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

Overview

Date and time: December 23, 2022 (2022) (Friday) from 13:00 to 15:00
Location: Online Meeting
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Agenda
  1. Results of Discussions by the Working Team and Future Responses
  2. Integrated Collection Management and Integrated Delinquency Management Policy
  3. Policy for future study on character requirements
3. Other
4. Greetings
5. Adjournment

Materials

Relevant policies

Unification and standardization of core business systems in local governments

Summary of proceedings

Date

December 23, 2022 (2022) (Friday) from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Location

Held online

Summary of proceedings

1. Agenda

1. Results of Review by the Working Team and Future Responses

Member: resident non-resident address numbers from each core business systems to the Common Function?
- Secretariat: local government, the use of the address number management function for non-residents from core business systems has already been indicated in the horizontal alignment adjustment policy between standard specifications.

Observer: In the explanation of the As a matter to be continued by the Address Management Working Team, Basic 4 information is to be managed, but it is recognized that there are differences in the level of identity verification depending on the office work. It is necessary to examine whether they can be treated in the same level in history management. In that case, it is also necessary to examine whether information that is not highly accurate for office work that prioritizes service provision over strict identity verification is to be registered in the non-resident address number management function. It is also necessary to examine whether information that is not highly accurate is to be managed as an address that is linked by multiple operations.
- Secretariat: We will continue to consider the matter based on your comments.
Observer: In the explanation of the data connections Working Team, it is recognized that there were (1) the impact on the compliance check due to the change in direction to base on file cooperation, (2) regarding the cooperation with the original action plan system, the feasibility check on the implementation when the basic data list to be output for the system transition is differential output at present, and (3) the handling when the API of the original action plan system is called from the core business systems (it seems that the pattern in which the original action plan system enters between the standard compliance system is only assumed).
- Secretariat: (1) Regarding the compliance confirmation, we are separately considering it in Digital Agency. (2) We would like to consider the feasibility confirmation of the differential output with the original action plan system in the future. (3) Regarding the cooperation with the original action plan, we will reconsider how to specify it based on your comments.
Observer: In the explanation of the Regarding the compliance confirmation, as a transitional measure, if functions that are not subject to standardization or unique functions are integrated with the package, it will be difficult to separate them in the future. We would like you to consider the rules for the compliance confirmation.
- Secretariat: I understand. Regarding the handling of functions, etc. not subject to standardization as special provisions for packages, since we are considering the arrangement of terms and the method of implementation, we would like to consult with all members again.
Member: Is it correct to understand that the domicile exception for elderly staying in nursing care facility you asked about last time will be treated as a Issue for continued consideration?
- Secretariat: We plan to respond in writing separately, and it is not expected to be a continuing consideration.
Observer: In the explanation of the Please continue to consider whether the future unification of address numbers listed on page 14 and subsequent pages is really necessary for local government. In addition, please continue to consider which department will be in charge of it. Depending on the progress of consideration, we believe that the centralized numbering function should be an option in the form of a standard option function. Next, regarding history management, the perspective of personal data protection is important. We believe that it is necessary to decide on a department that will manage the entire address. However, if the information of the persons subject to support measures is to be added to the management target in the future, the risk will increase more than the management of each department, and the administrative burden on local government may increase. In addition, if the information searched by Juki Net is treated as the address information of the non-resident of the non-resident address number management function, there is a concern that it will fall outside the scope of the purpose of use of the use office work in the Appendix of the Basic Resident Registration Act. I do not deny that history management will be discussed, but in that case, please continue to consider it from the perspective of personal data protection and the balance with the Basic Resident Registration Act.
- Secretariat: and the management body of the address number. Regarding the address of non-residents, we understand that it is necessary to strictly organize the address differently from the residence information acquired by other services when using Juki Net. We will continue to consider it based on your comments.
Observer: In the explanation of the schedule by adding a centralized numbering function, etc. to the development common function, we would like to ask for the compilation of the opinions of the members.
- Secretariat: We have issued a request for information after the previous working team, and we plan to compile our opinions within the year and examine them closely after the turn of the year.

2. Policy for Integrated Collection Management and Integrated Delinquency Management

Member: Integrated Collection and Delinquency Management Function is not used by all local government, it is desirable to treat it as optional. In addition, regarding the entire common function, the Standard Specifications state that "When the common function targeted by this Specification is provided as an integrated package with one or more standard compliance system (s), the implementation method such as function arrangement does not need to conform to this Specification, and may be provided at the responsibility of the package vendor." However, we believe that the current description is insufficient. Please clarify the concept of whether or not the introduction of the common function is always necessary for the all-in-one package.
- Secretariat: of the implementation Integrated Collection and Delinquency Management Function is arbitrary. In addition, the review of the descriptions in the standard specifications shall be confirmed and the policy shall be examined.
Member: data connections, the tax system is divided into units (resident tax, fixed asset tax, collection, delinquency, etc.), and the cooperation between units is specified in the functional cooperation specifications. Is it correct to understand that the cooperation with core business systems to be added this time will be additionally defined in the functional cooperation specifications in the future?
- Secretariat: , the Integrated Collection and Delinquency Management Function has been excluded from the scope of standardization until now. However, since it is included in the scope of standardization as a common function this time, it is assumed that it will be specified in the functional cooperation specifications in the future. In the future, it will be specified after consultation with the relevant ministries and agencies.
Member: would be arranged by arranging the different parts in the written specifications of each service side by side, but I would like to confirm the purpose of arranging the policies as a common function. Is it correct to understand that the implementation may be made as a common function and the implementation for each service is also allowed?
- Secretariat: The handling of the individual collection and delinquency function and the collection and delinquency function of the common function will be presented after considering the policy in the future.
- Observer: In the explanation of the Considering the consistency with universal design, which is being studied mainly in Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, it is desirable to basically consider the use of the integrated collection and delinquency management function. To be specific, it is desirable that payment documents, etc. be shared among core business systems.
- Secretariat: We will continue to consider the matter based on your comments.
Observer: In the explanation of the common function the range of functions already subject to standardization in 20 services or does it include functions outside standard compliance system? In the latter case, isn't it necessary to consider whether to cover the use of services other than the 20 services? I would like to confirm how the arrangement will be changed in order to determine the impact on subsidies under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
- Secretariat: As a current assumption, the scope of the provision is considered to be the scope of the functions already specified in 20 services. The implementation essential functions are assumed to specify the implementation essential functions within the standardized imposed services.
- Observer: In the explanation of the Common Functions honestly, it is recognized that the use of systems other than the 20 Services is not obstructed as a whole construction.
Observer: In the explanation of the We believe that there are several candidates to be specified as common functions, such as convenience store Issue, which is not in the scope of common functions at the present time. What is the scope of common functions assumed to be as standard specifications until the transition deadline?
- Secretariat: We are considering a scope in which an integrated collection and delinquency management function is added to the five functions already specified in the specifications (application management function, in-house data connections function, non-resident address number management function, in-house integrated address function, and EUC function).
- Secretariat: deadline by the transition twenty twenty-five, we do not expect to add any more standard specifications. On the other hand, there are several functions, such as convenience store Issue, that have been requested to be made common functions in the past opinion inquiries. It is our recognition that we will separately discuss and consider them as the target of common functions after the transition support period.

3. Policy for future consideration of the character requirements

Observer: In the explanation of the MJ +, if there is any content that has been coordinated with the Character Information Technology Promotion Council, please share it.
- Secretariat: It is expected that necessary consultations will be held in the future.
Observer: In the explanation of the In a situation where there is no prospect of international standardization, transition to MJ + is opposed. Shouldn't it be advanced carefully? In addition, there is a concern that it can be entered accurately from 110,000 characters. It is necessary to disseminate and deploy the variant management function and dictionary function as a set.
- Secretariat: In the standardization this time, we would like to settle the Issue related to so-called external characters to a certain extent. It does not mean that we do not consider international standardization at all, but first, we would like to consider the character requirements for the standard compliance system actually used in local government and create the MJ + as an exact equivalent. Regarding the number of characters, the Ministry of Justice is working to narrow down the approximately 50000 characters described in the materials that are not currently included in the MJ, and it is assumed that the number will be less than 110,000 characters based on the actual use of characters. It is assumed that the correspondence table and variant management will be organized and provided so that the characters can be uniquely specified.
- Observer: In the explanation of the At present, we recognize that there are still typographical errors. We would like you to consider promoting orthography in conjunction with this response.
Member: What are "other character sets in core business systems" and are font files also provided as MJ +?
- Secretariat: document P2 that are not included in MJ. They will be organized for standard compliance system and provided as a character identification map of MJ +. Details of font files, etc. will be presented around March 2023.
Member: MJ +.
- Secretariat: It is assumed that the MJ + will be identified for the objects remaining after detailed examination of about 50000 characters.
- Observer: In the explanation of the Promotion of DX Review Meeting held in the morning of local government, it is recognized that there was an explanation that it was an identification map with character sets for each family registry vendor.
Member: will proceed with the identification of the letters and MJ + of each vendor in Digital Agency?
- Secretariat: The subject matter of this reorganization is the characters of family registry Vendor.
Observer: In the explanation of the family registry vendor refer to the vendor of the family registry system currently in operation, rather than the package vendor, and does it include deregistration?
- Secretariat: We believe that the character sets of the vendors of the family registry system currently in operation will be the starting point for the identification work related to the character requirements. It is difficult to answer at this point whether the expulsion is included, but a detailed outline will be presented at the end of the fiscal year.
Observer: In the explanation of the characters from the local government vendor instead of family registry?
- Secretariat: As you know.
- Member: I understand. Please note that family registry vendors are limited and the characters they handle differ depending on the core business, so we are concerned that collecting characters from family registry vendors alone may not be sufficient.
Member: MJ + completed if transition work is required at each local government or if an identification map is used?
- Secretariat: Basically, it is assumed that the measures already underway in each local government will be utilized. It is assumed that the use of the identification map will make the work in local government more efficiency, but the details will be presented at the end of the fiscal year.
Member: At present, there is a local government that is proceeding with identification work for 60000 characters of the Character Information Infrastructure. Is there any assumption that an administrative communication will be issued regarding the occurrence of identification work again in the transition to MJ +?
- Secretariat: Basically, the identification work promoted by each local government will also be utilized, and it is assumed that the response to the identification work for the parts that cannot be covered by MJ will be smoother. The announcement to local government will be considered in cooperation with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
Member: JIS X 0213:2012 to MJ +.
- Secretariat: goal to apply for various administrative proceduer in 60 seconds with a smartphone, it is first necessary to respond to JIS X 0213:2012. It is expected that the specific method of response will be presented by the end of the fiscal year after future consideration. In addition, regarding the policy conversion related to MJ + this time, it was decided that each core business systems should also have MJ + from the viewpoint of overall efficiency based on the transition to standard compliance system, comprehensively considering the fact that there is a certain need to unify the notation of names, etc. between each business, the technical difficulty of the process of converting from JIS X0213:2021 to MJ + in reverse due to the 1-to-N relationship, etc.
Member: MJ + will be provided with an identification map and an alternative map from around March 2024. However, considering the transition deadline, validation, etc. will be required sequentially after April 2024, and it will not be possible to use it for operation from the beginning of fiscal 2024. Therefore, when looking ahead to the transition deadline of the end of fiscal 2025, transitional measures will be required.
- Secretariat: We take your concerns seriously. We will provide information as needed if we can present it by the end of March 2024. We will consider responses in anticipation of the transition deadline by the end of fiscal 2025 based on your opinions.
Member: We assume that many business operators are considering JIS X 0213:2012 as a premise for development this time. However, we would like you to show an outline of MJ + before the end of FY 2022 and confirm with the vendor as soon as possible about the impact of this change of direction on the development schedule of each development vendor and whether or not it will be in time for the standardization deadline. If there is an impact on development, we think that it is necessary to consider including transitional measures.
- Secretariat: We will consider it based on your comments.
- Observer: In the explanation of the local government Promotion of DX Review Committee, since the policy on MJ + will be presented in March 2023, it is explained that characters not included in MJ will be managed as external characters until then. If a change in the policy is necessary, we would like to ask for prompt consideration. In addition, as a response to local government, which is being identified, in particular, the special tax collection notice will be started from January 2024. We would like to ask for consideration by gripping as a Digital Agency looking at the whole. There was an explanation that it is as a general rule, but it is necessary to consider how to make exceptions.
- Secretariat: Based on your opinion, we will continue to cooperate with related ministries and agencies and consider it.

2. Other

No particular discussion

3. Greetings

Secretariat: I would like to once again thank all the members for being able to conduct dense discussions in an extremely short time up to the final round. Although the Review Meeting will be closed today, as shown as a continued review item, various reviews and adjustments are scheduled to be continued toward the revision of the specifications at the end of fiscal 2022. I assume that I will consult with the members, so I would like to ask for your continued support.

End