Table of Contents - APTAStandards.com
Table of Contents - APTAStandards.com Table of Contents - APTAStandards.com
Approximately 25% match – Less Favorable o Estimated number of data elements associated with each message o Definition of security level o Other characteristics (e.g. operation, timing and message routing parameters defined) • UTFS Adoption Cost reflects the additional cost that may be required by APTA to adopt the standard or specification, such as membership dues and application fees. This category does not represent the actual labor cost of implementation. o 0-$1000 – Very Favorable o $1001- $5,000 Favorable o $5,000 – $10,000 Somewhat Favorable o $10,000 and up – Less Favorable • UTFS Adoption Time represents an estimate of the time required to implement the UTFS changes in the relevant standard or specification, or to derive a UTFS derivative of the standard. Therefore it reflects the time necessary to navigate the approval process. This does not include the time APTA spends developing the changes to the specification: o 0-3 Months – Very Favorable o 6-9 Months – Favorable o 9-12 Months – Somewhat Favorable o 13 Months and up – Less Favorable • UTFS Effort Required aims to represent an estimate of the time and effort WP4 will require to adopt the standard or specification: o Approximate number of additional messages or message types that WP 4 needs to define and add to the standard o Estimated number of new data elements or fields that WP 4 needs to define and add to the standard o Approximate number of matching messages that needs to be further defined The following three additional weighting criteria were established to evaluate the standards and specifications: • Smart Card Based represents the degree the standards or the specifications can accommodate smart card data types and structure • Widely Implemented shows the degree the standard or specification is in use • Relevance to Transit represents the level of relevancy of the standard or specification to the transit industry. (Determined by the number of transit industry related data elements and message types supported). Page 76
Exhibit 5-2 illustrates the relevance to the WP4 efforts and the viability of using the standard or specification for a transit application. Exhibit 5-2 Standard/ Smart Card Widely Relevance to Specification ISO/IEC 8583 Based 2 Implemented 4 Transit 1 ITSO 5.1 SUMMARY 4 0 4 VEI 2 1 4 OFX 0 4 1 CID Edge Interfaces 4 0 4 TransLink® 4 1 4 ERG APTA-000 4 3 4 RIS PART 4 4 0 4 Legend 4 More Favorable 0 Less Favorable Based on the analysis, ITSO, RIS PART 4 and ERG APTA Specifications are more favorable to adopt and more relevant to WP4 than all the other standards or specifications evaluated. Therefore, these three specifications are the best candidates for further analysis. That said, the other standards and specifications have some applicability to the UTFS efforts in various areas. The remainder of this section highlights these areas. ISO/IEC 8583 standard’s batch/file transfer mechanisms and the OFX’s general schema structure should also be considered for reference in APTA’s future standard or specification development. Although scored very favorable on both “Technical Compliance” and “UTFS Effort Required” categories, TransLink did not qualify for a ranking on the other two categories due to lack of response from ERG Transit Systems as yet. According to Figure 5-1, the ISO/IEC 8583 scored favorable only on the Technical Compliance category. This standard has been determined to be less favorable in terms of usability, based on the time, cost and effort required to adapt it to WP4 purposes. However, this standard could serve as an effective model for WP4, due specifically to its extended focus on the definition of batch and file transfer mechanisms. Although it has not been implemented, the ITSO specification is one of the specifications that scored as the most favorable in almost all categories per Exhibits 5-1 Page 77
- Page 29 and 30: The ITSO message body consists of i
- Page 31 and 32: Exhibit 4.2-2 Product Types Type Co
- Page 33 and 34: Capability Values or RFU Product Pr
- Page 35 and 36: opted to contract these services ou
- Page 37 and 38: e given careful consideration for a
- Page 39 and 40: - Transaction date and time - Trans
- Page 41 and 42: cardholder related data as in the c
- Page 43 and 44: CLIENT Exhibit 4.3-9 OFX Security S
- Page 45 and 46: may well be eliminated if, and when
- Page 47 and 48: Exhibit 4.4-4 Condition Dialogue St
- Page 49 and 50: 4.4.7 Security Requirements The Mes
- Page 51 and 52: Application Retailer Product Retail
- Page 53 and 54: Exhibit 4.6-1 CID Edge Interface Me
- Page 55 and 56: 4.6.8 Timing and Routing The CID Ed
- Page 57 and 58: 4.7.4.1 Transaction Data The “Far
- Page 59 and 60: 4.7.4.3 System and Device Data The
- Page 61 and 62: Following the authentication proces
- Page 63 and 64: Data” transaction messages propos
- Page 65 and 66: Field Name Description reading the
- Page 67 and 68: 4.8-7 Product Transactions Usage Me
- Page 69 and 70: 4.8.4.5 Peer-to-Peer Clearing and S
- Page 71 and 72: standard does not mandate the compl
- Page 73 and 74: Item Number Exhibit 4.9-2 Part 1 Fi
- Page 75 and 76: 4.9.4.2 PICC Scheme Control Message
- Page 77 and 78: • Registration • Negative List
- Page 79: 5.0 FINDINGS This section presents
- Page 83 and 84: Required. This set of specification
- Page 85 and 86: Project/Specification/Standard Spon
- Page 87 and 88: APPENDIX B COMPLETED CRITERIA FORMS
- Page 89 and 90: ISO/IEC 8583 Criteria Transaction D
- Page 91 and 92: TRANSLINK ® Criteria Transaction D
- Page 93 and 94: RIS PART 4 Criteria Transaction Dat
- Page 95 and 96: ITSO DATA ELEMENTS Message Type Dat
- Page 97 and 98: ITSO DATA ELEMENTS Message Type Dat
- Page 99 and 100: ITSO DATA ELEMENTS Message Type Dat
- Page 101 and 102: Amount Net Reconciliation Receiving
- Page 103 and 104: TRANSLINK Message Type Data Element
- Page 105 and 106: Autoload non-purse counter remote l
- Page 107 and 108: card status failure reason Business
- Page 109 and 110: RIS PART 4: FOR A LIST OF DATA OBJE
Exhibit 5-2 illustrates the relevance to the WP4 efforts and the viability <strong>of</strong> using the<br />
standard or specification for a transit application.<br />
Exhibit 5-2<br />
Standard/ Smart Card Widely Relevance to<br />
Specification<br />
ISO/IEC 8583<br />
Based<br />
2<br />
Implemented<br />
4<br />
Transit<br />
1<br />
ITSO<br />
5.1 SUMMARY<br />
4 0 4<br />
VEI 2 1 4<br />
OFX 0 4 1<br />
CID Edge<br />
Interfaces<br />
4 0 4<br />
TransLink® 4 1 4<br />
ERG APTA-000 4 3 4<br />
RIS PART 4 4 0 4<br />
Legend<br />
4 More Favorable 0 Less Favorable<br />
Based on the analysis, ITSO, RIS PART 4 and ERG APTA Specifications are more<br />
favorable to adopt and more relevant to WP4 than all the other standards or<br />
specifications evaluated. Therefore, these three specifications are the best candidates for<br />
further analysis.<br />
That said, the other standards and specifications have some applicability to the UTFS<br />
efforts in various areas. The remainder <strong>of</strong> this section highlights these areas. ISO/IEC<br />
8583 standard’s batch/file transfer mechanisms and the OFX’s general schema structure<br />
should also be considered for reference in APTA’s future standard or specification<br />
development. Although scored very favorable on both “Technical Compliance” and<br />
“UTFS Effort Required” categories, TransLink did not qualify for a ranking on the other<br />
two categories due to lack <strong>of</strong> response from ERG Transit Systems as yet.<br />
According to Figure 5-1, the ISO/IEC 8583 scored favorable only on the Technical<br />
Compliance category. This standard has been determined to be less favorable in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> usability, based on the time, cost and effort required to adapt it to WP4 purposes.<br />
However, this standard could serve as an effective model for WP4, due specifically to<br />
its extended focus on the definition <strong>of</strong> batch and file transfer mechanisms.<br />
Although it has not been implemented, the ITSO specification is one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
specifications that scored as the most favorable in almost all categories per Exhibits 5-1<br />
Page 77
Change language