Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Address Management Working Team (1st) and data connections Working Team (2nd) of the Technical Requirements Review Meeting on Common Functions, etc. concerning the Unification and Standardization of core business systems in local governments

Overview

  • Date and Time: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 (2022) from 10:00 to 12:00
  • Location: Online Meeting
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Add Member
    3. Agenda
      • Address Management Working Team
        1. Explanation of the overall image of the Issue treated as the result of the preliminary questionnaire and the address management WT
        2. Discussion of policies for addressing topics
      • Data connections Working Team
        1. Overall picture of the opinions on the best plan for data connections and how to proceed in the future
        2. Description of Issue's response policies regarding data connections
    4. Other
    5. Adjournment

Materials

Relevant policies

Summary of proceedings

Date

Tuesday, November 15, 2022 (2022), from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Location

Online Meetings

1. Addition of Members

  • No particular discussion

2. Agenda

Address Management Working Team

1. Explanation of the overall image of the Issue treated as the results of the pre-questionnaire and the address management WT
  • No particular discussion
2. Discussion on the policy for addressing topics
1. Questions and requests for changes regarding address management itself

  • Observer: Regarding the response when move-in is concentrated, if the availability of the common function is higher than that of the resident record system, it is basically considered that there is no problem. In addition, re-move-in is defined in the standard specifications of the resident record system. Among them, based on whether it is acceptable to assign numbers without checking the history of information managed as a non-resident, it should be determined whether or not to integrate the address assignment function.
    • Secretariat: I would like to discuss the succession of address numbers at the time of re-transfer in .
  • Observer: The current address management system has been developed through the addition of functions during the operation of business. As a result, functions such as tax address, user editing, and customer editing have been added and have become complex. In this context, we would like to confirm again the concept of which range is assumed to be specified in the standard specification of the common function.
    • Secretariat: As you pointed out, the current address management system has different functions and management contents for each local government and business operator. Based on this, we have judged that it is difficult to define it as a standard specification, and have organized it as an original action plan system with horizontal adjustment policies. In addition, the current standard specification of the address number management function for non-residents stipulates that only the basic four information that is considered to be the minimum necessary for the aggregation of address numbers of non-residents should be retained.
    • Observer: I understand. Based on that premise, which business is assumed to manage non-residents?
    • Secretariat: Resident Records will jointly use and manage the Personal Identification Number. It is stipulated that the Personal Identification Number of the Resident Alien Address Number Management Function shall be controlled so that the Personal Identification Number cannot be used for business affairs other than the business affairs using the Personal Identification Number.
  • Observer: Response Plan be considered? The processing at the time of transfer is considered to be so-called low-latency and high-throughput processing, but it is recognized that there will be no particular problem if it is configured with a contract to use cloud services and auto-scale according to the load and throughput.
    • Secretariat: , but we would like to determine the direction after hearing the concerns, etc. in the case of implementation from the members.
  • Observer: address information will be considered transition after the Issue support period until the twenty twenty-five, but I think that the conclusion cannot be made immediately. On the other hand, if the future image is not described in the specifications at all until after the transition support period, it may be difficult for the system development to understand what the direction will be. Is it planned to mention some future image in the future revision of the specifications? If a certain direction is shown, it is possible to gradually advance the remaking toward the future image from vendors who can cope with it. In addition, since the current system is provided in an all-in-one package and some companies are performing integrated management of address information, I think that it is necessary to organize the system so that it does not violate the specifications, including implementation which utilizes them.
    • Secretariat: I understand. Based on the concerns, we would like to continue consideration in the direction of describing as much as possible. On the other hand, please understand that it is difficult to make a firm commitment to describe it at this point in time because it depends on how far the discussion will proceed, including whether or not to aim for centralized management.
  • Member: aggregation refers to. Is it only the function of assigning sequential numbers? In , there is a description that the rule that the number does not overlap is specified, so if it is only the function of assigning numbers, it is considered that special aggregation is unnecessary.
    • Secretariat: Primarily, only the numbering function is assumed. As you pointed out, we would like to hear your opinion on whether it should be aggregated, taking into account that duplication of numbers can be eliminated by specifying the numbering rule as a reference. In addition, we would like to hear your opinion if there is a necessary function other than the numbering function.
    • Secretariat: Separately, we plan to explain in , but by integrating the numbering function, it is assumed that the succession of address numbers at the time of transfer of non-residents will be possible by this response, and we would like to hear your opinions based on this aspect.
    • Member: I understand. Generally speaking, if addresses are consolidated and separated from the resident record system, there will be more points of failure, so I agree with the content of the matters to be considered.
  • Member: Resident Record System is introduced separately, it is expected that the integration of the numbering function will be costly. It is desirable that the members give their opinions on this point of view.

  • Member: "We will reiterate that the positioning of Basic 4 information held by the non-resident address number management function and the synchronization with other core business systems are not necessarily essential." Does this mean that the information of core business systems does not necessarily have to be reflected in the non-resident address number management function? Conversely, does it mean that the information of the non-resident address number management function does not necessarily have to be reflected in the core business systems?
    • Secretariat: The former is intended.
  • Member: Since the "contact information / delivery address information" described as not subject to standardization in this document is a management item in the tax system, it is requested that the consistency be confirmed including the horizontal adjustment policy.
    • Secretariat: I understand. We are aware of the provisions of the tax system. We will consider it in a manner that ensures consistency between standard specifications based on your opinions.

  • Member: the benefits of centralized management of internal unified address numbers and non-resident address numbers. It is not always possible to mechanically complete the judgment of the same person by collating the basic 4 information, and the reality is that the number of confirmation work will increase. Are there any benefits other than cleaning the address information?
    • Secretariat: At present, in some local government, the number of addresses for non-residents is several times the number of addresses for residents, so there is an advantage that unnecessary addresses will not be increased any more. In addition, we would like to see this as the first step leading to centralized management and cross-reference of address information after the reorganization of systems in the future.
    • Secretariat: As announced, the centralized management of address information of non-residents requires institutional arrangement, so it has been arranged not to be specified in the specifications this time. On the other hand, if necessary arrangement is made between core business systems offices within the Agency, it is possible to refer to information by referring to each other. In this case, if the address number of non-residents is centrally managed, it can be used as a key item, and it is considered to be a great advantage that it contributes to data connections offices within the Agency.
    • Observer: Office.
    • Observer: Number System, we recognize that the current situation is caused by a large number of addresses being sorted by name. On the other hand, depending on the business office, there are actually cases where the need for this is not felt and neglected. Therefore, in some local government, the person in charge of the system, etc., extracts the name sorting candidates as part of the periodic data cleansing and requests each business office to confirm whether or not they are the same person. In this standardization, it is assumed that there are cases where the need for numbering the address number to uniquely identify the non-resident is not felt depending on the business office, and in such cases, it is necessary to note that the address number must be increased.
    • Secretariat: We will continue to consider the matter in light of your comments.
  • Member: Basic 4 Can we use name aggregation by individual number instead of matching information?
    • Secretariat: Specifications, it is specified that the unified address function within the organization shall be sorted by individual number. In the function for managing the address number of non-residents, it is possible to sort by individual number in the office work using individual numbers.
  • Observer: Currently, when utilizing the Information Provision Network, local government is required to cooperate using the Unified Address within the Organization. Therefore, there are cases in which it is necessary to create an address for a new non-resident in the Registration of public money receiving account related to the payment of funeral service fee and the payment of insurance premiums in the case of death in the National Health Insurance, the second semester, and the long-term care under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. In light of such circumstances, the use of My Number Card will spread in the future, and applications using personal identification numbers will widely increase. Rather than assuming the survival of the address number including the Unified Address within the Organization, the expansion of the use of personal identification numbers should be considered. Issue
    • Secretariat: Personal Identification Numbers, and would like to use it as a reference for future discussions. On the other hand, since Personal Identification Numbers cannot be used for data connections within the Agency under the current system, we would like to consider the unification of address numbers as an approved means for the scope for transition in the twenty twenty-five.
  • Observer: We recognize that the reason why the unified address number within the organization cannot be used as a common address number in the Agency's data connections is that the target of numbering is limited to clerical work using the number. On the other hand, given that a considerable proportion of the addresses, including non-residents, have already been numbered with the unified address number within the organization, we think that it may be possible to relatively reduce the cost by numbering the remaining addresses with the provisional number of the unified address within the organization and positioning them as the common address number, rather than by building a separate address number management function for non-residents. On the other hand, if it is difficult to immediately implement the integration of the two functions, we can agree with the idea of showing a reference in the case of providing the functions integrally while separating them. Even as the data item explained as a premise, we think that it is possible to use the same number while keeping the unified address within the organization and the address number as separate items. In this case, it is unavoidable that the Basic 4 information must be used for the aggregation of addresses of non-residents who do not have personal numbers.
    • Secretariat: data items are unified, as already specified in the specifications, it is essential to collate the non-resident address numbers at the time of transition. In addition, at present, the internal unified address number is an arrangement in which a unique number is assigned to an individual, but if a number is assigned to a non-resident who has not been name-sorted, it is feared that the arrangement will collapse, and it was assumed that the internal unified address number and the address number would be managed as separate items.
  • Member: It is considered that items to distinguish residents and non-residents are necessary for integrated management.
    • Secretariat: We will consider it in light of your comments.
2. Elimination of questions and shortages of address management specifications

  • Observer: data connections WT It is possible to pass data from core business systems to the original action plan system, but we think that core business systems may not be able to receive data from the original action plan system. In that case, it may be necessary to consider again whether it is appropriate to organize the address management system with the original action plan system.
    • Secretariat: 's own action plan system to core business systems, the API already specified in the functional collaboration specifications will be used.
    • Observer: In this case, the same API is provided by more than one system, which causes conflicts.
    • Secretariat: The fact that the names of API calls overlap has been pointed out by data connections WT and we are aware of it. We would like to prevent conflicts from occurring by establishing a naming convention for the case where an original action plan system is provided. Separately, we believe that it is necessary to consider from the viewpoint of whether APIs of other systems can be used for business.
    • Observer: API call, it should be considered that the local government side cannot handle the change without customizing the name because the standard compliance system independently determines the business ID of the original action plan system.
    • Secretariat: We will consider it in light of your comments.

  • Observer: , it should be examined in consideration of the future situation in the spread of the concept of move-in appointments, etc. in one time only and moving OSS. Is it correct to organize the information already managed as a non-resident so that it does not need to be checked at the time of moving in? In addition, with regard to Article 9 of the Number Act, since the use of personal identification numbers is naturally assumed for residential basic affairs, it may not be a constraint on consideration.
    • Observer: Moving OSS, we have established policies in consultation with local government on the need for preprints and the like from the perspective of what Digital Agency will prepare for those who move in. At that time, the Number Act is applied to the affairs after moving in and becoming a resident as a matter to be stated in the Basic Resident Registration Act, but it has been arranged that Individual Numbers cannot be used unless they are residents before moving in, including move-in appointments. As a result, the identifiers to be used are also not Individual Numbers. Regarding the use of Individual Numbers of each core business systems before moving in, we believe that policies will be established after individual consultation between Digital Agency and each government agency based on each law.
  • Secretariat: Resident Record System, there is little need for information on non-residents, so it is desirable to respond on the core business systems side, where name-based aggregation is required. It was arranged that it would be fine if re-entry could be confirmed within the Resident Record System.

  • Observer: , are applicable. Therefore, it is considered that the specifications should be made according to the requirements.
    • Secretariat: We will consider it in light of your comments.
3. Confirm the policies of name-based aggregation and transition of non-residents
  • No particular discussion
4. Other
  • No particular discussion

Data connections Working Team

1. Overall picture of the opinions on the best plan for data connections and how to proceed in the future
  • Due to meeting time, questions and answers are omitted.
2. Explanation of Issue's response policies regarding data connections
  • Due to meeting time, questions and answers are omitted.
  • Observer: When should the optimal plan opinion be presented to the sub Issue whose response policy and handling have not been decided this time?
    • Secretariat: We plan to present our response policies at the next working team meeting on November 29 (Tue), so we would like to hear your opinions at that time.
3. Other
  • No particular discussion

End