What stakeholder group do you represent?
Display name
Refer to section 2.3. Do you agree with the proposed high priority artefacts to be developed to support interoperability?
Please provide comments (optional)
Allows supply chains to develop their own solutions as long as they use recognised global standards to exchange data.
Refer to section 2.3.1. Do you agree with the criteria for selecting existing interoperability resources to leverage in the framework?
Refer to section 2.3.2.1. Do you agree with the criteria for selecting the most important data terms to be included in the vocabulary?
Refer to section 2.3.2.2. Please indicate your preference from the following:
Refer to section 2.3.3. Would an agricultural traceability and product data ontology be a valuable resource to support interoperability?
Are there any other gaps in data standards you would like to see addressed? (optional)
The issue of states having different definitions for PICs in the livestock industry has to be resolved as part of this process.
Refer to section 2.4.1. Do you think any parts of the framework should be mandatory to use in the development of data systems?
Please provide comments (optional)
item identifiers need to be mandated to ensure a degree of consistency at the base level which then facilitates intra-operability. e.g animal identification - NLIS tags, movement records for livestock - NVD and other commodities.
Refer to section 2.4.2. Is the proposed governance structure adequate to support the development and maintenance of the framework?
Please provide comments (optional)
RMSCC is an example of a supply chain governance group that has existed providing value for the last couple of decades see www.RMSCC.org. It sits within the industry owned AUSMEAT governance framework.
Please list any stakeholder groups you believe to be missing from the proposed governance structure (optional)
Need to recognise existing data standards framework governance groups such as the Red Meat Supply Chain Committee
Refer to section 3.1. How might these barriers be addressed? (optional)
If there is demonstrable commercial benefit then there will be adoption. That is the experience of the RMSCC.
Refer to section 3.3. Do you agree with the roles and responsibilities listed?
Please provide your reasons and alternative suggestions
Experience of the RMSCC has shown that if there is demonstrable commercial value then there will be adoption. Forcing a system that has no commercial benefit into a supply chain will almost guarantee failure or an increase in production and compliance costs. The system need to be driven by those involved in the supply chains. The government can facilitate that by using their existing commodity consultative forums as the main governance body.