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 ".

Review Meeting on Technical Requirements for Common Functions, etc. on the Unification and Standardization of core business systems in local governments (1st)

Overview

  • Date and time: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 (2022), from 15:00 to 16:00
  • Location: Online Meeting
  • Agenda:
    1. General Description and Schedule
    2. How to proceed with data connections WT
    3. How to proceed with address management WT
    4. How to proceed with the application management WT
    5. Other
    6. Adjournment

Materials

Related Materials

Relevant policies

Summary of proceedings

Date

Wednesday, October 12, 2022 (2022), from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Location

Held online

Summary of proceedings

1. General Description and Schedule

No particular discussion

2. How to proceed with data connections WT

  • Observer: Is it correct to understand that the result of the arrangement of the Review Board are limited, if the opinions of business operators other than the members are necessary, it is possible for the speech observer organization to distribute materials to the member business operators and to communicate the compiled opinions to the Secretariat by the time of the Review Board. Is it possible to share materials with business operators other than the members?
  • Secretariat: members. We would like member business operators to share materials, and we would like the summarized opinions to be communicated to the Secretariat.
  • Member: Non-Resident of Secretariat does not include a solution for Issue, how will it be handled? Will individual consultations be held separately?
  • Secretariat: , we are considering indicating the direction of what should be uniformly specified in the written specifications, what should be presented only as a baseline without being a standard specification, what should be judged individually without any special provisions, etc. Based on the solution proposal presented by the Secretariat, we would like to consider what needs further examination based on the results of the examination of the optimum proposal by the members.
  • Member: Non-Resident of may occur every time a implementation occurs even after December following the end of the Issue Review Meeting. Is it assumed that inquiries will be responded to in that case?
  • Observer: Is it correct to understand that the result of the arrangement of the occurs each time a Issue occurs, it is possible to continue to receive opinions at .
  • Secretariat: We would like to consider the contact point for inquiries based on the status of how many inquiries are received.
  • Member: Non-Resident of Review Board discuss the functional cooperation specifications?
  • Observer: Is it correct to understand that the result of the arrangement of the We believe that there are detailed deficiencies in the functional cooperation specifications, but since the time for discussion at the Review Meeting is limited, we believe that it is better for the Secretariat to brush up on them and not to include them in the Review Meeting.
  • Secretariat: related to the cooperation specifications by Issue functions, we would like to hear opinions. However, we would like to discuss the matters related to the overall construction at this review meeting, and consider responses to each of the specifications individually.
  • Member: Non-Resident of functions was not subject to the review meeting.
  • Secretariat: There are no plans at this time. This is because the detailed specifications for individual APIs in the functional cooperation specifications are positioned as having been specified in the "List of API Regulated Matters" published together with the Data Requirements and Cooperation Requirements Standard Specifications and the "Attachment 4-1 _ Detailed Technical Specifications on API Cooperation" of the Common Function Standard Specifications. Since there are hundreds of APIs, the form of creating each of them as an individual specification was not adopted.
  • Secretariat: We would like to discuss it in the future based on your opinions. First of all, we would like to hear your opinions on the construction and composition of the documents that specify the API specifications presented by Digital Agency.

3. How to proceed with Address WT

  • Observer: Is it correct to understand that the result of the arrangement of the address number management, is it correct to understand that the division and mutual cooperation of the resident record system and the resident alien address number management function are common views with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications?
  • Secretariat: As you know, we held discussions with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications during the creation of written specifications, and the current specifications have been established.
  • Observer: Is it correct to understand that the result of the arrangement of the Review Committee are only business operators, but the discussion on non-residents largely depends on how local government uses non-residents in its business and how it wants to manage them in the future. Therefore, we believe that the discussion should be based on the opinions received from local government in the opinion inquiry.
  • Secretariat: also raised certain opinions and concerns about the centralized management of address information. We would like to make it a subject of discussion based on these.
  • Member: Non-Resident of There is no objection to the arrangement in which the address number management function manages only the issuance of the address number, but in the address management WT, it is recognized that the consultation is made on the premise of that. Since it is a short time, we believe that it is not realistic to consider returning to the past discussion.
    • Secretariat: Basically, we would like to hear the opinions of the members on the premise that the address number, not the address information, is managed. On the other hand, we believe that there are opinions on the ideal ToBe image, so it is possible to give such opinions. However, we need to consider the CanBe image in creating the system from the viewpoint of completing the transition to the common function by the twenty twenty-five, so we would like to hear your opinions based on such a viewpoint.

4. How to proceed with the application management WT

  • Observer: Is it correct to understand that the result of the arrangement of the application management function is a common view with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications?
  • Secretariat: As you know, we held discussions with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications during the creation of written specifications, and the current specifications have been established.

End