Talk:Resources, Events, Agents

There is a statement in this document that "The competing XBRL GL standard however is at odds with the REA concept, as it closely mimics double-entry book-keeping"

What is the basis for this statement? Perhaps it depends on your definition of "double entry bookkeeping?

XBRL GL focuses on the viewpoint of a single organization, rather than the duality of REA. ERP systems don't track dualities - if the company is on the accrual method of accounting and the supplier is on the cash basis method, there are aspects where duality is true and others where it simply is not. It doesn't mean they compete - it means you need BOTH.

XBRL GL has as a goal the representation of the collections of data found in an ERP database rather than on individual transactions/business events.

XBRL GL is a model of ERP data AND a data representation language. You cannot say "show me this stack of invoices in an standardized electronic REA format", although there are a number of ways to convert UML models to XML or other data formats.

XBRL GL can represent double entry bookkeeping, but it is not in any way limited to double entry bookkeeping.

The examples provided in the XBRL GL distribution include many representations of information that have nothing to do with debits and credits at all, such as payroll timesheets or customer/vendor invoices.

XBRL GL has reusable components closely linked to resources (inventory, supplies, services), agents (customers, vendors, employees), and events. REA and XBRL GL are complementary, not "At odds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.68 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to editor(s) of main page: the [1] footnote link goes to the wrong document: a Workday document, not the ISO document, which the [1] follows, and is not cited at all. Here is a link to the ISO document: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.232.33 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)