Address Management Working Team (2nd) of the Review Meeting on Technical Requirements for Common Functions, etc. concerning the Unification and Standardization of core business systems in local governments

Overview

Date and time: December 13, 2022 (2022) (Tue) from 10:00 to 12:00
Location: Online Meeting
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Agenda
  1. Overall picture of the best proposal opinions on address management and how to proceed in the future
  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 13, 2022 (2022) (Tue) 10:00 am to 12:00 pm

Location

Online Meetings

1. Agenda

Address Management Working Team

1. Overall picture of the opinions on the optimal plan for address management and how to proceed in the future

Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of If you have any comments on the content of today's review meeting, please submit them by the morning of Thursday, December 15.

2. Explanation of Issue's policies on address management

Observer: The definition of common function will be implementation. Is the standard option function on the resident record system side only the use part of the numbering function in the common function, or is the numbering function in the resident record system also targeted?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of In the future, discussions will be held with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, but only the use of the numbering function in the common function is assumed. The handling of the numbering function for resident address numbers, which has already been defined as an essential function for implementation in the resident record system, will not be changed.
- Observer: The definition of Resident Record System does not select the standard option function, what will happen to the common function? If the resident address number is assigned on the resident record system side, will it be assigned on the common function side as well and will there be duplication?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As in the previous specifications, resident address numbers will be assigned in the resident record system, and non-resident address numbers will be assigned by the common function. When resident address numbers are assigned in the resident record system, it is assumed that it will be specified so that they are not assigned by the common function.
Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the resident address numbers is considered to be an essential function for implementation as a common function. Is it correct to understand that whether or not to use the function is a judgment based on the status of provision of the standard option function on the resident record system side?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As you know.
- Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the resident address management function is essential in implementation.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Resident Record System side, if the common function does not have the number function, the number cannot be integrally assigned. Therefore, it is considered that the common function side should not be variable and should always provide the function.
Observer: The definition of address information will be taken over after the twenty twenty-five or whether the discussion will be continued from fiscal 2023 to fiscal 2007, and the rough schedule and response method.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Among the contents being examined by the Study Group, those that have been arranged to be specified in the written specifications, such as the addition of the function of assigning resident address numbers in the common function, are expected to be included in the revision at the end of this fiscal year.
- Observer: The definition of Is it correct to understand that the measures to be taken from fiscal 2023 to fiscal 2007 should be reflected in this fiscal year, and the measures to be taken after twenty twenty-five should be continued?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As you know.
Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the , is the numbering system divided or is it sequential?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of We are considering the policy of not specifying any special provisions. Details will be explained in "2.1.2. Clarification of numbering policy for address numbers (resident and non-resident)". However, when numbering in an integrated manner, we will limit ourselves to establishing the requirement that numbers should be numbered so that they are unique, and the implementation method will be reviewed by the vendor. In addition, if numbering is not performed in an integrated manner, it is assumed that the implementation method in which the first digit is distinguished at the time of numbering will be specified as a reference.
- Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the Understood.
Observer: The definition of address numbers, but is it necessary to make the function of assigning resident address numbers an essential function of the common function? We think that it is necessary to discuss whether it should be an essential function of the implementation or a standard optional function. In addition, it is necessary to organize in consideration of the administrative burden as to which department is in charge of the numbering function of the common function in the implementation. Furthermore, if the common function has a centralized numbering function, it is necessary to examine whether or not the corresponding standard optional function on the resident record system side is appropriate. Regarding this handling, we would like to make a decision at the Standardization Review Meeting of the local government, which is in charge of the Standard Specifications of the Resident Record System. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of common function should be the standard option function is to be handled in consideration of the possibility that if both functions are variable, they may not be consistent in order to enable the local government to select centralized management. In addition, there is a circumstance that the standard option function is not specified because the common function is not in the whitelist format. It is the same recognition that some measures are necessary for the jurisdiction of the common function in the local government, and it is stated in the current standard specifications that the jurisdiction of the new function in the common function needs to be arranged in the local government. There is no objection to the treatment of the function of the resident record system being discussed at the Standardization Review Meeting in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and we would like to continue to discuss and adjust it.
Observer: The definition of There are cases in which address numbers are assigned centrally in the current system, and it is understood that this is the result of consideration to maintain this correspondence.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As you know.

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the It states that "Address information of non-residents refers to base registry for address in the horizontal alignment adjustment policy, so input fluctuation does not occur", but please reconsider the method and name because it is considered that input fluctuation occurs due to manual input.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of We will consider the matter based on your comments.
Observer: The definition of non-residents is collected by multiple services and updated individually. In addition, it is assumed that all of the Basic Four Information cannot be confirmed, such as the absence of sex on the driver's license. Therefore, the reliability of the information may not be sufficient. It is considered necessary to examine in detail the update and verification methods of the information, including the identification method of each service.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Basically, it is considered that registration will be made based on the information heard in each operation. In addition, it is considered desirable that the operation can be organized, but it is considered that the regulation is difficult in light of the fact that it spans each function.
Observer: The definition of Basics 4 Information is either the address on the resident record or the address of the evacuation destination.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Since it depends on the nature of each business, it has not been clearly specified at present, but we will consider it again based on other points pointed out.

Observer: The definition of support measures, information on residents is managed by the department that manages the basic resident register of each municipality. However, when information on non-residents is used by other municipalities, how is data connections assumed?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of support measure information is intended for data management in local government, and it is not assumed that it will be coordinated with other local government. In addition, regarding support measure information for residents outside the Issue, the assumption of coordination in the case of management by the address management system is being examined in another sub-region.
- Observer: The definition of non-resident to another municipality is not considered at present, but it is expected that the information will be transmitted to the perpetrator via another municipality in some use cases, so we would like you to consider the cooperation between municipalities.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of We are aware of the fact that there is use cases, which was commented on, and we would like to consider it as a future matter.
Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the support measures is supposed to be managed by each core business systems. What does it mean by "Since it is not information that can be held by each core business systems, it is assumed that it will be used by direct input, etc. when it is managed by the address management system"?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of It is a description error, so it will be corrected. It is not the information on the persons subject to the support measures, but the description error of the application form information. core business systems recognizes that the information on the persons subject to the support measures can be linked from the resident record system, but recognizes that the application form information is not linked from the resident record system. The description was based on the assumption that the same items are held in the address management system, but it will be corrected because it may be misunderstood.
- Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the Understood.
Observer: The definition of main sub Issue, support information for people outside the core business systems who need support, such as women and children, has been managed by each region. Does it mean that it will be managed centrally by the address management system? In that case, is there consistency based on various systems?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of is not essential, and management by each core business systems is the principle as before. However, this shows the arrangement in the case where local government decides to perform centralized management and has it in the address management system.
Observer: The definition of First of all, as a system theory, it is desirable to examine from the viewpoint of how to manage the information of the persons subject to the support measures for non-residents, and then examine from the viewpoint of how to manage the information on the system. If the information is managed by the address management system, there will be a department in local government that manages the information on the persons subject to the support measures, and the management department will be responsible. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the matter including each ministry and agency.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of systems. We will consider whether it is possible to consider the revision of written specifications at the end of fiscal 2022 or whether it will be a matter to be considered after the transition support period.
Observer: The definition of address numbers will lead to the cooperation of personal data within the Agency. However, there are information that should not be coordinated between services and information that can be coordinated, and it is considered that they should be discussed separately. It is considered that the latter should be targeted in this sub Issue, and the former should be examined separately.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As you commented, it is intended for information that can be linked.

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the is an independent new system? In addition, does it mean that the introduction of this system is necessary when registering non-residents in standard compliance system? In that case, it will be arranged that the function of managing the address numbers of non-residents is essential for standardizing each business system, but if the specifications are scheduled to be revised at the end of fiscal 2022, there is a possibility that halation will occur on the local government side. We would like you to adjust and consider this point.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As you are aware, it is necessary to configure it in each local government, and it is necessary to use the address number management function for non-residents when registering non-residents in standard compliance system. It will be examined based on the matters pointed out.

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the acquires the credentials of the credential management system such as core business systems National Health Insurance and nursing care through cooperation within the agency, it is assumed that the credentials of non-residents such as domicile exception for elderly staying in nursing care facility will be coordinated. Therefore, it is necessary to coordinate the address information of non-residents such as domicile exception for elderly staying in nursing care facility with core business systems in advance. How do you expect to respond after standardization?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Functional Cooperation Specifications.
- Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the Since it is currently recognized that there is no regulation, it is requested that consideration be given to uniformly bringing the address information of the non-resident address number management function to core business systems.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Understood.

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the It is stated that "distinguished by the first digit of the address number", but since core business systems has 20 businesses, it is considered that the first two digits are necessary to distinguish them. In addition, where is "resident classification (tentative)" expected to be added?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of services. It is sufficient to distinguish residents and non-residents, so it is considered that the first digit is sufficient. In addition, it is assumed that "Resident Classification (tentative)" will be added to the item definition document of the non-resident address number management function.
- Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the Understood.

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the Regarding the specifications that "after the forced cancellation of the exclusive control, the core business systems that has acquired the exclusive control is prevented from continuing the update processing", since there is no image of implementation, it is requested that supplementary information such as a sequence be added when reflecting it in the standard specifications.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Understood.

Observer: The definition of residence information. However, there is a possibility that the residential record address is overwritten with the residence information. Is there a problem in updating the master of the Basic 4 information every time?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of conflict, and it needs to be organized, but for the time being, it will be managed by keeping a history.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of Address Information, if there is any information other than the residence information and the address information, we would like to receive it.
- Observer: The definition of residence is ambiguous. It is considered that there is no need to discard residence information at the time of name-based aggregation.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of searches.

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the We would like to ask you to consider the current input rules because they do not seem to be sufficient to suppress input fluctuation.
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of .

Member: Is it correct to understand that the transition in "3. Confirmation of Name-based Aggregation and Issue Policies of Non-Residents" and "4. Others" on page 1 of the Materials 2 have not been taken up because there were few dissenting opinions?
- Secretariat: Scrutinize based on the opinion of As you know.

2. Other

No particular discussion

End