Table of Contents - APTAStandards.com
Table of Contents - APTAStandards.com Table of Contents - APTAStandards.com
and 5-2. The lack of existing implementation was the only drawback for this specification, resulting in a less favorable rating in the “Widely Implemented” category. Overall, ITSO is highly applicable to the UTFS. Although VEI scored as favorably in the technical compliance category, it did not receive any scoring on the UTFS Adoption Costs and Adoption Time. This is because there is no definitive fee structure, or change request schedule that could be identified by the Agent Systems point of contact. If APTA were interested in pursuing VEI, detailed discussions with Agent Systems to determine these elements would be necessary. This specification scored as somewhat favorable in the UTFS Effort Required category, for the following reasons: • The level of effort required further defining and mapping all t he matching VEI dialogues to WP4 proposed exact message types • The estimated number of additional data elements that need to be defined for smart card related transaction processing Compared to Exhibit 5-1, the VEI scored better in terms of relevance per Exhibit 5-2. OFX did not score as favorably because it lacks relevance to the transit industry. This adversely affects its score in all the other categories as well, and therefore, is the least applicable to UTFS efforts. It is gaining rapid acceptance in other industries (e.g. Financial) and support from major vendors such as Microsoft. APTA should consider this specification as it matures and becomes more widely adopted. Although incomplete, the CID Edge Interfaces scored very favorably in terms of Adoption Costs and Adoption Time. This specification is a viable candidate for a model for WP4 efforts, due to its reliance on Workpackage 1 smart card data formats, and the relatively low adoption cost to UTFS. Its low score on Technical Compliance reflected adversely on the Level of UTFS Effort Required in implementing this specification. CID Edge Interfaces also scored very favorable on two of the three categories in Exhibit 5-2. Despite its low scores on Technical Compliance and UTFS Effort Required, WP4 should consider using this draft specification. TransLink is the most favorable specification in terms of technical compliance. It fulfills most of the criteria established in this category by providing a match for all the message types proposed by the WP4. Its compliance with the technical criteria also reduces the time required for APTA to adopt this specification because of the relatively smaller number of changes that need to be undertaken. Due to its regional and smart card based focus, TransLink also scored the highest in Exhibit 5-2. If APTA will be allowed to adopt this specification, TransLink should certainly be considered for WP4 efforts. ERG APTA specifications scored very favorably in all categories of the criteria. Its support for relatively fewer number of WP4 proposed messages resulted in a “Favorable” ranking in both the Technical Complian ce and the Level of UTFS Effort Page 78
Required. This set of specifications provides one of the highest level of applicability in terms of both Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2. Together with ITSO and ERG APTA specifications, RIS Part 4 scored as one of the three highest standards analyzed in Exhibit 5-1. Due to its relatively short history it lacks industry acceptance and real life implementation as reflected in Exhibit 5-2. This standard is a strong candidate for WP4 to consider. However, it should be expanded to allow the flexibility to support non-WP1 defined card data structures as well. Due to their exclusive focus on the North American transit industry, RIS PART 4 and the ERG APTA specifications are preferred candidates for further analysis by WP4. Page 79
- 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 and 80: 5.0 FINDINGS This section presents
- Page 81: Exhibit 5-2 illustrates the relevan
- 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
Required. This set <strong>of</strong> specifications provides<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the highest level <strong>of</strong> applicability in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> both<br />
Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2.<br />
Together with ITSO and ERG APTA specifications,<br />
RIS Part 4 scored as one <strong>of</strong> the three<br />
highest standards<br />
analyzed<br />
in Exhibit 5-1. Due to its relatively short history it lacks<br />
industry acceptance and real life implementation as reflected in Exhibit 5-2. This<br />
standard is a strong candidate<br />
for WP4 to consider. However, it should be expanded to<br />
allow the flexibility to support<br />
non-WP1 defined card data structures as well.<br />
Due to their exclusive focus on the North American transit industry, RIS PART 4 and<br />
the ERG APTA specifications are preferred candidates for further analysis by WP4.<br />
Page 79
Change language