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 Coordination Working Team (2nd) of the Study Group on Common function and Other Technical Requirements for Unification and Standardization of Core Business Systems for Local Governments

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and time: Tuesday, November 15, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
  • Location: Online Meeting
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Add Member
    3. Agenda
      • Address Management Working Team
        1. Results of preliminary questionnaire and explanation of the overall picture of issues to be handled as address management WT
        2. Discussion on policies for addressing issues related to address management
      • Data Coordination Working Team
        1. Overview of the Opinion on the Optimal Plan for Data Linkage and the Future Direction
        2. Explanation of Policies for Addressing Issues Related to Data Federation
    4. Other:
    5. Adjournment

Material

Relevant policy

Summary of the Proceedings

Date and

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

US>

Online meetings

1. Addition of members

  • No particular discussion

2. Agenda

Address Management Working Team

1. Explanation of the results of the preliminary questionnaire and the overall picture of issues to be handled as the address management WT
  • No particular discussion
2. Discussion on the policy for addressing agenda items related to address management
1. Questions or requests for changes regarding address management itself

<1. 1. 1. Assignment of address numbers including residents / Consolidation of function / address information>

  • Observer: , I think that there is basically no problem as long as the common function is more available than the resident record system. In addition, re-moving in is defined in the standard specifications of the resident record system. It should be judged whether or not to integrate the number function of the address based on whether it is acceptable to assign numbers without checking the history of information managed as a non-resident.
    • Secretariat: in <2.1.3. Transfer of address numbers when a non-resident moves in>.
  • Observer: The current address management system has been established through the addition of function in the course of business operation. As a result, function such as tax address, customer's name, and company's name have been added, making the system more complicated. Against this background, we would like to confirm again the concept of the standard specifications for common function regarding the scope to be stipulated.
    • Secretariat: As pointed out, based on the fact that the current address management system has different function and management contents for each local government and business operator, it was judged difficult to establish it as a standard specification, and it was arranged as a unique measure system under the horizontal adjustment policy. On top of that, the current standard specification of the alien address number management function stipulates that only the basic four information considered to be the minimum necessary for the name identification of the address number of the alien be retained.
    • Observer: I understand. On that premise, who is supposed to manage non-residents?
    • Secretariat: resident records will be used and managed jointly. It is stipulated that administrative work other than that using Individual Numbers will be controlled so that Individual Numbers in function for managing address numbers of non-residents cannot be used.
  • Observer: Who should consider the "matters to be considered" described in the content of the response policies, and how should they be considered? The processing at the time of move-in is considered to be the so-called low-latency and high-throughput processing, but it is recognized that this will not be a particular problem as long as it is built on a contract that uses cloud services and auto-scales according to the load and throughput.
    • Secretariat: , but we would like to determine the direction after listening to the concerns of the members when assuming the implementation.
  • Observer: It was explained that the integrated management of address information will be an issue to be considered after the transition support period until fiscal 2025. However, it is not considered that a conclusion will be reached immediately. On the other hand, if the future vision is not described in the specifications at all until after the transition support period, it may be difficult for system developers to understand what direction it will take. Is it planned to refer to some future vision in the future revision of the specifications? It is considered that if a certain direction is indicated, it is possible to gradually proceed with the restructuring toward the future vision from the vendors that can respond. In addition, since the current system is provided as an all-in-one package and there are some companies that manage address information in an integrated manner, it is considered that it is necessary to organize not to violate the specifications, including implementation that utilizes them.
    • Secretariat: We understand. Based on the concerns, we would like to continue the discussion in a direction to describe as much as possible. On the other hand, we would like to ask for your understanding that it is difficult to make a commitment to describe at this point in time because it depends on how far the discussion will proceed, including whether or not to aim for centralized management.
  • Members: that is being asked for opinions on function aggregation. Is it only the function that assigns sequential numbers? <1.1.5. Clarifying the relationship with the tax address (corporate address and co-owner of fixed property tax)> states that rules for non-duplication of numbers will be stipulated. Therefore, if only the function that assigns numbers is concerned, aggregation may not be necessary.
    • Secretariat: Only the function to be numbered is assumed. As pointed out, the duplication of numbers can be eliminated by specifying the numbering rule as a reference. We would like to hear your opinion on whether it should be summarized. Also, if there is any necessary function other than the numbering function, we would like to hear your opinion.
    • Secretariat: , an explanation is also planned in <2.1.3. Transfer of address numbers when non-residents move in>, but it is assumed that by consolidating numbered function, it will be possible to transfer address numbers when non-residents move in, and we would like to receive opinions based on this aspect.
    • Members: I understand. In general, if addresses are consolidated and separated from the resident record system, there will be more points of failure, so I agree with the contents of the matters to be considered.
  • Members: Resident Record System is introduced by itself, it is assumed that the integration of the numbering function will be costly. From this viewpoint, it is desirable that the opinions of the members be raised.

<1.1.2. Unified management of address information of non-residents>

  • Members: "It is shown again that the positioning of the function held in the alien address number management basic four information and the synchronization with other core business systems are not always essential." Does this mean that it is not always necessary to reflect the information of the core business system in the alien address number management function? On the contrary, does it mean that it is not always necessary to reflect the information of the alien address number management function in the core business system?
    • Secretariat: It was intended for the former.
  • Members: Since "contact information / delivery address information" described as "not subject to standardization" in this document is a management item in the tax system, we request that consistency be confirmed, including the horizontal adjustment policy.
    • Secretariat: Understood. We are aware of the provisions of the tax system. We will consider the matter in a manner that ensures consistency among the standard specifications based on the comments.

<1.1.3. Management of addresses of non-residents by expanding the integrated address function within the organization>

  • Members: local government the merits of centrally managing the integrated address numbers within the organization and the address numbers of non-residents. In the actual situation, it is not always possible to mechanically go through the judgments of the same person in the verification of the basic four information, and the number of confirmations will increase. Are there any advantages other than cleaner address information?
    • Secretariat: At present, some local governments have several times as many addresses for non-residents as addresses for residents, so there is an advantage of not increasing unnecessary addresses any more. It should be considered as the first step leading to centralized management and cross-reference of address information after the system is organized in the future.
    • Secretariat: As you know, the centralized management of the address information of non-residents requires systematic organization, so it is not specified in this specification. On the other hand, if the necessary organization is made between the core business systems in the Agency, it is possible to refer to each other's information. 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 linkage within the Agency.
    • Observer: Office, and there is no room for debate.
    • Observer: Number System, it is recognized that a large number of addresses have been merged into the current situation. On the other hand, there are actually cases where the necessity is not felt and neglected depending on the jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, in some local governments, the person in charge of the system, etc., extracts candidates for name-based aggregation as part of regular data cleansing and asks each jurisdiction to confirm whether they are the same person. In this standardization, it is assumed that some jurisdictions may not feel the need to assign address numbers that uniquely identify non-residents. In such cases, it is necessary to note that the number of address numbers will inevitably increase.
    • Secretariat: Further consideration will be made based on comments.
  • Members: , could names be linked by individual numbers?
    • Secretariat: Specifications, it is stipulated that the names of addresses and function within the organization shall be collected by individual numbers. Even in the function for managing the address numbers of non-registered residents, the names can be collected by individual numbers in office work using individual numbers.
  • Observer: Currently, when using the information provision network, it is essential for local governments to use the integrated address within the organization. Therefore, there is a problem that the address of the new non-resident must be created in the registration of Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare related to the administrative work of the payment of funeral service fee and the payment of insurance premiums in the case of death in the National Health Insurance, the second stage, and nursing care under the jurisdiction of public money receiving account. In light of this, the use of My Number Card will spread in the future, and the number of applications using Individual Numbers will increase. Rather than assuming the continuation of address numbers including the integrated address within the organization, the use of Individual Numbers should be expanded.
    • Secretariat: We recognize the need to consider the use of individual numbers and would like to refer to it in future discussions. On the other hand, since individual numbers cannot be used for data linkage within the agency under the current system, we will consider the scope of the transition to 2025 in the direction of unifying address numbers as an approved means.
  • Observer: Office cannot be used as a common address number for data linkage within the Office is that the number assignment is limited to the use of numbers. On the other hand, considering that a large proportion of addresses, including those of non-residents, have already been assigned to the integrated address number within the function Office, it is considered that assigning a temporary number of the integrated address number within the function Office to the remaining addresses and positioning it as a common address number may be less expensive than establishing a separate function for managing the address number of non-residents. On the other hand, if it is difficult to immediately implement the integration of the two basic four information Offices, we agree with the idea of providing a reference for providing them as an integrated address number after separating them. It is also considered possible to arrange the data item as a prerequisite so that the same number can be used while the integrated address number within the Office and the address number are separate items. In this case, there is no other way but to use the Osaka City address number for sorting addresses of non-residents who do not have individual numbers.
    • Secretariat: data item is unified, as stipulated in the specifications, it will be necessary to consolidate the address numbers of non-residents at the time of migration. Currently, the integrated address number within the organization is assigned uniquely to each individual, but there is concern that this arrangement will collapse if numbers are also assigned to non-residents who are not included in the integration. Therefore, it was assumed that the integrated address number within the organization and the address number would be managed as separate items.
  • Members: For integrated management, we consider that an item to distinguish residents from non-residents is necessary.
    • Secretariat: Consideration will be made based on comments.
2. Resolution of questions and deficiencies in address management specifications

<2.1. 1. Clarification of the division of roles and operational flow, including the address management system, and provision of linkage specifications>

  • Observer: As discussed in the Data Linkage WT, it is possible to pass data from the core business system to the proprietary innovation system, but the core business system may not be able to receive data from the proprietary innovation system. In that case, it may be necessary to reconsider whether it is appropriate to consolidate the address management system with the proprietary innovation system.
    • Secretariat: policy system to the core business system, the APIs already stipulated in the function linkage specifications will be used.
    • Observer: In this case, the same API is provided by multiple systems, which causes a conflict.
    • Secretariat: The duplication of API call names has been pointed out by the Data Federation WT and we are aware of it. We would like to prevent conflicts from occurring by establishing naming rules for cases in which proprietary systems provide services. We consider it necessary to consider separately from the perspective of whether APIs from other systems can be used in business.
    • Observer: When changing the API call name, it should be noted that since the business ID of the unique measure system is determined by the local government, the standard compliance system side cannot respond with non-customization.
    • Secretariat: Consideration will be made based on comments.

<2.1.3. Transfer of Address Numbers of Registered Foreign Residents>

  • Observer: Rather than handing over the address number at the time of moving in, it should be examined with the future ideal in mind while the idea of making a reservation for moving in at once only or moving OSS is spreading. Is it correct to organize that the information already managed as a non-resident does not need to be confirmed at the time of moving in? In addition, with regard to Article 9 of the Number Act, it is naturally assumed that the use of individual numbers is used for the office work of the residence registry, so it may not be a constraint on the examination.
    • Observer: In the OSS, the necessity of preprints, etc. was discussed with Digital Agency from the viewpoint of what local governments would prepare for people moving in. In that case, the Number Act was applied as an entry under the Residential Basic Book Act for administrative affairs after becoming a resident. However, it was arranged that Individual Numbers could not be used as long as they were not residents before moving in, including making a reservation for moving in. As a result, the identifiers used were not Individual Numbers either. Regarding the use of Individual Numbers for each core business system before moving in, it is considered that policies will be determined after individual discussions between Digital Agency and each government agency on the premise of each law.
  • Secretariat: Resident Record System, there is little need for non-resident information, so it is desirable that the core business system, which requires name-based aggregation, should handle it. Re-moving-in can also be confirmed within the resident record system.

2.1.5. Clarification of Specifications for Exclusive Control and Cancellation

  • Observer: <2.1.6. Whether or not specifications for history management in the function for management of non-resident address numbers are required> It is assumed that some of the existing function for integrated addresses within organizations are applicable, so it is considered that specifications should be made according to these requirements.
    • Secretariat: Consideration will be made based on comments.
3. Identification of non-residents and confirmation of transfer policy
  • No particular discussion
4. Other
  • No particular discussion

Data Coordination Working Team

1. Overall picture of the opinion on the optimal plan for data linkage and the way forward
  • Questions are omitted due to meeting time.
2. Explanation of the Policy for Addressing Issues Related to Data Linkage
  • Questions are omitted due to meeting time.
  • Observer: When should the best proposal opinion be presented for the sub-issues for which the response policy and handling are undecided this time?
    • Secretariat: The response policy will be presented at the next working team meeting on Tuesday, November 29, and we would like to receive opinions at that time.
3. Other
  • No particular discussion

Greater than or