Is it possible to hide anchoring in Inline Viewer?

[a_migliore]

Dear SAP Experts,

I am using SAP DM to produce the iXBRL according ESEF regulation. In the inline viewer the anchoring section is showed. In our model there are some extended tags that were anchored to standard concepts using wider relationship as you can see.

Of course, there is a correlate narrower anchoring between the standard concepts and the extended one. So in the inline viewer this relationship is showed, as you can see below:Auditors believes that the second relationship could not be showed and asked for hiding or deleting it.

So, is there a DM functionality not to show anchoring in Inline Viewer clicking on a standard concepts? Or is it possible to change some parameters in the Taxonomy Editor?

Thanks,

Andrea Migliore

[Olga_Vasileva]

a.migliore , as Marc stated DM doesn't have any control over this.

In any way, anchoring to narrower concepts is not mandatory by ESEF unless an extended concept is a combination of two or more standard concepts. If auditors don't agree with the proposed narrower tags, you can delete them and leave only wider tag anchoring in place.

[a_migliore]

Hello Olga,

thanks for your answer. I know that SAP DM has no control over this, so I was wondering how to show only the wider tag. Of course it is not possibile doing this in excel in SAP DM. I tried to operate in the Taxonomy editor but I could delete the complete anchoring link only (so that no anchoring is showed and the [ESEF.3.3.2.anchoringRelationshipsForConceptsDefinedInElrContainingDimensionalRelationships] appears as Marc stated).

I found in the html code also, but also in this case you can delete the global anchoring link only.

So under every circumstances I am able to remove both narrower than wider anchoring, but not the narower only.

Do you have found a workaround to achieve this request?

Thanks a lot.

Andrea

[Olga_Vasileva]

Hi a.migliore, deleting or hiding only one part of the wider/narrower relation is not consistent both logically and technically.
If auditors are worried about the wider and the narrower concepts being in the same list, maybe you should consider anchoring your extended concept to another wider standard concept, that is not used in the financial statement in question? This way there will be only a link to a wider concept, but no wider concept visible to see the narrower concept linked to it.

[filippocorvi]

Hi Marc,

Allow me in the conversation, there is an open OSS note about this topic and the answer from your colleague is the following:

8000000371 - Costs items for services and Operating

DM does not have any control on the anchoring display.
The anchoring information is in the taxonomy (definition link-base), so if the anchor is present, the previewer will show it.
Anchoring to narrower concepts is not mandatory by ESEF unless an extended concept is a combination of two or more standard concepts. If auditors don't agree with the proposed narrower tags, you can delete them and leave only wider tag anchoring in place.
This recommendation has already been communicated to Andrea via the SAP DM community space - see https://answers.sap.com/questions/13585217/is-it-possible-to-hide-anchoring-in-inline-viewer.html
Regards,
Can you kindly explain better how to do the step of deleting narrowed tags and leave only wider tags anchoring, please?

thanks in advance

Best regards

Filippo Corvi

[Marc_Kuipers]

Hi a.migliore

The anchoring information is purely in the taxonomy (definition link-base), so if the anchor is present, the previewer will show it (DM has no influence on this)

So, you could not anchor the concept, but you will probably get a ESEF validation warning/error

[ESEF.3.3.2.anchoringRelationshipsForConceptsDefinedInElrContainingDimensionalRelationships]

Marc

[a_migliore]

Hello Marc,

I probably create the question in wrong terms: auditors are asking us to mantain the anchoring but show only the wider anchoring in the Inline Viewer.

I think this is impossible, but I may ignore some functionalities to do this.

Thanks a lot for your answer.

Regards,

Andrea