although located in main memory 304, one skilled in the art will appreciated that data viewer 316 may reside elsewhere. Data viewer 316 may be used to convert XBRL documents to RDL documents, for use in RDL system 106 (
The various software components of RDX system 100 and related software components, which are located in main memory 304, may be programmed in object-oriented languages such as the Java™ programming language. The Java™ programming language is described in further detail in “The Java Programming Language,” 2nd Ed., Ken Arnold, James Gosling, Addison-Wesley, 1998, which is incorporated herein by reference. For further description of the Java Language, reference should be made to “The Java Language Specification,” James Gosling, Bill Joy, Guy Steele, Addison-Wesley, 1996, which is also incorporated herein by reference. However, one skilled in the art will appreciate that other programming languages may be used.
Secondary storage 306 may include XBRL instance documents 222. It may also include financial or accounting software 220 from which information may be extracted to create XBRL instance documents 222 using, for example, document templates 214 (discussed below). Secondary storage 306 may also store database 216, which maintains original data, for creating XBRL documents 220. As an alternative, these components may also be stored in main memory 304 or in another remote computer (not shown).
One skilled in the art will appreciate that aspects of methods and systems consistent with the present invention may be stored on or read from other computer readable media besides memory like secondary devices, such as hard disks, floppy disks, and CD ROM, or a carrier wave from a network (such as the Internet). Additionally, one skilled in the art will also appreciate that the data processing system may contain additional or different components, or one or more components may be combined into one software module providing multiple functions.
NDOM Development
XML is normally written to describe a particular document. XML has an ability to describe structures. Normally, an XML parser (not shown) creates a Document Object Model (“DOM”) for one document, but XBRL parser 204, however, can create an NDOM, which includes many different documents. The NDOM created by the XBRL parser 204 is non-XML. The NDOM is a software object or representation of the one or more documents described by the XML. One major difference between a normal XML parser and RDX parser 204 is that RDX parser 204 understands that the XBRL document is actually a collection of documents. In an XBRL file, there is a DOM that may actually contain three or four sub-Document Object Model files, a modification to the XML view that a document comprises exactly one DOM.
In other words, the lines of text in the XBRL taxonomy document that the XML parser is unable to interpret are the instructions for building the document structure. The XML parser, however, is able to accept a listing of the document structure, but not interpret the instructions for building the document structure. One of the advantages of RDX parser 204 is that it is able to take a very complex list of instructions for building the document structure and represent them in very simple line item connections. Therefore, a user can utilize the line item connections to understanding the complex list of instructions, without expending the effort to read and study the list. RDX Parser 204 decodes the instructions in the XBRL document to create a user friendly representation of the instructions (i.e., the NDOM structure) from which the user can develop financial reports.
As part of front end 202, RDX parser 204 initially accepts XBRL text documents 201 in the standard form and automatically converts them to the internal NDOM format so that they may be created, managed and edited in a more efficient, computer-friendly format than using XBRL text document 201. RDX parser 204 uses an internal Finite State Machine (“FSM”) to determine the structure of the underlying XBRL document from information generated by an off-the-shelf XML parser (e.g., the parser available from Microsoft Corp.) As was noted earlier, the XML parser can only detect the structure of the document itself, not the structure that the document describes. Each time that the XML parser detects an XML element in the document, the FSM is invoked. The FSM, based on its current state and the input element, builds the appropriate NDOM element. This process continues until the XML parser has processed the entire document. At this point, the FSM makes a final pass through the information contained in the NDOM, and a complete document object is available for processing. In the final pass, the FSM validates and error checks the NDOM using XBRL text document 201.
Typically, a schema tag is the first tag to be processed by interpreting the element data and determining the location where the element data from the source (i.e, the storage location of the taxonomy document) is to be copied into a target data structure (i.e, the NDOM). Using this process, the hierarchy (the parent-child relationships between the software elements) within the taxonomy document is created within the NDOM. The other tags, which are processed in the order of appearance within the taxonomy document and are discussed below, are processed in a fashion similar to the processing of the schema tag.
Process 600 then retrieves the current XBRL tag and begins the tag determination process again (step 608). If it is determined that the XBRL tag is not a schema tag, process 600 proceeds to step 616 and determines whether the XBRL tag is an element tag. If it is an element tag, the element data is processed (step 618) and stored in the NDOM (step 614) as a software element with the appropriate hierarchy in the NDOM. Process 600 then retrieves the current XBRL tag and begins the tag determination process again (step 608). If the XBRL tag is not an element tag, process 600 proceeds at step 620 and determines if the XBRL tag is an annotation tag. If it is an annotation tag, the annotation data is processed (step 622) and the data is stored in the NDOM (step 614) as a software element with the appropriate hierarchy in the NDOM.
Referring now to
If it is determined that the XBRL tag is not an appinfo tag, process 600 proceeds to step 632 and determines whether the XBRL tag is a rollup tag. If it is a rollup tag, the rollup tag data is processed (step 634) and stored in the NDOM (step 614) as a software element with the appropriate hierarchy in the NDOM. Process 600 then retrieves the current XBRL tag and begins the tag determination process again 608. If the XBRL tag is not a rollup tag, process 600 proceeds to step 636 and determines if the XBRL tag is a label tag. If it is a label tag, the label data is processed 638 and the data is stored in the NDOM 614 as a software element with the appropriate hierarchy in the NDOM. Process 600 then retrieves the current XBRL tag and begins the tag determination process again 608.
If it is determined that the XBRL tag is not a label tag, process 600 proceeds to step 640 and determines whether the XBRL tag is a reference tag. If it is a reference tag, the reference data is processed (step 642) and stored in the NDOM (step 614) as a software element with the appropriate hierarchy in the NDOM. Process 600 then retrieves the current XBRL tag and begins the tag determination process again (step 608). If the XBRL tag is not a reference tag, the parser stops (step 644) and the taxonomy file is closed (step 646).
The result of process 600 is an NDOM, wherein the software elements are interconnected in a hierarchal structure (e.g., a parent-child relationship between the software elements). Refer to
System Details
Referring back to
Generally, to be a valid XBRL document, the tagged file is validated with the XBRL Document Type Definition (“DTD”). An exemplary XBRL DTD is included in Appendix C. The XBRL DTD describes the required and optional data elements of an XBRL document, their ordering, the required syntax, and the controlled vocabulary used in certain data elements. RDX system 100 supplements the DTD validation with optional semantic validation based on user-defined rules. For example, a user may define a rule that validates totals with related subtotals to assure the subtotals equal the total.
Once the XBRL document is processed using the XBRL DTD validation process in RDX parser 204, if the XBRL DTD rules are not satisfied, the document is rejected. If the XBRL DTD rules are satisfied and there are no user-defined rules, then XBRL parser 204 builds the NDOM. If, however, the XBRL rules are satisfied and there are user-defined rules, RDX parser 204 interprets the XBRL document, by applying the user-defined rules, and then builds the NDOM.
In one implementation, RDX parser 204, in front end 202, parses the XBRL documents using the XBRL syntax and builds a standard internal document object (an NDOM), a software construct of the XBRL document that may be used in subsequent processing of the XBRL documents. These NDOM objects (and hence the XBRL documents they represent) can be stored locally, or can be transmitted over a corporate LAN or the Internet (e.g., using HTTP, FTP, email, etc.).
Most NDOMs and accordingly the XBRL taxonomies they represent are at the reporting level of the U.S. GMP, but most companies actually track accounts at a considerably finer level inside the business. In order to support modified tracking, XBRL allows users to create new, private taxonomies by “extending” the GAAP taxonomy. This extension is done by adding additional, company-specific elements to the GAAP taxonomy and defining the manner in which these new elements interrelate, both between themselves and the GMP taxonomy elements. RDX system 100 accommodates the user generating new taxonomies to model individual businesses by building them on existing taxonomies, which may be available locally or across a Wide Area Network (e.g., the Internet). More specifically, XBRL manager 206 allows the user to load existing taxonomies and create new taxonomies with the appropriate instance documents referencing the newly created taxonomy.
Window 804 of
The XBRL specification generally supports two types of reporting, internal and public. Public reporting may involve summaries or high level reporting such as those seen in SEC documents, and private reporting may involve much more discrete levels in the document. For example, in high level reporting, the document may simple list one entry that is a summary of all assets, wherein in discrete-level report, the document may list all entries that compose the summary entry. Generally, summary or high level reports reference the GAAP taxonomy and are for public consumption, and internal reports reference a taxonomy derived from the GAAP and remain internal. RDX system 100 permits the editing of public report templates referencing the GAAP taxonomy to provide private reporting referencing private taxonomies that extend the GAAP.
In
The actual presentation of XBRL documents is controlled by generating style sheets. User styling requests (e.g., background color, text style, report format, etc.) are translated into eXtensible Style Language (“XSL”) commands. XSL is an XML-based set of instructions for output document formatting. XSL style sheets may be ASCII text documents that conform to the XML specification. As text documents, they can be edited with an ordinary text editor. However, as with other XML documents, this is time-consuming and error-prone method of editing an XML document.
To enable a user in editing an XML document, a RDX style sheet editor (not shown) acts as a report-writer: the user can graphically compose a report from a sample document, specify the XBRL instance documents that the report can apply and automatically create a style document. The style sheet editor may be a specialized version of RDX document editor 208 that has been modified to allow the insertion of valid XSL style sheet instructions. Once the styling is acceptable, the user may store the style sheet for reuse in other qualifying XBRL documents. In addition to its basic editing functions, the Style Sheet Editor provides the following additional utilities: (1) XSL validation, (2) well-formedness testing, (3) hyperlink validation, (4) cut and paste of elements, and (5) replacement of elements with defaults. Table 3 below provides an exemplary XML style sheet document in accordance with the present invention.
−<xsl:stylesheet version=“1.0”
−<xsl:template match=“/”>
−<xsl:variable name=“unit”>
−<xsl:template match=“//xbrl:group”>
−<xsl:variable name=“unit”>
−<xsl:template match=“xbrl:item”>
−<xsl:template match=“//xbrl:group”mode=“data_x”>
−<xsl:template match=“xbrl:item”mode=“data_x2”>
RDX manager 206 controls the XBRL documents present in the system. To facilitate rapid access to documents, it may maintain an in-memory cache of the documents most recently parsed and edited. It contains facilities to locate documents, both on the local machine and across a Wide Area Network. RDX Manager 206 is also charged with the security aspects of RDX system 100. It decides whether a given user has access to a document, if so, it determines the access type, e.g., read, write, delete, and also whether the user has permission to perform functions such as the scheduling of automatic document generation.
RDX document viewer 207 allows a user to view XBRL documents in their natural (NDOM) structure, which is normally tree-like, i.e., accounts and subaccounts. The viewer allows users to view extended taxonomies, that is, taxonomies that extend a basic taxonomy such as U.S. GAAP (e.g., in colors corresponding to the provenance of each hierarchical taxonomy element). Likewise, information in instance documents 222 can be annotated (e.g., color-coded) in order to understand which of several taxonomies defines the particular element.
For example, the new taxonomy generated in window 804 of
XBRL taxonomy documents may be standard ASCII text files that are written in the XBRL syntax, and as such, they are editable by any text-oriented editor or word processor. RDX document editor 208 is used to edit existing XBRL taxonomy documents that are manipulated and under the control of RDX manager 206. This is, however, a time-consuming and error-prone approach to editing an XBRL (or any XML) file. A specialized RDX document editor 208 allows users to quickly build XBRL instance documents from existing XBRL taxonomy elements using drag and drop techniques. The existing elements are taken from existing XBRL taxonomies (e.g., U.S. GAAP taxonomy), which are stored in RDX system 100 (
RDX document editor 208 supports the creation and editing of XBRL instance documents by providing a simultaneous display of the instance document and its taxonomy. (Recall that an XBRL instance document (report) may be interpreted when a taxonomy is supplied, and every line in an XBRL instance document references an item in an XBRL taxonomy.) Besides basic editing, RDX document editor 208 performs a number of utility functions such as (1) search and replace, (2) validation, (3) well-formedness testing, (4) Hyperlink validation, (5) cut and paste of elements, and (6) replacement of elements with defaults.
In
Label 910 provides an entry for the label of the element and includes text 926 and lang 928. Text 928 is the text string for label 910 and lang 928 is the language in which the text string is written. Reference 912 provides an entry for information regarding literature which describes the element. Reference 912 includes the name 930, number 932, and chapter 934. Name 930 is the reference name of the literature that describes the element. Number 932, chapter 934, paragraph 914, and subparagraph 918 represent the number, chapter, paragraph, and subparagraph in the reference which describes the element. Documentation 916 provides an entry for a description of the element.
In addition to the above, XBRL document editor 208 may also modify the relationship between the taxonomy elements and other elements in the taxonomy by dragging the element to a new position within the taxonomy and dropping the taxonomy element into the new position, thereby changing the relationship between the elements in the taxonomy.
Moreover, RDX document editor 208 provides the capability of creating document templates 214 from which XBRL instance documents 222 may be generated to develop reports.
Document templates 214 are supported by RDX mapper 210, either immediately or in a deferred mode to generate XBRL instance documents and reports from information retrieved from local and remote sources such as databases 216, files 218, and accounting software packages 220. RDX mapper 210 supports both the immediate entry of data into document templates 214 and the insertion of “pointers” that tell RDX system 100 where to locate data during a report generation phase. Pointers reference information in a variety of accessible locations (e.g., in files, spreadsheets, other XBRL documents, relational databases, non-relational databases (e.g., object-based databases), accounting software packages, and URL's). Such information can be either local or web-based, for example. During report generation, which can be either immediate or at one or more specified periods of time in the future, the data elements are assembled into a report and sent to a destination specified when the instance document is developed. This will be discussed below in further detail.
In one implementation, document template 214 includes two elements: XBRL instance document structure 1202, and an element index 1204, as shown in
After document template 214 is complete, XBRL document editor 208 may also provide the capability of creating a report or instance document using a report generation dialog as illustrated in
In report generation dialog 1302, entry blocks are provided for defining the input files 1304, output file 1306, and period 1308. In the entry blocks of input files 1304, the user defines: the map filename 1310, which contains information indicating from where the data is to be retrieved for entry into the report (see the description for
In the entry block for output file 1306 (optional), the user defines the location where the generated XBRL instance document will be stored on the computer system. In the period entry block, the user defines the number of periods 1318, the period type 1320, the period type length 1322, and the period ending on 1324. Number of periods 1318 represents the total number of accounting periods that the user would like to have reported. For example, if the period ending on 1324 is Dec. 31, 2001 and the user specified the number of periods 1318 to be 2, the report produced would have data for the time period between Dec. 12, 1999 and Dec. 12, 2001, and Dec. 12, 2001 and Dec. 12, 2001. But, in the resultant XBRL instance document 222, these periods would be represented only by the ending data for each period—Dec. 12, 2001 and Dec. 12, 2001.
Period type 1320 represents the time period slice or increment that the user would like reported. This can have the type value of day, week, month, and year. Period type length 1322 further breaks down the number of periods based on period type 1320. Since XBRL's representation for a date does not include a quarter period type, this feature allows for period types of quarters and other lengths. For example, if the user specifies that period type 1320 is a month and period type length 1322 is 3, this represents a quarter. Then, if the user specified number of periods 1318 to be 4, the program would produce a report with four, three-month time periods (four quarters). The user may also use these parameters to specify any duration for a period type. As another example, the user could specify period type 1320 as a month and period type length 1322 as 6. This would produce a report with bi-annual data. The period ending on 1324 is the last day in a time period for the entire report. In the number of periods explanation above, the period ending data is Dec. 12, 2001.
If after the user enters all the required information into report generation dialog 1302, the user selects the “ok” button. An XBRL instance document 222 or report is developed as illustrated in
If, however, in report generation dialog 1302, the user has specified a stylesheet filename 1314, the XBRL instance document may be generated as a highly formatted user friendly report 1500 as illustrated in
As mentioned above, the data that is retrieved and inserted in the instance document are retrieved from one or more sources through the use of the XBRL tags. For example, XBRL tags add documentation to “pure data” found in relational databases. That is, the data that already exists in relational databases can be used to create XBRL instance documents, and the information concerning the database location and the database structure (i.e., the query parameters) are made available to RDX mapper 210. XBRL tags can also be added to information found in “flat” (i.e., unstructured) files and information obtained from internal accounting systems, as with relational structures, by knowing where to look (i.e., file location) and the manner in which to look (i.e., the internal structure and formatting of the data file).
The connections to data files are relatively easy; RDX mapper 210 may use either the internal host file system or a data transfer protocol (e.g., TCP/IP across a Wide Area Network (e.g., the Internet)). Access to relational files typically involves building an Object Data Base Connection (“ODBC”) to the database in order to execute the query. The ODBC uses a standard language for submitting data queries to the database. Access to data in other accounting systems typically involve an application program interface (“API”) to the system. An alternative for accessing data from an external accounting system is to use the system's export facility to dump the information in a flat file and then to access the flat file directly.
To support the creation of XBRL instance documents 222 or reports from document templates 214, RDX mapper 210 maintains a list of document templates 214 in a queue (not shown) waiting to be published. Document templates 214 may contain time tags indicating when the underlying document should be assembled. At regular intervals, RDX mapper 210 scans the list to see if any documents are due for publishing. As the time arrives for document generation, the data for the document is assembled from the information sources specified in document templates 214. Using document templates 214 and the NDOM, the instance document structure 1202 is loaded, and the instructions in element index 1204 are followed to access and load the dynamic data. Once XBRL instance documents 222 have been completely assembled and, when XSL style sheet information is present and properly formatted, XBRL instance documents 222 are validated and sent to the destination specified in document templates 214. Finally, document templates 214 are examined; if it is a “one-shot” request, it is dropped from the queue. Otherwise, a new generation time for the template is calculated, and it is returned to the template queue.
In
As mentioned earlier, XBRL taxonomy documents are stored in the RDX system as NDOM data objects. These objects are adequate for any manipulation, modification and management of taxonomy documents, but are generally used in concert with other taxonomy documents. A taxonomy may be extended or one or more taxonomies may be used to create a new taxonomy.
In addition to the capabilities provided by RDX system 100, the user may also employ the analytic capabilities of the RDL system. The NDOM object is typically translated into an RDL data object. RDL tagger 212 performs this function by analyzing the structure of the NDOM object and translating the NDOM into one or more RDL objects containing the actual NDOM data. This data can then be analyzed, manipulated and compared with RDL object data from both XBRL and non-XBRL sources in the RDL viewer.
An example of an XBRL/RDL translation could be represented by the element “total revenues” in an XBRL report. In XBRL, “total revenues” appears as two revenue tags bracketing period tags:
This is XML according to the XBRL specification. In RDL, this becomes:
In the above translation process, factory elements are software functions that render the translations. Each element accepts an input XBRL text string and outputs RDL. The factory isolates the input process from knowledge of the RDL objects. The job of input processing is to collect all XBRL text strings with the same tag, e.g., the revenue tag above. These strings are passed to translation factory 1708, which is responsible for knowing which translation (factory) element to create for a given tag. The factory identifies the input tag and creates an instance of the software (factory element) that is responsible for that particular conversion. The factory element is run with the strings collected by input processing as input, and the result is copied to an output file. Appendix D provides some examples of the instances created to accomplish the conversions.
The foregoing description of an implementation of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not exhaustive and does not limit the present invention to the precise form disclosed. Modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching or may be acquired from practicing of the present invention. The scope of the present invention is defined by the claims and their equivalents.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/263,518, filed on Jan. 24, 2001, which is incorporated herein by reference. The following identified U.S. patent applications are also relied upon and are incorporated by reference in this application. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/573,778 entitled “Reusable Data Markup Language,” and filed on May 18, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,421,648. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/573,780, entitled “Reusable Macro Markup Language,” and filed on May 18, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,421,648. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/573,419, entitled “Tree View for Reusable Data Markup Language,” and filed on May 18, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,249,328. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/573,413 entitled “Chart View for Reusable Data Markup Language,” and filed on May 18, 2000, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,608. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/784,205 entitled “Search Engine for Reusable Data Markup Language,” and filed on Feb. 16, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,886,005. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/135,525 entitled “Improved Spreadsheet Program With Improved Graphing Techniques and Internet Capabilities,” and filed on May 21, 1999.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4674043 | Hernandez et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
| 5008853 | Bly et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5276776 | Grady et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5339392 | Risberg et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5371675 | Greif et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5423032 | Byrd et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5434541 | Knoedl, Jr. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5461708 | Kahn | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5519617 | Hughes et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5530794 | Luebbert | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5530942 | Tzou et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5551381 | Losel et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5581685 | Sakurai | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5581686 | Koppolu et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5603021 | Spencer et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5613131 | Moss et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5701400 | Amado | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5706502 | Foley et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5721847 | Johnson | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5737592 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5737739 | Shirley et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5748188 | Hu et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5754939 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5822587 | McDonald et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5838906 | Doyle et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5838965 | Kavanagh et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5881381 | Yamashita et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5893109 | DeRose et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5894311 | Jackson | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5895476 | Orr et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5907820 | Pan | May 1999 | A |
| 5911145 | Arora et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5913214 | Madnick et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5917485 | Spellman et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5920828 | Norris et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5948113 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5950196 | Pyreddy et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5953724 | Lowry | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5956737 | King et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5974413 | Beauregard et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5983247 | Yamanaka et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987469 | Lewis et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5999944 | Lipkin | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6006242 | Poole et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6009436 | Motoyama et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6014643 | Minton | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6014661 | Ahlberg et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6026388 | Liddy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026397 | Sheppard | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6034676 | Egan et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6038574 | Pitkow et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6052710 | Saliba et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6058385 | Koza et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6065012 | Balsara et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6065026 | Cornelia et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6075530 | Lucas et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6092036 | Hamann | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6097888 | Simonyi | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6108662 | Hoskins et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112242 | Jois et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6121924 | Meek et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6125391 | Meltzer et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6134563 | Clancey et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6148330 | Puri et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6160549 | Touma et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6167409 | DeRose et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6173272 | Thomas et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6173284 | Brown | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6173316 | De Boor et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6185573 | Angelucci et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6185816 | Freund et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192362 | Schneck et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6195665 | Jarett | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6195676 | Spix et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6199046 | Heinzle et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6199080 | Nielsen | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6206388 | Ouboter | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6212494 | Boguraev | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6223189 | Steffens et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6226675 | Meltzer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6240407 | Chang et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6243698 | Powers et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6249291 | Popp et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6256030 | Berry et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6266670 | LaMarca et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6269380 | Terry et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6276991 | Kobayashi et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6278991 | Ebert | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6295530 | Ritchie et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6308179 | Petersen et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6314424 | Kaczmarski et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6314562 | Biggerstaff | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6317750 | Tortolani et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6317783 | Freishtat et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6339767 | Rivette et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6344851 | Roberts et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6345284 | Dinkelacker | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6345292 | Daugherty et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6349307 | Chen | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6351755 | Najork et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6356920 | Vandersluis | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6356961 | Oprescu-Surcobe | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6366915 | Rubert et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6370537 | Gilbert et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6370549 | Saxton | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6373504 | Nielsen | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6374274 | Myers et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6408430 | Gunter et al. | Jun 2002 | B2 |
| 6418433 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421656 | Cheng et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421822 | Pavela | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6424980 | Iizuka et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6434541 | Tawel et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6446048 | Wells et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6460059 | Wisniewski | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6470349 | Heninger et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6484149 | Jammes et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6493717 | Junkin | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6502101 | Verprauskus et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6502112 | Baisley | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6505246 | Land et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6507856 | Chen et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6513043 | Chan et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6519617 | Wanderski et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529217 | Maguire, III et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6535896 | Britton et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6542912 | Meltzer et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6581068 | Bensoussan et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6591272 | Williams | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6594653 | Colby et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6598219 | Lau | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6615258 | Barry et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6621505 | Beauchamp et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6626957 | Lippert et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6629094 | Colby et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6629135 | Ross, Jr. et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6631357 | Perkowski | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6631402 | Devine et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6635089 | Burkett et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6640234 | Coffen et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6643633 | Chau et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6667747 | Spellman et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6714201 | Grinstein et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6717593 | Jennings | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6718516 | Claussen et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6721736 | Krug et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6745384 | Biggerstaff | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6772139 | Smith, III | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6789252 | Burke et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6862710 | Marchisio | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6876930 | Murray et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6886005 | Davis | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6910017 | Woo et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6912293 | Korobkin | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6920608 | Davis | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6993527 | Raman et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 7020862 | Alfke et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7020882 | Lewallen | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7152116 | Austin et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7181438 | Szabo | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7249328 | Davis | Jul 2007 | B1 |
| 7340534 | Cameron et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7401076 | Davis | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7421648 | Davis | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7512875 | Davis | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7565397 | Hodjat et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7650355 | Davis | Jan 2010 | B1 |
| 7660874 | Meltzer et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
| 7801896 | Szabo | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 8006177 | Meltzer et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8185615 | McDysan et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
| 8185815 | Feira et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
| 8185816 | Davis | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8370362 | Szabo | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8375116 | Meltzer et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8489982 | Davis | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8959196 | Meltzer et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 20010013030 | Colby et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010018687 | Gonzalez et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010018694 | Iwamoto et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010020237 | Yarnall et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010049687 | Russell | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020007383 | Yoden et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020023141 | Yen et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035501 | Handel et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020052954 | Polizzi et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020062451 | Scheidt et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020073115 | Davis | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091696 | Craft et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020165872 | Meltzer et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020168664 | Murray et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198985 | Fraenkel et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030041077 | Davis et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078683 | Hartman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078883 | Stewart et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030140045 | Heninger et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030167213 | Jammes et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030217047 | Marchisio | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20050005266 | Datig | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086126 | Patterson | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086216 | Davis | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050182709 | Belcsak et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050187954 | Raman et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050198042 | Davis | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20060168335 | Hodjat et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20070156677 | Szabo | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070219933 | Datig | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20080028340 | Davis | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080282139 | Davis | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090083613 | Davis | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083619 | Davis | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090089657 | Davis | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20100004874 | Rzhetsky et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100814 | Meltzer et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100299239 | May | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332414 | Mead et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332583 | Szabo | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20130159845 | Meltzer et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0072197 | Nov 2000 | WO |
| 0161568 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Hamscher et al., Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) Specification, Jul. 31, 2000, XBRL Organization, pp. 1-27. |
| Berkeley et al., The Road to Better Business Information Making a Case for XBRL, Winter 2000, Microsoft, pp. 1-13. |
| Hoffman et al., XBRL Taxonomy Financial Reporting for Commercial and Industrial Companies, US GAAP, Jul. 31, 2000, pp. 1-12. |
| XBRL for Financial Statements Questions and Answers—Apr. 26, 2000, pp. 6. |
| Wayne E. Harding and Stanley Zarowin, “Finally, Business Talks the Same Language”, Aug. 2000, pp. 5. |
| Fox et al., “The Review of Business Information Systems, vol. 6, No. 3: An Analysis of Student XBRL Project Teams: Value-Adding Educational Experiences Using Emerging Technology”, Dec. 31, 2000, pp. 15-20. |
| Hoffman et al., “XBRL Taxonomy—Financial Reporting for Commercial and Industrial Companies, US GAAP”, Jul. 31, 2000, Copyright (C)2000 xbrl.org, pp. 1-12. |
| Online Ohio CPA Newsletter, A Monthly Electronic Publication of the Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants; Aug. 2000, vol. 1, No. 14. |
| XBRL Essentials, (A nontechnical introduction to the extensible Business Reporting Language, the digital language of business), Jan. 2001, Charles Hoffman, CPA; Carolyn Strand, PhD, CPA, (AICPA). |
| XBRL Home Page [online], extensible Business Reporting Language, [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.xbrl.org>. |
| Tools [online], extensible Business Reporting Language, [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.xbrl.org/Tools.htm>. |
| XBRL Technical Specification [online], extensible Business Reporting Language, [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.xbrl.org/TR/2001/default.htm>. |
| Bruce Halberg, “Special Edition, Using Microsoft® Excel 97, Bestseller Edition,” Que® Corporation (1997). |
| Elliotte Rusty Harold, “XML™ Bible,” IDGA Books Worldwide, Inc., An International Data Group Company, pp. 1-974 (1999). |
| David Megginson, “Structuring XML Documents,” Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 1-410 (1998). |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780 entitled “Reusable Macro Markup Language,” filed May 18, 2000. |
| Information on Exchange Rates of Africa, Asia, and Australia, web site: http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/infoafr.htm pp. 1-3, 2002 by EH.NET, downloaded Oct. 19, 2006. |
| Order of Magnitude (online Wikipedia article), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders—of—magnitude>, 2006 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. pp. 1-4, downloaded Oct. 19, 2006. |
| Gilster, Paul, Finding it on the Internet: The Internet Navigator's Guide to Search Tools & Techniques, 2nd edition (1996) (3 pages). |
| Jon Rienstra, “Using Excel® in Chemistry,” http://www.asa3.org/chemistry/computers—in—chemistry/excel—tips.html (1995) (4 pages). |
| Bederson, of al., “Pad++: A Zooming Graphical Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics”, UIST 94, Nov. 2-4, 1994, 10 pages. |
| Davis, “The Information System Consultant's Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design”, Chapter 51, RC Press LLC, 1999, 12 pages. |
| “ProQuest Information and Learning—0789717298—Special Edition Using Microsoft® Excel 2000,” http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/0789717298, Jan. 23, 2008, 3 pages. |
| Fulton, “Ten Minute Guide to Excel 97,” Dec. 12, 1996, http://techbus.safaribooksonline.com/print?xmlid=0-7897-1020-X%2Fch17lev1sec1>, 2 pages. |
| Office Action from copending U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, mailed on Jul. 11, 2013 65 pages. |
| Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 14/724,794 dated Dec. 21, 2015. |
| Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 14/724,801 dated Nov. 9, 2015. |
| Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 14/724,792 dated Oct. 16, 2015. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Mar. 25, 2014. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Sep. 3, 2013. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Mar. 14, 2013. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Sep. 28, 2012. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Aug. 2, 2011. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Apr. 12, 2011. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Dec. 14, 2010. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Jul. 14, 2010. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 10/980,266, dated Mar. 17, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/980,266, dated Sep. 12, 2007. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/980,266, dated Mar. 19, 2007. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/980,266, dated Sep. 5, 2006. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Oct. 2, 2014. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Feb. 20, 2014. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated May 22, 2013. |
| Decision on Appeal from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated May 1, 2012. |
| Examiner's Answer from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Nov. 24, 2008. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Nov. 1, 2007. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Jun. 11, 2007. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Nov. 2, 2006. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated May 18, 2006. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Dec. 19, 2005. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Aug. 23, 2005. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 10/052,250, dated Mar. 22, 2005. |
| Fulton, “Ten Minute Guide to Excel 97,” Dec. 12, 1996; http://techbus.safaribooksonline.com/print?xmlid=0-7897-1020-X%2Fch17lev1sec1>. |
| XBLR for Financial Statements Questions and Answers, Apr. 26, 2000, 6 pages. |
| Harding, W. E., “Finally, Business Talks the same Language,” Aug. 2000, 5 pages. |
| Arnold, K. et al., “The Java Programming Language, Second Edition,” The Java Series, 3rd Printing, Sep. 1998, pp. 466 pages. |
| Gosling, J. et al., “The Java Language Specification,” The Java Series, First printing, Aug. 1996, 853 pages. |
| Harold, E. R., “XML: Extensible Markup Language,” IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 1998, 458 pages. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Dec. 28, 2005. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Jul. 7, 2005. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Mar. 28, 2005. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Apr. 23, 2004. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated May 1, 2008. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Oct. 3, 2007. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Apr. 13, 2007. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Oct. 24, 2006. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated May 31, 2006. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Dec. 16, 2005. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Sep. 27, 2005. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Jun. 2, 2005. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Jan. 5, 2005. |
| Restriction Requirement from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778, dated Sep. 16, 2004. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated Mar. 31, 2014. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated May 15, 2013. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated Jul. 11, 2013. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated Jan. 7, 2013. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated May 29, 2012. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated Jan. 25, 2012. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,751, dated Aug. 11, 2011. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,750, dated Mar. 15, 2013. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,750, dated Aug. 11, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,750, dated Feb. 14, 2011. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,752, dated Feb. 2, 2012. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/222,752, dated Aug. 5, 2011. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,413, dated Feb. 8, 2005. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,413, dated Aug. 27, 2004. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 11/119,963, dated Dec. 15, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/119,963, dated Jun. 27, 2008. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/119,963, dated Feb. 5, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/119,963, dated May 29, 2007. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Mar. 26, 2007. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Feb. 20, 2007. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Oct. 19, 2006. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated May 10, 2006. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Jan. 5, 2006. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Sep. 20, 2005. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Apr. 7, 2005. |
| Advisory Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Jan. 26, 2005. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Oct. 26, 2004. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Mar. 11, 2004. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Oct. 8, 2003. |
| Restriction Requirement from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419, dated Jun. 18, 2003. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126, dated Mar. 24, 2014. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126, dated Oct. 21, 2013. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126, dated Feb. 27, 2013. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126, dated Nov. 17, 2010. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126, dated Jun. 9, 2010. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125, dated Oct. 22, 2014. |
| Bruce Hallberg et al., “Special Edition, Using Microsoft.RTM. Excell 97, Bestseller Edition, ” Que.RTM. Corporation (1997). |
| Elliotte Rusty Harold, “XML .TM. Bible,” IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., An International Data Group Company (1999). |
| David Megginson, “Structuring XML Documents,” Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1998). |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,419 entitled “Tree View for Reusable Data Markup Language,” filed May 18, 2000. |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,778 entitled “Reusable Data Markup Language,” filed May 18, 2000. |
| Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) 2.0 Specification, (Dec. 14, 2001), Editors: Luther Hampton, e-Numerate; David vun Kannon, KPMG LLP; pp. 1-42. |
| Information on Exchange Rates of Africa, Asia, and Australia, web site: http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/infoafr.htm, pp. 1-3, 2002 by EH.NET, downloaded Oct. 19, 2006. |
| Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press, p. 511 (1997) (3 pages). |
| Online Ohio CPA Newsletter, A Monthly Electronic Publication of the Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants; Aug. 2000, vol. 1, No. 14(7 pages). |
| Order of Magnitude (online Wikipedia article), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders.sub.--of.sub.--magnitude>, 2006 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. pp. 1-4, downloaded Oct. 19, 2006. |
| Tools [online], extensible Business Reporting Language, [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.xbrl.org/Tools.htm> (5 pages). |
| XBRL Essentials, (A nontechnical introduction to the extensible Business Reporting Language, the digital language of business), Jan. 2001, Charles Hoffman, CPA; Carolyn Strand, PhD, CPA, (AICPA), pp. 1-17. |
| XBRL Home Page [online], extensible Business Reporting Language, [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.xbrl.org> (3 pages). |
| XBRL Technical Specification [online], extensible Business Reporting Language, [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2002]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.xbrl.org/TR/2001/default.htm> (1 page). |
| The XML Cover Pages, Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), (1994-2002), Robin Cover, pp. 1-18. |
| Berkley et al., The Road to Better Business Information Making a Case for XBRL, Winter 2000, Microsoft, pp. 1-13. |
| Blattner, Special Edition Using Microsoft Excel (R), May 3, 1999 (C) Que Corporation “Adding a Secondary Axis to the Chart” (3 pages). |
| Gilster, Paul, Finding it on the Internet: The Internet Navigator's Guide to Search Tools & Techniques, 2.sup.nd edition (1996) (3 pages). |
| Charles Hoffman and Carolyn Strand, “XBRL Essentials, A Nontechnical Introduction to eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), the Digital Language of Business Reporting,” pp. 1-148 (2001). |
| Jon Rienstra, “Using Excel.RTM. in Chemistry,” http://www.asa3.org/chemistry/computers.sub.--in.sub.--chemistry/excel.su- b.--tips.html (1995) (4 pages). |
| Simon St. Laurent, “Why XML?,” http://www.simonstl.com/articles/whyxml.htm (1998) (5 pages). |
| Suzuki et al., “Managing the Software Design Documents With XML,” ACM Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, Sep. 1998, pp. 127-136. |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,125 entitled “Tree View for Reusable Data Markup Language,” filed Jun. 25, 2007. |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126 entitled “Reusable Data Markup Language,” filed Jun. 25, 2007. |
| Information on Exchange Rates of Africa, Asia, and Australasia, web site: <http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/infoafr.htm>, pp. 1-3, 2002 by EH.NET, downloaded Oct. 19, 2006. |
| Bruce Halberg, “Special Edition, Using Microsoft RTM. Excel 97, Bestseller Edition,” Que.RTM. Corporation (1997). |
| Bederson, et al., “Pad++: A Zooming Graphical Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics”, UIST 94, Nov. 2-4, 1994, 10 pages. |
| Davis, “The Information System Consultant's Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design”, Chapter 51, copyright 1999 by CRC Press LLC, 12 pages. |
| “ProQuest Information and Learning—0789717298—Special Edition Using Microsoft.RTM. Excel 2000.” Jan. 23, 2008 http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/0789717298, 3 pages. |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780 entitled “Reusable Macro Markup Language”, filed May 18, 2000. |
| Copending U.S. Appl. No. 11/819,126 entitled “Tree View for Reusable Date Markup Language”, filed Jun. 25, 2007. |
| Rienstra, Jon, “Using Excel.RTM.in Chemistry” Oct. 1995, http://www.asa3.org/chemistry/computers—in—chemistry/excel—tips.html. |
| Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, (C) 1997 Microsoft Press, p. 511. |
| St. Laurent, Simon, “Why XML?” (C) 1998 http://www.simonstl.com/articles/whyxml.htm. |
| Gilster, Paul, “Finding it on the Internet: The Internet Navigator's Guide to Search Tools & Techniques,” 2.sup.nd edition (1996), 379 pages. cited byother. |
| Halberg, Bruce, et al., “Special Edition, Using Microsoft.RTM. Excel 97, Bestseller Edition,” Que.RTM. Corporation (1997). |
| Harold, Elliotte Rusty, “XML.TM. Bible,” IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., An International Data Group Company (1999). |
| Megginson, David, “Structuring XML Documents,” Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1998). |
| Glister, Paul, Finding it on the Internet: The Internet Navigator's Guide to Search Tools & Techniques, 2.sup.nd edition (1996), 379 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 60/135,525, filed May 21, 1999. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 60/183,152, filed Feb. 17, 2000. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Oct. 29, 2009. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Apr. 1, 2009. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Sep. 25, 2008. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Feb. 7, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Aug. 17, 2007. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Mar. 2, 2007. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Sep. 21, 2006. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 09/573,780, dated Jun. 13, 2006. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20030041077 A1 | Feb 2003 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60263518 | Jan 2001 | US |
