What IAES references, what it depends on, and what it does not claim
IAES 2.0 does not claim conformance to ISO 13374, ISO 17359, ISO 14224 or ISO 55000.
Earlier IAES material used the phrase “ISO-aligned” and described a field-level mapping to those four documents. IAES 2.0 withdrew those claims where the correspondence had not been verified against the cited document. Nothing about the wire format changed: the fields kept their names and their values, and what changed is what is asserted about them.
The Industrial Asset Event Standard (IAES) cites industrial standards where they supply context or a vocabulary defined outside IAES. Citation is not conformance. Naming a standard does not certify an implementation against it, and it does not mean a field’s meaning is governed by it — unless the specification says so, in which case it says so in the table below.
The distinction is the specification’s own. IAES 2.0 asks two separate questions of every reference it makes: is the value required to satisfy that document for the event to conform to IAES? and does the schema reject a value that does not? They are not the same question, and where they disagree, the disagreement is published rather than hidden.
All the fields named on this page are optional and backward-compatible. A system that does not need them ignores them entirely, and its events stay valid.
Two questions, asked separately of every reference.
Normative for meaning asks: must the value satisfy that document for the event to conform to IAES? Enforced by the schema asks: does the schema reject a value that does not? A reference can be normative and unenforced — and where the two disagree, the disagreement is the defect, so IAES publishes it instead of leaving it to be discovered.
| Document | Relationship to IAES 2.0 | Normative for meaning | Enforced by the schema |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO 4217 | currency carries an ISO 4217 code |
Yes | Partly. ^[A-Z]{3}$ checks the shape, not membership: ZZZ passes |
| ISO 14224 | Context for reliability and maintenance data. Named for the iso_14224 object and Appendix B |
No | No |
| ISO 17359 | Context for condition monitoring and acquisition. Named for units_qualifier and the acquisition fields |
No | No |
| ISO 13374 series | Historical context for condition monitoring. The attributions on iso_13374_status and condition_trend were withdrawn in 2.0 — the values are IAES’s own vocabulary and the field names are kept for 1.x compatibility |
No | No |
| ISO 55000 | Context for asset management | No | No |
The ISO 13374 entries say series rather than a part, on purpose. The unqualified citations covered at least two different subjects — health status levels and a processing model — which cannot both be the same part, and a citation that does not identify a document cannot be checked. Naming the family is the honest form when the part is not established.
So: an implementation that emits iso_14224 or iso_13374_status is emitting IAES fields, not ISO conformance. Those fields exist because the vocabularies they borrow from are widely understood, and they carry no certification. The one reference a value must actually satisfy is ISO 4217, and even there the schema checks the shape and not the list.
All of this is stated in the specification itself, under References. This page reproduces it; the specification governs.
The specific consequences of the table above.
iso_13374_status carries IAES’s own vocabulary. Its seven values — unknown through failed — are defined by IAES. The attribution to ISO 13374 was withdrawn in 2.0 because the citation did not identify a part and the correspondence was never verified against the document. The field name is kept so 1.x events stay readable, and it attributes nothing.
condition_trend is the same case. worsening, stable and improving are IAES values. A consumer that already works in condition monitoring will recognise them; that recognition is not a certification.
ISO 4217 is the one concrete dependency. A currency value must be an ISO 4217 code for the event to conform. The schema checks ^[A-Z]{3}$, which is the shape and not the list — ZZZ validates and is not a currency. That gap is published rather than left to be discovered.
Everything on this page is stated in the specification, under References and in Appendix C. Where this page and the specification differ, the specification governs.
An open event standard, with production-ready SDKs and schemas you can resolve.