Working Group Charter - CN Messaging for Ag Retail

Purpose: This document describes why the working group was formed and what it intends to accomplish. It documents the scope, expectations for participants, and agreed upon output to be delivered at the close of the working group. It documents the expected budget and time commitment to complete its deliverables.

Creation Date:	Dec 6, 2023
Last Revision Date:
Working Group Origination:	CN Meet Up, 2023 Annual Conference
Planned Start Date:
Planned End Date:

Overview:

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.

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

Team composition and roles (as applicable)

Working Group Chair:

Working Group Co-Chair:

Objectives:

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

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: Add ARA's Model Fertilizer Contract with E-Signatures to Your Toolkbox | Aradc - 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:

Timeline:

Participating Member Organizations:

Time Commitment:

Budget: