To STAR or not to STAR?

A question of how AutoDESA should relate to STAR

To:The members of AutoDESA

Submitted by:Frank Maiolo, Convenor of Data Dictionary Sub Committee (dated 9/09/2003)

We have received communication from a member of AutoDESA suggesting that we should adopt the STAR standards and work towards a closer alliance with STAR. More specifically, we should “be working together, defining Australian special requirements and then pass this onto the STAR group for inclusion into the STAR standards”.

The Dictionary Sub Committee can see significant problems in an alliance of this nature, and believe that it is more appropriate for this to be discussed by the full AutoDESA group. We seek clarification on what appears to be two different interpretations on how AutoDESA utilise or relate to the STAR standards.

The Initial symposiums confirmed that the objective was to develop a set of Australian standards, but wherever applicable we would utilise the standards developed by STAR. This would commonly have been taken as we were to import and adopt as our own standard.

The interpretation adopted by the member in question is that AutoDESA use STAR directly, and that new requirements identified are submitted to STAR for addition to their standards, prior to local use.

Below are the various discussion points associated with this topic as seen by the Dictionary Sub Committee.

Issues to consider

1.Before proceeding, it needs to be confirmed whether STAR have the capacity and structure to accept AutoDESA to join their group and the potential cost of doing so.

2.The suggestion has been made that “global’ vendors will adopt STAR standards when transferring data. This needs to be discussed, as STAR are not themselves globally focused when developing terms, they are quite USA / North American centric.

3.Legislative Issues — GST Issues, they have a multitude of tax issues for each State.

4.There is a difference in approach. The AutoDESA dictionary has gone to some length to name elements and make sure they are meaningful. The purpose of adopting the STAR standards is that it will lead to quicker results, but confusion (on terminology) is a potential outcome.

Assorted detailed considerations in reviewing the alignment with STAR:

Differences such as State code abbreviations 3 chars versus 2 for the USA

ECAI and VEACTS conventions and local codes where they differ from the USA’s NCIC’s code. There are many fields that are unique to Australian Automotive industry, for example, VEACTS.

Additional unique Australian data items eg Vehicle Series BA VX etc

Some STAR elements are inconsistent, vague or are not generalised.

oExample: STANDARD CODE insufficient data name to know to what this refers to

oUNIT PRICE AFTER SPLIT where the data class normally comes last i.e. AfterSplitUnitPrice

USA specific data

oUSA terms differ from the Australian, define synonyms for these (trunk = boot, Miles to kilometres)

oNON US Vehicle flag; Oz has no interest in supplying this

STAR names are loose such as the term “Manufacturer” used to mean Marque and tyre Supplier

 STAR has many definitions for the same item but these are not different qualifications of the same name they are different names for the same item.

oExample: License plate / license number

STAR data not always generalised eg CD Player serial number (rather than a serial number Item ID and number.)

Given the differences in both approach and standards, how would STAR decide to adopt or question any submissions from AutoDESA?

Alternately, would AutoDESA then implement any submissions not sanctioned by STAR?

Clarification and direction are sought

We are prepared to submit our changes to STAR but do not think AutoDESA will wait for STAR to sanction the changes (especially initially). Is this the direction that AutoDESA want the dictionary committee to go?

We cannot continue further until it is confirmed as to whether we are part of STAR or not. We need to define the Australian subset, but be STAR compliant.

9/09/2003

1