The EQF is to become the most outstanding instrument of European educational policy. The consultation process and debates before it have shown substantial criticism, and a severe lack of empirical evidence and theoretical foundation of the EQF has been stated. Despite the fact that the table with the reference level descriptors of the EQF is the by far most commented and reviewed table in Europe the criticism had little impact on the core structure of that table. Why was that the case? Critics tend to misinterpret the EQF in their argumentation by looking at the EQF only from one or in the best case two specific angles. The aim of this paper is to show that the EQF can only be understood by taking into account at least three dimensions (ironically once referred to as the "holy trinity") and by highlighting the three different taxonomies underlying the EFQ table, namely,- a hierarchy of skills acquisition,- a hierarchy of educational systems and- a hierarchy of occupational tasks and functions.For several reasons these hierarchies could not be made explicit in the document outlining the EQF, but had to be incorporated implicitly to make the EQF the (argumentative) strong tool it has become. It will further be shown how this is linked with existing classifications of education (ISCED) and occupations (ISCO) and explore the role of learning outcomes, especially competencies, by comparing the EQF descriptors to other typologies of skills and competences. By doing so we show that one-dimensional approaches of skills and competences can be more easily scientifically grounded, but the EQF per definition has to be more-dimensional. A theoretical foundation of the EQF therefore seems not to be possible and we do not claim to give such a foundation, but we offer a hermeneutical approach giving a better insight in the meaning of the EQF table.The work draws on discussions and documents which have been produced in the Technical Expert groups on the reference level descriptors of the EQF (2006), on ongoing consultancy for the EC on the further development of the EQF, on analyses of NQFs and on studies and practical work on classifications of skills and competences. This approach will lead to a better insight how to understand and read the EQF table. CEDEFOP (2006), Typology of knowledge, skills and competencies. Reference Series 64 CEDEFOP (2005), European reference levels for education and training promoting credit transfer and mutual trust. Study commissioned to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, England. Cedefop Panorama series; 109 Markowitsch J., Becker M. und Spöttl, G. (2006), Zur Problematik eines European Credit Transfer System in Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), in: P. Grollmann, G. Spöttl, Felix Rauner (2006): Europäisierung Beruflicher Bildung - eine Gestaltungsaufgabe. Bildung und Arbeitswelt. Hamburg: LIT. Markowitsch, J., R. Gaubitsch und C. Plaimauer (forthcoming), New Developments in the early identification of skill needs in Austria: The AMS-Skills Barometer, in: Skillsnet, CEDEFOP Markowitsch, J. und C. Plaimauer (2002), Klassifizierung beruflicher Qualifikationen, in: Hofstätter, M. und R. Sturm (Hrsg.): Qualifikationsbedarf der Zukunft I. Früherkennung und Darstellung von Qualifikationsbedarf. AMS-Report 34, Wien: Verlag Hofstätter, S. 9-22. European Dictionary on Skills and Competencies - DISCO http://www.skills-translator.net/European Journal Vocational Training