Why is Genericode so Complex?

I need to point out the overlapping requirements for OASIS Genericode standard ( v1.0, December 2007 ) and those for my work on the OWL Code Value Core Ontology. Basically they're the same. OK, there seem to be a number of needs captured for genericode that are not part of CVCore, but IMO these are the boundary cases - needed in perhaps 1 or 2 percent of cases (a guestimate at this stage - note to self to look into measuring this). CVCore will be extended if needed to support these, or these advanced requirements can be met in specialised ontology(s) that subclass cvcore:CodeValue etc.

The MAJOR requirement that CVCore is addressing now, and which has been deferred until v2.0 of genericode is mapping between Code Value Items - which in CVCore is done via the hasEquivalent relation. Genericode 2.0 will support Derived Code Lists which seem likely to involve some tricky diff management techniques (uugh).

NB the post title refers to this presentation, published by Tony Coates. On Page 67 he explains that Genericode 1.0 DOES NOT support derived code lists (although they were part of the ) 0.4 draft.

Unfortunately the multi-version, equivalence relation is right at the heart of the Code Value problem (ever tried to understand why two systems validations don't line up for the same topic? Maybe they use different code list versions?) . This , coupled with the need for agreement on the Semantics encourages me that this work is valuable and will help the genericode efforts also.