This is a widely used standard especially in the EU. The actual data fields are quite limited, with the only really significant parts being a country code field (following ISO 3166 standard) and an ID number. The specification of the ID number appears to be open so there is a potential for duplicate numbers in some cases. For an extensive discussion of the inadequacies of the standard from a technological read/write perspective and with regard to ID number conflict (RFIDNews 2009) . It is clear that this standard is widely used internationally, especially as it has been used not just for farm animals but also domestic pets. From a data modelling perspective, there is a problem with the absence of a data attribute for species as in some contexts actors want multi-species databases. Species data is “permitted” but not explicitly stated. In the UK, this system has not been used until recently and for an extensive analysis consult (ScotEID 2013) . The main conclusion to draw here is that although this standard has only a limited number of fields it is not sufficiently explicit (“formal”) and thus confusions arise. The potential for duplicate id numbers is also very problematic. First assessment made by Christopher Brewster.