- The ACORD standards organization
- Access the ACORD TXLife standards documentation
- Anatomy of an ACORD TXLife message
- Represent business data objects with OLifE
- Relationships among top-level objects
- Type codes
- Real-life ACORD implementation challenges and solutions
- Downloadable resources
- Related topics
Anatomy of the ACORD TXLife XML standard
Under the covers of the insurance industry's primary XML standard
Like many other commercial segments, the insurance industry has become increasingly reliant on XML standards for internal and external data integration. In the life, annuities, and health insurance world, the Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development (ACORD) organization is the standards-bearer, and the ACORD Transactional/Business Wrapper (TXLife) Specification schema is the dialect of choice. Getting started with this complex standard can be a daunting task. In this article, learn the basic structures in an ACORD TXLife XML message as well as how to successfully navigate the standards documentation.
The ACORD standards organization
ACORD is the focal point for standards development in the insurance industry. A membership organization comprised of insurance carriers, brokers, agencies, service providers, and vendors, ACORD strives to meet the evolving needs of the industry through the collaborative development of relevant standards. Throughout the association's history, the nature of these standards has evolved to include a variety of deliverables, such as electronic data interchange (EDI) formats, paper forms, and XML schemas. ACORD also serves a wide audience across three distinct verticals: Life, Annuities, and Health; Property and Casualty; and Reinsurance.
This article explores the XML standard for the Life, Annuities, and Health vertical—known in ACORD jargon as the ACORD TXLife standard. TXLife is used for both internal and external integration among industry systems.
Example applications of the ACORD TXLife standard include:
- Submission of an insurance application to a carrier
- Sending and receiving orders, status, and results of underwriting requirements
- Communication of insurance product "profiles" to distributors
- Transmission of commission information
- Exchange of in-force or pending policy data
Access the ACORD TXLife standards documentation
Before exploring the standard any farther, however, download the most recent version of the ACORD TXLife XML specification (see Related topics for a link). Note that there are separate member and non-member options as you download the file. Significant differences exist between the public and member downloads of the ACORD standard: If you are working for an insurance company or other industry participant, it's worthwhile to determine whether your organization has a membership. Representatives of member companies can easily register on the ACORD website and gain access to the enhanced content.
The public ACORD download contains:
- The ACORD Life Standards Object Reference Model (PDF)
This is the best place to start to gain a general understanding of how the TXLife standard is structured. It provides a diagrammatic view of the major components of the ACORD TXLife Schema, serving as a high-level road map to the various logical entities in the model.
- The ACORD Life Standards Public Documentation (PDF)
This document is the most comprehensive publicly available source of information about the standard. It offers:
- A detailed overview of the use of the standard
- Information about TXLife transaction types
- A "dictionary" of the logical entities and their field-level documentation
- The allowable code values for "type code" fields (enumerations)
- The ACORD TXLife XML Schema (XSD)
This is the XML schema itself.
The members' download additionally provides:
- The ACORD Life Standards Help File (CHM)
This document contains similar information to what is available in the ACORD Life Standards Public Documentation but represented in a more easily navigable Windows® help file format.
- The ACORD Life Standards Metadata (XML)
This XML file provides in-depth information about the ACORD model, including documentation and enumerations, in a machine-readable format. This is arguably the most overlooked yet most valuable members-only asset.
- Alternate (enumerated/documented) version of the TXLife Schema
Three versions of the TXLife schema are included in the members download rather than just one:
Identical to the public schema
Includes the allowable values for each type code field
xsd:annotationsto document elements and type code values
Anatomy of an ACORD TXLife message
Now that you have the reference materials you need to work with the TXLife standard, take a look at the skeletal structure of a typical TXLife message (Listing 1).
Listing 1. Listing 1. A typical TXLife message
<TXLife> <TXLifeXXX> [TXLife Header Section] <OLifE> [Top Level Objects, e.g., Party/Holding/PolicyProduct/Relation] </OLifE> </TXLifeXXX> </TXLife>
The root node of any ACORD TXLife XML document is
<TXLife>. Look at this element first if
you're navigating the schema itself.
A second wrapper element is inside the TXLife root element. Although
several other options are available, this is most typically
<TXLifeResponse>, or (less frequently)
<TXLifeRequest> when submitting an
initial request or when initiating a transmission of information. You use
responding—typically synchronously—to a
<TXLifeRequest>. Although you can create
<TXLifeRequest> tag for which no
<TXLifeResponse> is expected (for
instance, in a fire-and-forget messaging pattern), the reverse is not
typical. Most of this structure should be intuitive. What is not
as obvious is that a
<TXLifeRequest> does not necessarily have
to be a request for information. Instead, it can represent a
simple transmittal of information, such as the status of an application
<TXLifeNotify>, which you
might assume is correct for this purpose, is actually a seldom-used
construct for notifying a requester that some information is ready pending
The immediate children of the secondary header are a set of header-like elements that describe the transaction itself. Listing 2 provides one example.
Listing 2. Listing 2. A skeletal TXLife transaction
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <TXLife Version="2.25.00" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://ACORD.org/Standards/Life/2"> <TXLifeRequest> <TransRefGUID>C396EEB0-171B-11D4-AB93-009027E539F</TransRefGUID> <TransType tc="103">New Business Submission</TransType> <TransExeDate>2003-09-11</TransExeDate> <TransExeTime>10:48:40</TransExeTime> <OLifE> </OLifE> </TXLifeRequest> </TXLife>
TransRefGUID is a GUID used to uniquely
identify the request. This element is also used as a correlation ID on a
TXLifeResponse message. Although
this example uses a standard GUID format in this field, the standard does
not impose this. As a result, some implementations generate a more natural
key based on certain critical data elements in the message.
TransType is the transaction type of the
message. You may have noticed that the TXLife schema is a single XSD
without any message-specific data elements. For instance, there is no
NewBusinessRequestMessage element type definition. Instead,
the recipient determines the type of message being received from the
tc attribute of the
TransType element in the header. After the
recipient knows the
TransType, he or she can
make assumptions about how to interpret the business data contained in the
Commonly used example
- 121. General requirements order request
- 103. New business submission
- 1125. Case status notification transmittal
- 1206. Commission statement transmittal
The ACORD Public TXLife Standards documentation provides basic details for
each transaction type in the standard. These details include the general
purpose of the message along with the expected content of an XML instance
document with the specified
It is important to note that currently ACORD does not publish transaction-specific sub-schemas. The TXLife schema provides an expansive dictionary of data types that you can use in a given message. Within the schema, most elements are optional. The standards documentation provides basic guidance on which fields and data aggregates become required in the context of a specific transaction type.
Represent business data objects with OLifE
<OLifE> element within the
second-level header (for example,
TXLifeRequest) is the container for the
business data in the message. Look at the ACORD Life Standards
Object Reference Model. In this PDF, you will see all of the children of
<OLifE> element. In the ACORD
vernacular, these children are called top-level objects. They
invariably represent the principal actors or subjects of the TXLife
Listing 3 offers an example of a complete TXLife message with an OLifE message body.
Listing 3. Listing 3. Complete TXLife message with OLifE
<TXLife Version="2.25.00"> <TXLifeRequest PrimaryObjectID="Policy_1"> <TransRefGUID>706D67C1-CC4D-11CF-91FB444554540000</TransRefGUID> <TransType tc="502">Holding Change</TransType> <TransExeDate>2006-11-19</TransExeDate> <TransExeTime>13:15:33-07:00</TransExeTime> <ChangeSubType> <ChangeTC tc="9">Change Participant</ChangeTC> </ChangeSubType> <OLifE> <Holding id="Policy_1"> <HoldingTypeCode tc="2">Policy</HoldingTypeCode> <Policy> <PolNumber>1234567</PolNumber> <LineOfBusiness tc="2">Annuity</LineOfBusiness> <Annuity> </Annuity> </Policy> </Holding> <Party id="Beneficiary_1"> <PartyTypeCode tc="2">Organization</PartyTypeCode> <FullName>The Smith Trust</FullName> <Organization> <OrgForm tc="16">Trust</OrgForm> <DBA>The Smith Trust</DBA> </Organization> </Party> <Relation id="Relation_1" OriginatingObjectID="Policy_1" RelatedObjectID="Beneficiary_1"> <OriginatingObjectType tc="4">Holding</OriginatingObjectType> <RelatedObjectType tc="6">Party</RelatedObjectType> <RelationRoleCode tc="34">Primary Beneficiary</RelationRoleCode> <BeneficiaryDesignation tc="1">Named</BeneficiaryDesignation> </Relation> </OLifE> </TXLifeRequest> </TXLife>
In this message, the primary beneficiary is being added or changed on a
policy. There are two top-level objects: the
<Holding> and the
<Party>. Coincidentally, these are the
two most heavily used top-level objects in the ACORD model. Other
top-level objects that you are likely to encounter include
<Holding> represents any type of
financial holding. Most often, it will be a policy, but it can also be an
investment, loan, or mortgage. A
represents a person or organization.
In this example, the
an insurance policy. You can determine that this is a policy by the
presence of the
<Policy> child aggregate
as well as through the value of the
<HoldingTypeCode>. Similarly, you can see
<Party> is in fact an
organization, given the value of the
<PartyTypeCode> and the presence of the
<Organization> tag. This is a common
design pattern throughout TXLife. Inheritance relationships are most often
represented as child elements indicating subtypes. There is at least one
other example of this in the XML instance document in Listing 3.
Try to find it.
Relationships among top-level objects
You may have noticed that I have not yet discussed the third top-level
object in the example. The
element is the primary means of defining the relationship between two
top-level objects. The concept is similar to that of a "many-to-many"
relationship table in a database system.
<Relation> element has the components
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Table 1. Core components of the TXLife Relation element
|A reference to the object that is the noun in the relationship|
|A reference to the object that is the direct object of the relationship|
|The originating top-level object's type|
|The originating top-level object's type|
|The nature of the relationship between the two objects|
Using this structure, TXLife implementers can avoid duplication of data in the XML stream, as a single entity (for example, a person) can serve in multiple roles within the same message (for example, the insured and owner of an insurance policy).
Rather than using different natural keys based on the object type, ACORD
uses IDs and ID references as pointers between related objects. All
top-level objects in the model have an
attribute. By convention, IDs are typically created by concatenating the
type of the object, an underscore (
_), and a
counter (for example, "Party_1", "Holding_2").
The content of the
id attribute can only to be
used to determine relationships between objects within the same TXLife
message. They are not intended to be maintained between XML streams. That
is, the same logical entity may have a different ID in a later
TXLifeRequest or a related
In addition to their use within
elements, object ID attributes are used in conjunction with ID references
throughout the model whenever one object directly references another. ID
references of this type are also represented as attributes—for
<RequirementInfo AppliesToPartyID="Party_1" PhysicianPartyID="Party_2" FulfillerPartyID="Party_3">
IDs and ID references are one of the two major uses of XML attributes in the ACORD TXLife XML schema. The other use is ACORD type codes. The type code is the TXLife mechanism for representing any standardized list of allowable values in the standard.
The previously discussed
is an example of a field that uses the type code structure:
<TransType tc="502">Holding Change</TransType>
Any tag with a
tc attribute represents a type
code field. Type codes have an enumerated set of integer values that you
can use as the attribute. These values correspond to a set of
human-readable descriptions typically used as the textual body of the
A common mistake in ACORD implementation is to code to the text value, not
tc attribute. The text value is only
present for legibility and should never be used in defining processing
rules. Another less-common problem is "inventing" type code values rather
than using the values enumerated in the ACORD standard.
In those cases where ACORD has not defined a particular value as an option
in the enumerated type code list, implementers have the option of using
the "Other" value:
2147483647. This value is
different and distinct from the "Unknown" value:
0. If the use of "Other" proves too broad (as
in the case where you do need to perform processing on this custom value),
you can use an ACORD private type code value—a range of
integers reserved for customized use. Refer to the standards documentation
for the specifics on this topic.
If you are not an ACORD member, you will need to refer to the ACORD Life Standards Public Documentation PDF for valid type code values and their text equivalents. Members can use the documented version of the schema, the machine-readable metadata XML file, or the help file to find this information.
The TXLife schema is exceptionally broad and flexible, but there are
occasionally times when you need to extend the model. ACORD offers two
customization without sacrificing schema compliance.
Most aggregates in the TXLife schema include the
OLifEExtension element. This element is defined
<xsd:any> and can be used to
hold arbitrary, custom, complex XML extensions. The
VendorCode attribute is defined by ACORD and
serves a purpose similar to a namespace. It allows the receiving party to
determine who has defined the extension (Listing 4).
Listing 4. Listing 4. Example of an OLifEExtension
<OLifEExtension VendorCode="000"> <CustomStuff> <CustomA>This is important</CustomA> <CustomComplexStuff> <CustomField>1.0</CustomField> </CustomComplexStuff> </CustomStuff> </OLifEExtension>
The other extension mechanism is a
KeyedValues provide a means of adding a simple
field to a supporting aggregate:
<KeyedValue VendorCode="000"> <KeyName>CustomField</KeyName> <KeyValue>1.0</KeyValue> </KeyedValue>
Real-life ACORD implementation challenges and solutions
Now that you have taken a tour of the major components of an ACORD TXLife message, consider the challenges that accompany real-life implementation.
The flexibility of the ACORD standard is a double-edged sword
If you have paged through the documentation or loaded up the schema in the tool of your choice, you were likely impressed by the breadth of what has been defined. Think of an industry-relevant message, and it can probably be represented with the ACORD TXLife schema.
However, this flexibility also carries with it the burden of ambiguity. ACORD does not publish transaction-specific schemas. Even the human-readable documentation for a given transaction type leaves many elements optional and much open to interpretation. As a result, it is possible to build a transaction "to the specification" and even to have it "certified" by ACORD itself, yet have it fail to meet the requirements of the trading partner or system with which you are trying to communicate.
When you are acting as the sender of an ACORD TXLife message, your first source for detailed transaction requirements should be the receiver. Many vendors and service providers have created their own "implementation guides," often containing sample XML payloads. Use these guides as the starting points for your implementation, with the ACORD documentation as supporting reference material.
When you are building a process to receive an ACORD TXLife message, do consult the ACORD transaction documentation, schema, or any relevant ACORD-published implementation guides. However, also consider adopting conventions similar to others that work with the same transaction.
The ACORD TXLife schema presents challenges to traditional tooling
The nature and structure of the ACORD TXLife schema presents its own challenges. First, the schema itself is huge—several megabytes in size. This can cause many of the generic XML tools on the market to respond poorly or crash altogether. The size and scope of the schema can also cause trouble when it is used in conjunction with object-binding technologies such as the Java™ Architecture for XML Binding (JAXB) or when used within a Web Services Description Language (WSDL) file against which a code-generation utility may be run.
It is often advisable to "slim" or "slice" the schema to include only those data elements you will be using in your transaction or transaction set. Although you can certainly do this manually, it is a painstaking process. ACORD and several ACORD-aware vendors offer utilities to facilitate the definition of these sub-schemas.
Second, mapping and transforming proprietary data formats to and from the
ACORD TXLife structures can be a daunting task. The main challenge comes
from the heavy use of the
and the reuse of top-level objects. Most graphical transformation tools
are linear in nature: You connect a field in the source format to a field
in the target. However, in ACORD, the same field (for instance, under
"Party") can be used in a number of different contexts (the insurance
carrier, the agent, the insured, the beneficiary, and so on).
Think about mapping to the structure of a specific transaction, not to the entire ACORD schema. To this end, consider using a template-based transformation language such as Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT). Using XSLT, you can use a sample XML document for a given transaction as the base of your transformation. From there, you can map your proprietary data into the correct instance of a given top-level object.
With a few rare exceptions, the ACORD Schema enforces element order. Most
things are defined as an
of many optional elements (top-level objects are an exception). This
requires either a great deal of care when handcrafting your transactions
or selecting tooling that handles it for you.
If you do choose a language such as XSLT to generate your mappings, pay attention to element order as you build your transaction. Most schema validation tools provide vague error messages when TXLife elements are not in the correct order. The large number of optional elements on a given aggregate can make it maddeningly difficult to determine which fields have been transposed. It is much easier to build your message with this in mind than to go back and correct validation errors after the fact.
The ACORD TXLife specification is a powerful and widely implemented XML standard in the life, annuities, and health insurance industry. Although the schema is immense, the learning curve is manageable after you understand the basic structure of any TXLife message.
XML instance documents begin with the
<TXLife> header, where the transaction
type and other messaging semantics are defined. The core of a TXLife
message is the
OLifE element and the top-level
objects with which it is populated. Top-level objects such as
<Holding> represent the business data in
the message. The relationships among these objects are handled through the
The size of the ACORD schema and the absence of transaction-specific schemas create special considerations for ACORD development projects. These factors should be considered during the design and tool-selection phase of an implementation. Luckily, the ACORD website offers a number of utilities and reference materials that will help you get started in the right direction.
- Visit the ACORD Standards Organization home page.
- Explore the ACORD implementation tools and reference materials.
- Validate ACORD messages with the ACORD testing and certification facility.
- Access the ACORD standards files.
- IBM product evaluation versions: Download or explore the online trials in the IBM SOA Sandbox and get your hands on application development tools and middleware products from DB2®, Lotus®, Rational®, Tivoli®, and WebSphere®.