...
| Info |
|---|
High level need to be addressed, work done to prepare for the activity, and any other relevant information needed to describe the work to be done and proposed approach. Including this information in the “Overview Excerpt” box below will allow this short description of the WG to be reused in various places across the wiki. |
| Excerpt | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Ag Retail would like to implement electronic messaging for crop nutrition product procurement. Leveraging the work done for manufacturer-to-distributor connections, this working group will evaluate existing art, propose modifications to process and messaging, and identify implementation needs as applicable. |
Working Group Team Description
...
Working Group Co-Chair:
Objectives:
| Info |
|---|
What will be accomplished and what the measurable result will be. |
Identify and document extensions or modifications to existing process, message, exchange protocols to support retailer (buyer) to manufacturer (seller) and retailer (buyer) to distributor (seller) messaging in context of fertilizer.
...
Identify and document new or modified business rules for data exchange between parties specified above.
Scope
| Info |
|---|
How does the working group deliverable relate to the industry or industry segments? To other resources or standards? Are there overlaps with others and to what extent? Are there areas the group explicitly marks as out of bounds? |
Identified to date:
Process extensions for order, shipment, receipt, invoicing, (and accounting) of product from manufacturer/distributor to retailer
OrderCreate/OrderResponse needed for exchange of customer pickup Release Number
Inventory? Sales? Managing on-hand through the process - potentially new message implementations
Data alignment/harmonization between Ag eStandard(XML) and OAGIS(JSON) schema messages, specifically for scale ticket information
How high a priority is aligning elements between Ag eStandard messages and Scale Ticket for a first phase? And does that include additional parties not represented in current meetings? Follow Up with Key, The Equity
Message-to-message mapping for all, not just shipment/invoice to scale ticket scenario - LOW priority
Possible opportunity to revisit tonnage?
Message exchange protocols: ebMS 2.0 vs other API implementations (RESTful implementation, WSDL, ebMS 3.0, other)
Note that CNC implementation uses ebMS 2.0 today. If there are no changes to messages does it make a difference?
Current implementation preference is for ebMS 2.0, but alternates are beginning to emerge in practice
Not necessarily a must have for this effort
Handoff between protocols for specific scenarios: i.e., how does an ebMS conversation handle scale ticket - or does it not at all?
Model fertilizer contract: https://www.aradc.org/news/model-fertilizer-contract-your-toolkbox - not XML, but used in conjunction with the XML to synchronize systems. ARA contract is useful for managing/clarifying risk. Does not necessarily introduce constraints to electronic process.
Could the contract message be used to push current position on an existing contract? Something to explore …
In Scope:
Document retailer-facing process extensions for existing CNC messages
New message profiles for PMR, IAU, for fertilizer
Out of Scope:
Deliverables:
...