Local governments Working Team (4th), Application Management Working Team (3rd), and Address Management Working Team (3rd) of the Technical Requirements Review Meeting for Common Functions, etc. on the Unification and Standardization of core business systems in data connections

Overview

Date and time: December 20, 2022 (2022) (Tue) from 10:00 to 12:00
Location: Online Meeting
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Agenda
  - Data connections Working Team
    1. Overview of Best Practices for data connections
    2. Description of Issue's response policies regarding data connections
  - Application Management Cooperation Working Team
    1. Overview of Best Practice Comments on Application Management
    2. Describe Issue's approach to application management
  - Address Management Cooperation Working Team
    1. Overview of Best Practices for Address Management
    2. Describe Issue's approach to address management
3. Other
4. Adjournment

Materials

Relevant policies

Unification and standardization of core business systems in local governments

Summary of proceedings

Date

December 20, 2022 (2022) (Tue) 10:00 am to 12:20 pm

Location

Online Meetings

1. Agenda

Data connections Working Team

1. Overview of the Best Proposal Opinions on data connections

No particular discussion

2. Explanation of Issue's response policies regarding data connections

Observer: We agree with the fact that file cooperation is based on Can Be this time. On the other hand, it is stated that "we are looking at data sharing platform, etc.", but we would like to confirm the impact on API cooperation on data sharing platform, including the schedule.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Digital Agency that there is no problem with the basic policy of file cooperation, and we believe that there will be no impact.
Observer: API collaboration is under consideration, but we would like to confirm what kind of collaboration will be targeted.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the At this point, we are not at the stage where we can show specific cooperation, so we will present it later.
Observer: I would like to confirm what exactly "File linkage is considered to be configured using cloud service" is.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the It is assumed that the object storage service, which is a managed service, will be used.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a file link premised on the use of the cloud service. However, we would like you to consider stipulating that it is desirable to introduce and provide related authentication and authorization servers in an integrated manner.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the We will consider the matter based on your comments.
Observer: If the "Overall Policies for data connections in the Agency" are revised to be based on file cooperation, it may be necessary to review the Basic Policies for Standardization based on API cooperation. If there is a policy for revision, it is requested to share it.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Basic Policies.
Observer: File Based on the linkage would be a major policy change, and I think there are good and bad points. However, it may be necessary to review the response policy of the sub Issue, which has been premised on the API linkage. For example, it may be necessary to review the linkage specifications with the original measure system and the response policy for the conformance check. Regarding the linkage with the original measure system, there are provisions for the functional requirements for the standard compliance system to receive data from another standard compliance system, but there are no provisions for the functional requirements for the standard compliance system to receive data from the original measure system. The implementation of the said linkage without provisions may fall under customization. If the organization is premised on the policy that customization is not allowed, it is considered that the original measure system can only provide data in place of the data provider.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the As you pointed out, we believe that it is necessary to review the affected parts in response to the overall policies. We will consider again the cooperation with the original action plan system based on your comments.
Observer: compatibility check is to check the API linkage. If it becomes the file linkage, it may be necessary to take measures including the preparation of the testing data.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the compliance.
Observer: Version management and parallel operation of API linkage are being considered, but isn't it necessary to consider the same for file linkage?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the In this review meeting, we discussed that version management of file linkage should include version information in the arrival confirmation file. Parallel operation will also be examined.
Observer: I would like to comment on future API collaboration. My Number System and the national and local Digital infrastructure Drastic Improvement Working Group local government Task Force are considering information linkages between organizations via data sharing platform. We believe that many local government derived data will be linked to the national government and other local government and private sector companies, but it is necessary to organize as a system where and what kind of data can be linked. I believe that this point has not been discussed by the Task Force. It should be made clear that anyone can not unconditionally obtain data by calling API.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on the points pointed out, we will consider it together with the relevant ministries and agencies.

Observer: #1 is understandable, but for #2, standard compliance system A may not be able to call either standard compliance system C or the original action plan system. Since the functional requirements for core business systems are in the form of a whitelist, functions cannot be added. Therefore, it may not be possible for standard compliance system C and the original action plan system to be in parallel.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the standard compliance system A that it will be received from the original action plan system. We will check the case again and consider it.

Observer: file linkage is used as the basis?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the At present, we believe that an authorization server is necessary because API cooperation remains. We are considering authentication for file cooperation using cloud service.

Observer: When providing sample data, please consult with us in advance as we are in charge of the standard specifications of the resident record system.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Understood.

Observer: If there is a provision that allows the parallel operation period, it is necessary to legally specify the parallel operation period in the same manner.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the We will continue to consider the matter based on your comments.

Observer: In order to enable differential cooperation in order to use files output based on data requirements for cooperation, we would like to confirm whether or not the Standard Specifications for Data Requirements and Cooperation Requirements will be revised by March 2023.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Since the provisions for differential cooperation are not specified in the Standard Specifications for Data Requirements and Cooperation Requirements, it is expected to be specified toward March 2023.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a Original Action Plan System, we would like to confirm whether the cooperation with the Integrated Collection and Delinquency Management System is assumed to be individually specified in the functional specifications or is included in the cooperation target in the basic data list.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Integrated Collection and Delinquency Management System, the direction of future consideration will be explained at the second review meeting on December 23.

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a transition be supplemented with prerequisites? It is difficult to implementation the standardized API to the pre-standardization system, and it is assumed that the baseline will be for file cooperation.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the reference, the concept should be supplemented.

Application Management Working Team

1. Overview of the Best Proposal Opinions on Application Management

No particular discussion

2. Description of Issue's response policies on application management

Observer: preset items and the management items of the standard specifications should be confirmed by the end of the fiscal year?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Standard Form and the detailed examination of the correspondence table between items will be promoted by the end of the fiscal year.

Observer: Standard Specifications? If so, isn't it difficult to make a judgment for each local government? Depending on the local government, it is assumed that the local government acquires information by itself by another means instead of having the applicant file an application.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the management items.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a Does it mean that procedures that are subject to standardization and for which presets are not provided do not need to be linked to the application management function?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Perfect Service are processed through the application management function. For items without presets, it is necessary to link them to the local government after making them correspond to the management items at the discretion of the core business systems.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a Office was based on file cooperation, but we would like to confirm the reason why the cooperation between the application management function and the core business systems maintained the API cooperation.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Perfect Service and the application management system are supposed to be linked by API, and in order to ensure consistency, the link from the application management will be maintained by API.
Observer: If there are provisions for management items in each standard specifications, is it correct to understand that it is possible to load them into standard compliance system without presets?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the As you know.

Observer: application management function and the resident record system, is it expected that the IF based on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications specifications will be specified as a standard optional function on the resident record system side, similar to the application data inquiry API?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the As you know.
- Observer: Resident Record System, the idea that the IF of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Specifications will be a standard optional function was shared. However, since the function of providing number linkage information to the application management function has already been specified, can it be interpreted that the current IF of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Specifications can be continuously used under that provision?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Basically as you know.

Address Management Working Team

1. Overview of the Best Draft Opinion on Address Management

No particular discussion

2. Explanation of Issue's policies on address management

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a common function an essential function of the implementation, it is expected to have an impact on the development schedule. In addition, it will take time to consider what policies should be made within the operator, including the standard option function on the resident record system side. We would like to propose again that the numbering function of the resident address number should not be added to the common function, and that only the non-resident address number should be numbered.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Common Functions are not in the whitelist format, they are handled differently from the standard specifications of core business systems and do not specify the standard optional functions. The provisions in the standard specifications of the Common Functions shall be continuously examined.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a , it is considered that there is an impact on the development schedule. In addition, it is considered that it takes time to eliminate the duplicate of the non-resident address number at the time of transition. It is understood that the number assigned by the non-resident address number management function will be used by each core business systems, but it is only when the My Number can be actually confirmed that the same address number can be used without assigning a different address number in daily business. Shouldn't the necessity of using the My Number as a common function be examined again based on how many business operations other than the business operations using the My Number exist among the 20 business operations to be standardized and how much the need for centralized management of the non-resident address number in the business operations other than the business operations using the My Number is?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the We will continue to consider the matter based on your comments.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a twenty twenty-five, it is necessary to make a decision based on the impact on the setup and application of not only development but also data transition. It is considered that the inclusion of residents will increase the risk of consideration and application.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on the fact that the necessity of the centralized numbering function is the response policy presented at this Review Board, we will continue to consider it based on your opinions.
Observer: As for the business operators who did not make any comments, we would like to hear their opinions on the impact on the development schedule, including after the meeting. We are concerned about the impact on the transition schedule until the transition deadline until the twenty twenty-five, and if the transition is not in time, the discussion will be meaningless. As stipulated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Resident Register Act, residents are managed using the Basic Resident Register, but it is necessary to clarify what the significance of centralized numbering of address numbers is outside the resident record system and what it is for once only. If the functions held by the common functions, including the subsequent sub-functions, expand, it may be basic that the Information Policy Division is responsible, for example, but it is also necessary to reorganize the departments in charge in the local government, and there are problems such as cost burden. In order to explain to the local government, we would like to ask for further detailed examination of the significance of centralized numbering. Issue
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on your opinion, we will continue to consider the advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we will ask for your opinion on the impact on the schedule after the meeting.
Observer: I feel that the advantages of centralized numbering are not organized. If the only purpose is to avoid duplication of numbering, it is sufficient to separate the numbering rules between residents and non-residents, and it is not necessary to integrate the numbering function.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the This provision takes into consideration the fact that there are some business operators who have realized centralized numbering under the current system.
- Observer: Consideration should be given to enable the same thing as the current system, but isn't it different from the problem of consideration and the mandatory requirement of the entire system as an essential function of implementation?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the We will consider it in light of your comments.
- Observer: It is understood that the discussion of the centralized numbering function is not to avoid duplication of numbering, but to realize one time only numbering including non-residents. If there is an operation flow that allows non-residents to notice that they have been managed as non-residents in the past when they move in, there is a possibility that the centralized numbering is not necessary.
- Observer: It is also necessary to consider from the perspective of how much one time only is required. For example, regarding the fact that local government keeps track of information on fixed asset tax, etc., when non-residents move in, it is assumed that there are cases in which they are favorably regarded from the perspective of the residents who move in and cases in which they are not. It is necessary to discuss this matter.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on the opinions, we will continue to consider, including the development of operation flow.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a common function, if it is subject to development for twenty twenty-five, there is a possibility that the function itself may become unnecessary or additional measures may be required as future policies. If uncertain factors remain, there is a possibility of return, so it is necessary to consider including not making it an essential function for implementation.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Future Vision and implementation Essential Functions will be examined.

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a , it is specified in the standard specifications that the Resident Record System uses character codes based on character information and that core business systems uses a degeneracy map. Are you considering reviewing the handling to other than that?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Details will be explained at the second review meeting on December 23.
Observer: On page 11, it is stated that the registration should include the residence. However, while the address on the resident record has been confirmed, it may be necessary to examine more carefully, including operation, whether the residence information can be updated.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the history management and registration methods.
Observer: Is it correct to understand that information similar to the past addresses of non-residents is accumulated as history information and managed? If a resident becomes a non-resident, is the history of being a resident also managed, or is it only managed as a non-resident? If centralized management is to be performed, a new department in charge is required. If in the future, information management of persons subject to support measures such as domestic violence will be added in addition to address information, stricter management will be required, and additional operation flow will be required.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the common function is only outside of residential areas, and after re-entry, it will be subject to management by the resident record system and will not be subject to management as a common function.
Observer: Resident Record, since the Juki Net can be used only for the affairs specified in the Appendix of the Basic Resident Registration Act, any misleading statement that can be used for other affairs should not be made. It is assumed that the four basic information as identifiers of non-residents may be different in the level of confirmation or all the information may not be obtained depending on the business, and it is considered that the statement should be made so as not to be caught in the message that these operations should be consistent depending on the policies of this Sub Issue.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on your comments, we will review the wording to ensure it is not misunderstood.

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a Is it correct to understand that "considering the unification of the API for numbering that includes the numbering of resident address numbers" is to unify the API for numbering the internal unified address number and the address number?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the As you know, in the case of integrated construction of non-resident address number management and internal address number, it is assumed that the flow will be complicated with the currently defined APIs such as calling each API, so we are considering integrating APIs.
- Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a organization is only to link the information of the subject from the core business systems to the core business systems in the operation flow. On the other hand, the numbering of the non-resident address number is assumed to be several exchanges from the search of the candidate to the registration in the operation flow, so it seemed difficult to create an image of integration. We would like you to consider simplifying the operation flow as well as the numbering of the non-resident address number like the numbering of the unified address number within the organization.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the candidates will remain to a certain extent, but we will continue to consider it based on your opinions.

Observer: , it is considered that the response will be made after the transition support period. However, since the support measure information is sensitive information, we would like to ask for institutional consideration based on the relevant ministries and agencies. It is understandable that there are many requests and questions, and we have no choice but to show the direction. However, if it is shown as a baseline, it is necessary to discuss whether there is no institutional problem. In some cases, it may be necessary to adjust with Personal Information Protection Commission, so sufficient consideration is necessary.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on the opinions, we will continue to consider the positioning of the materials.

Observer: Is it correct to understand that, as a transitional measure, if a standard compliance system is introduced prior to the introduction of the common function, the original function of numbering the addresses of non-residents may be maintained?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the If we can make a transition to the address number management function for non-residents until the transition support period at the end of fiscal 2025, we believe that it will not be a case in which we do not conform to the standardization standards even if we have maintained our own numbering function separately by then.
- Observer: I understand that a certain transitional measure has been prepared. It is better to be a little closer in terms of legislation.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Based on the opinions received, we will continue to consider it.
Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a , I think it is basic to make an inquiry from core business systems to the non-resident address number management function. Is it okay to search for the non-resident address information in the address management system?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the It is assumed that there will be such use cases.

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a domicile exception for elderly staying in nursing care facility.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the is under consideration, a response will be provided separately.

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a resident classification, it is considered that an operation flow for each pattern is necessary. When will the provisions as specifications be implemented?
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the . However, whether or not it is necessary will be continuously examined based on the overall schedule, together with the issue of whether or not to establish a unified numbering function in the common function.

Member: What should be used to determine whether or not a logical delete is necessary? Should a logical delete flag be added to the basic data list? In addition, as a workflow, is it a flow to add whether or not a logical delete is necessary for each functional requirement and then reflect it in the basic data list and functional cooperation specifications? It is assumed that some vendors are concerned about attaching a logical delete flag to all IFs.
- Secretariat: We are considering adding it to the Basic Data List and functional cooperation specifications.

2. Other

Future arrangement of data requirements and cooperation requirements

No particular discussion

In addition to data requirements, the concept of the Business Information Group

No particular discussion

End