OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tax message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [tax] CIQ: has any tax admin used it?

Hi all,

Please note that the objective of name and address specs. of
CIQ is to be "application independent" and "truly global". 
To meet this objective, the spec. should cater for different 
application requirements ranging from simple representation of 
name and address to complex representation (eg. data cleansing - parse and match, 
where you have to break the name and address structures into atomic components).
In addition to all of the above, the spec. should handle name and addresses
of 240+ countries.

It is unfortunate that organisations that implement name and address
specs. look at it from a specific application point of view. Any organisation
uses name and address data for various purposes (eg. data cleansing,
billing, marketing, etc) and the requirements vary. The best answer to
achieve interoperability of name and addres data within an organisation is
to have a single name and address standard that can meet the different
requirements. But this is not what is done normally. Different specs. are
implemented within an organisation addressing different requirements, 
and as a result interoperability becomes complex and almost impossible. The
complexity then grows as soon as the organisation attempts to interoperate the
name and address data outside its boundary. In this millenium where terrorism
is high on the agenda, organisations/governments are seriously looking at exchanging 
customer/party data with other organisations/governments and therefore,
interoperability of such data is becoming extremely important. 

Currently, the CIQ is looking at name and address specs. to make it more
flexibile. The committee is looking at an option of having three different
specs. for name and address (eg. basic, advanced and enterprise) that are
forward compatible (basic->advanced->enterprise). 

Basic: core/standard name and address components that are common to 
any application. 
Advanced: more structured name and address components 
(eg. former names. known as - broken into ind. components)
Enterprise: detailed and structured name and address components 
(eg. joint names, sub-divisions for companies, etc)
By this way, organisations requiring name and address for specific 
implementation can choose one of the above depending upon the requirement.
CIQ will continue to maintain its of objective "application independence" and

Any new requirements for name and address is welcome and the CIQ TC will give
serious consideration.


Ram Kumar

-----Original Message-----
From: Beasley, Christine [mailto:Christine.Beasley@ato.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:46 AM
To: Andy Greener; tax@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tax] CIQ: has any tax admin used it?

The ATO has elected to use an Australian Standard for name and address
information (AS4590) - primarily for the reasons Andy has mentioned -
CIQ is significantly more complex than we required at the time. However,
we have also identified a requirement to investigate CIQ from the
perspective of being able to exchange data internationally

Christine Beasley
Business Solutions
Australian Taxation Office
+61 2 9374 8466 (w)
+61 401 717 807 (m)

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Greener [mailto:andy@gid.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 01:16
To: tax@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tax] CIQ: has any tax admin used it?

At 1:47 am -0400 21/7/04, Andrew Webber wrote:
>Has anyone in the group used CIQ as the basis for the solution to an 
>identification requirement?  The Position Paper v1.0 says this:
>>- Monitor the progress of CIQ.
>>- Assess if CIQ has matured enough for the efficient
>>  and effective development of tax documents.
>>- Work on proof of concept to determine usefulness
>>  of CIQ within the tax context.
>which implies that the appropriateness of CIQ is still to be 
>If no one has used it, has anyone documented their reasons for ruling 
>it out?

We (UK IR) are conducting a thorough review of identification data
(including name and address) across all our services currently. CIQ will
be examined during that review, along with UK-specific standards such as
BS7666 for UK addresses.

I don't want to pre-empt the review, but I would say that the highly
structured form of names and addresses in CIQ may be overkill for many
uses - without some sort of gazetteer support at the point of input and
sophisticated address matching functionality internally it is probably
asking a bit much of most users to enter highly structured address data
and expect them to get it anything like correct or consistent. However,
there are some uses which benefit from such structure - so there is a
trade-off between usefulness and practicality.

Andy Greener                         Mob: +44 7836 331933
GID Ltd, Reading, UK                 Tel: +44 118 956 1248
andy@gid.co.uk                       Fax: +44 118 958 9005

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to


 The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.  If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation Office, telephone 13 28 69 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tax/members/leave_workgroup.php.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]