Enabling Agricultural Traceability through Data Interoperability

Data interoperability
framework for
agricultural
traceability and
product data
Regsoft response

1
We thank the Department of
Contact us Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry
(DAFF) for the opportunity to provide regsoft.com.au/contact input into the future of Australian Regsoft seeks to simplify and
traceability data. redefine the nature of regulation,
using 21st century thinking to solve
We understand and appreciate the 21st century problems.
effort involved in developing such a
comprehensive national policy, Regsoft was founded in 2021 and
including the National Agricultural delivers solutions to all elements of
Traceability Strategy, and the the regulation ecosystem, by using
development of interconnected grants common logic and data schemas to
including Regulatory Technology enable easy mapping across different
Research and Insights to build wide legislation. We aim to transform the
industry engagement and community experience of regulation in Australia
support to meet the expectations of a modern
digital economy. We work closely with
We view data interoperability for regulators and private organisations
traceability through our overall to bridge the digital divide for Regtech
approach to transform the experience development.
of regulation in Australia and
providing immediate measurable We are based in Canberra, Australia.
benefits to producers and regulators.
While each jurisdiction has localised Our approach to transformation
approaches, a non-centralised leverages platform business models,
solution is feasible, and, in our view, a built on low-cost and simple
core element of a sustainable digital technologies.
businesses.
Addressing the needs for agricultural
In our view, the design of truly producers and food-based supply
interoperable data standards for chains to span borders easily, while
traceability that are internationally ensuring appropriate regulation opens
compatible presents a unique access to regulators and license
opportunity to jump-start traceability holders across Australia.
across Australia, and could position
Australia as a leader in this space.

Leif Hanlen, PhD Travis Simon
CEO Regsoft CTO Regsoft

A part of this work builds on a project that was funded/supported by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry (DAFF) through a Regulatory Technology Research and Insights Grant. The views expressed in this report are
Regsoft’s and do not represent DAFF. 2
Image: Gabriel Jiminez
Regsoft commends the Department of Agriculture, Regsoft's Recommendations: Now is the time..
Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) for its efforts in
Alignment with international standards: The In our view, data sharing for traceability can be developing a comprehensive national policy on
framework should align with international norms, leveraged to achieving automated compliance with agricultural traceability through the National
avoiding the reinvention of standards and international standards - such as land clearing,
Agricultural Traceability Strategy and associated
facilitating global market access. carbon-net zero and modern slavery requirements - all grants. Regsoft emphasizes the need for a interoperable data standard that is internationally Open and free standards: Data standards should be of which impact the financial reporting and compatible, to position Australia as a leader in open and freely accessible, unlike current compliance for businesses directly - for example the agricultural traceability. Australian Standards or ISO standards which are EU may impose fines of up to 4% of a corporation’s
costly and restrictive. global corporate turnover, and the UK can impose
We believe that developing such a modern data
fines of up to 10% global turnover.
standard can position Australia as a leader in Agile development: Adopting an agile approach to product claims, traceability of supply chains and develop functional data standard artifacts and Direct support for clear data standards to support support rapid adoption of emerging environmental prototypes in parallel with documentation to ensure permissioned sharing of data, and supporting standards. practical implementation and continuous transparently credentialled traceability, may
improvement. provide significant economic benefit to a large
We are excited to support DAFF in this journey.
cohort of Australian businesses, including the
Government role: Australian governments should
agricultural sector.
model the adoption of common data standards,
Current State and Challenges: providing a competitive advantage to compliant
local suppliers and promoting international
The Australian regulatory landscape for food is
compatibility.
complex, involving over 700 interconnected organizations, ensuring high quality and safety of produce.
Future State Vision:
Compliance is relatively straightforward within
A distributed architecture using Key Data Elements individual jurisdictions but becomes complex across
(KDEs) is a spine for integrating regulatory state and national borders.
compliance and supply chain traceability.
Transition from partly digital, best-effort
Consultation Responses: approaches to fully digital, interoperable systems
that drive efficiency and economic benefits.
Our consultation responses are summarised as:
Our response underscores the importance of open,
High Priority Artefacts: Support for developing a
internationally aligned data standards and the role vocabulary, dictionary of data elements, and a
of agile development in creating a robust canonical data model. Emphasis on creating an
framework for agricultural traceability. Our operational, functional data standard that is
recommendations aim to enhance the efficiency, implementable by industry.
compliance, and market access of Australian
Criteria for Selecting Resources: agriculture by leveraging modern data
Recommendations for including criteria such as use interoperability principles.
beyond agriculture, free accessibility, and ease of implementation.
Avoiding Localized Standards: Rejection of local standards that create barriers to entry and limit international market access, advocating for standards that are globally aligned.

3
Image:Shreyak Singh
Regsoft point of view
“Common challenges for [data] integration
scenarios are the various data formats,
We have summarised some key principles that we The consultation paper is a positive step forwards encodings and software interfaces that are believe should be prominent in the design of the and represents real progress on the Traceability involved in the acquisition, transmission,
management and retrieval of relevant data standards. Strategy. Regsoft notes, and acknowledges, the
product and process data.”
structure and background effort that has gone into
Additionally, we recommend designing the
the development of this paper - this has made it far M. Friedemann etal., Linked Data Architecture standards with a Minimum Viable Product
easier to note specific areas of interest / concern. for Assistance and Traceability in Smart perspective, and avoiding a consensus driven Manufacturing, 9th EASN International
“everything for everyone” approach. Conference on “Innovation in Aviation & Space”
2019
It may be that the scope of the “traceability and product data” becomes excessive - since traceability Fig 1: Standards proliferation xkcd 927 is an activity made possible by interoperability of product data. We commend the department for acknowledging, Consumer Data Right (CDR):
and avoiding a “re-invented here” approach to data
Observation: open, free, governed data standards
standards.
hosted as code on a public server (Github),
A priority of the framework is to align supported adoption and rapid review. Regsoft
Principle: Agile functional exemplars over detailed Australian agricultural data standards with recommends the Working Group that established documentation. international norms – avoiding reinvention the standards adopts a similar open, accessible
and recognising multinational investment approach.
The development of the data interoperability and trade agreements.
standard should deliver in parallel through an open, We recommend the Department look beyond the transparent process. This would include: (Australian) New Payments Platform: a banking
(small) community of Agriculture tech including the
● Open source functional prototypes to provide transfer and data standard that supports secure
Department funded AADX, to the wider data
examples of “how to” develop interoperable payments across Australia.
data, and allow industry to validate sharing approaches and standardisation across
Australian governments and internationally. Observation: This core economic system was
● Test harness to validate data as compliant with
the standard initially funded by Government, and its sustainment
We note that “data” standards, and particularly
● Online, accessible, open format Principle: Real use cases is now industry funded, due to its clear benefit to
“interoperability” standards have a number of
documentation of decisions and discussions industry members. Regsoft encourages DAFF to
barriers to adoption. The main problem is that
consider how a beneficial design of the standards
Data design choices should be aligned to specific use compliance with a standard, that is designed to
cases, and preferably demonstrate measurable will be sustained for industry benefit.
share, is of value to those who benefit from data
benefits for these cases. sharing, and not those businesses built on status
Principle: Openness and Transparency
quo. Key decisions, beyond the content of the Many of the data-provenance (traceability of data)
Prioritisation of features, artefacts and designs should
The outcome of the data standard should be open, standard, would be considered early to maximise issues outlined in the paper have been (or are being)
be assessed against an agreed list of use cases.
and freely accessible. Unlike Australian Standards the value of the content. considered by other Australian government
(SAI Global) or ISO standards, the interoperability agencies, including standard should be freely accessible to all. DAFF ● Free to access: too many data standards are should pre-publish the standard as CC BY 4.0 (or Principle: Built on openness ignored, because they’re expensive, and it’s ● The Office of National Data Commissioner, similar) and should avoid restricted, pay-to-view easier to reinvent them in building open data and data governance access commercial terms. Decisions and designs should be openly provided. ● Dept. Climate Change Energy and the
This would include standard design minutes and Environment in developing the Environment
decision logs. Where decisions rest on elements of ● Enforced: Standards have no value when
Information Australia
existing standards, these standards should be cited complying with them is entirely optional
Principle: Open source ● Dept. Industry, Science & Resources tracing
(by relevant section) and provided to the wider minerals for ESG and
community.
As per the cited California drivers license example, the ● Has common elements that are not just
● Adopted: Governments should agree to use development of the standards, and compliance domestic or sector specific.
We recommend that DAFF fund, and license a library the standards developed - possibly with a licensing should be open source - to prevent future
of supporting standards to remove the barriers to grandfathering approach to allow transition.
lock-in either by standards governing organisations
small organisations from fully joining a conversation.
or other incumbents.
This will also reduce the barriers to standards re-use.

4
Data interoperability occurs in a context that supports business drivers
LIMITED DATA SHARING
REGULATION PARTLY APPLIED DATA SHARING PROTOCOLS REGULATION APPLIED ACROSS
PROTOCOLS ACROSS SUPPLY
ACROSS SUPPLY CHAIN ACROSS SUPPLY CHAIN SUPPLY CHAIN
CHAIN

ECONOMIC VALUE CHAIN:
ECONOMIC VALUE CHAIN
CONNECTED NON-UNIFORMLY THROUGH SUPPLY CHAIN

PARTLY CONNECTED
PHYSICAL SUPPLY CHAIN
PHYSICAL SUPPLY CHAIN

DATA SPECIFIC TO SUPPLY REGULATION APPLIED AT SUPPLY DATA SPECIFIC TO SUPPLY REGULATION APPLIED AT SUPPLY
POINT(S) POINT(S) POINT(S) POINT(S)

PHYSICAL SUPPLY POINTS PHYSICAL SUPPLY POINTS
(PRODUCTION, TRANSPORT AND PROCESSING) (PRODUCTION, TRANSPORT AND PROCESSING)

Agreed KDEs, terminology and
interoperability

Physical events, Locations and Parties,
Physical events, Locations and Parties,
all of which require manual and/or paper-based verification
all of which are verifiable and identifiable

Fig 2: Traceability: Current State Architecture Fig 3: Traceability: Future State Architecture

The current partly-digital approaches are built on The summary current state is: The future distributed architecture, comprises The summary future state is: best effort, with some attempts to digitise. Although KDEs as a ‘spine’ for the integration of regulatory
● non-standard Key Data Elements (KDEs) ● Data joins with regulation, via the KDE’s
EPCIS approaches exist, limited industry drivers compliance and supply chain traceability.
means data sharing is limited ● Verifiability and identifiably occurs via VC’s have meant that supply chain traceability in
● Verifiability and identifiably via paper, or ● current traceability is supported using ● EPCIS provides part of main “spine”
Australian agriculture efforts have lagged
paper-equivalent (PDF) processes established standards such as GS1 ● Link requirements in regulation to specific international expectations.
● Although GS1 and similar services exists, ● regulatory impact and encoding occurs elements of the spine
they are used intermittently once, per regulation. ● and then specific attestations and
● Regulations are implemented and complied ● Supply chains are digitally connected for measurement from the data
with using ‘best effort’ or ‘best available data transfer - hence network effects drive
knowledge’ greater adoption of efficient digital
● Specific attestations are provided as part of approaches
“proof of compliance” designed for
In a longer-term future, economic impacts and
inspections.
modelling could be linked to the effectiveness of
supply chains.

5
Consultation question 1: Refer to section 2.3. Do you agree with the
proposed high priority artefacts to be developed to support
interoperability? (Vocabulary, dictionary of data elements, canonical data
model) … and we encourage
Given that all the priorities are either “high” or thinking differently…
Yes, but we want appear to be not included, this seems a difficult
priority approach.
more... Regsoft recommends considering an Agile approach In our experience, a data standard without
for developing the data interoperability, rather than exemplar implementations is likely to result in key
prioritising specific layers of the implementation risks:
In our view, the prioritisation is well designed as a pyramid. We note that the current approach ● Incumbents use or re-purpose existing conceptual document and is likely to support appears to be focussed on a waterfall model of systems to support the data standard as a consensus building in a contested setting. Such an delivery, where requirements are prioritised, locked secondary approach; approach may be pragmatic. in, and then developed over time. ● Implemented standards are partial,
Regsoft encourages DAFF to look beyond An agile approach would be to develop viable selecting only those parts that align with prioritisation of data artefacts and documents, and functional data standard artifacts that are incumbents’ benefits; to focus on an outcome of developing an iteratively implementable. ● Claims of “interoperability” are large while
(continuously improved) operational, functional actual sharing of data is poor. This has data standard that is implementable by industry in For example, these may comprise some of the occurred with several “open” data accordance with the principles outlined. vocabulary, some of the ontology and various approaches, where proprietary data
“paper equivalent” data elements to provide a standards inhibit full sharing.
The Consumer Data Right (CDR) standard provided working prototype to the data standard. Regsoft an open data standard for permissioned data recommends that this ‘working prototype’ be We encourage the design of the standard to be sharing. The output of that work does not align with developed in parallel with the documented standard globally aligned, and localised only within specific
Fig 4 Data Mesh, Zhamak Dehghani the traceability requirements, but the approach and to ensure that any claimed benefits are validated constraints.
the outcome are very beneficial. An operational and compatibility with international standards is data standard has example code (eg. in XML) which also validated. We encourage DAFF to “think differently” in the shows how the data standard can be implemented. design of the data standards:
We note that Data61 was the initial developer of
1. Emerging (distributed) data approaches, the CDR Data Standards Body, and Data61 is also a Specific concerns: such as Data Mesh. We have provided an member of the Data Standards Work Group.
Logical and Physical data models should be partly image from Zhamak Dehgani’s book as an
A functional specification is defined, and supports in scope: we understand the need to remain example of how the data design should be an implementation of the data standard to be technology agnostic, however the current scope considered differently.
validated. Including the development of a data test limitations may produce standards that are useful harness, and validation process, will support research activities, whilst remaining difficult to 2. Conway’s law: a fundamental truth of any industry to: implement. system is that it will mimic the committee
structure that designed it. The scale of
1. Use and trust the standard, without being We believe the data standards should be designed opportunity involved stretches well beyond
members of industry working groups, or using an Agile, and functional prototype approach - traceability in Australian Agriculture, and
adopting specific data-sharing vendors’ or to demonstrate the use and testing of the standard. that “product claims” are likely to
researchers’ solutions.
encompass traceability as a small part of the
2. Develop value-add products and
offering. We encourage DAFF to “look
3. Avoid proprietary lock-in by groups who
outside its swim lane” and ensure the
build “black box” compliant services and
interoperability leverages similar work in
4. Avoid “standards washing” where
health, manufacturing and data sharing for
organizations build partial solutions to
Australian Government
standards, and require fees to access the
solution.

6
Data design: think globally, act locally, make it open access.

.. and define minimum
mandatory data stds accepted
Define open, specific Australian by all AU Governments that
data requirements if needed.. are free to use.
Where Australian industries need to describe products Every Australian Government accepts metric units
in a way that cannot be achieved using existing (and does not accept Imperial units).
standards, these should be defined locally. The
provenance of these definitions should reference the 4 While all data standards may not be required,
relevant international requirements. Australian governments as model purchasers should
adopt key, common data standards. Adopting these
Where Australian industries must align with multiple standards should provide a competitive advantage
(incompatible) data standards, local ‘meta’ standards for suppliers.
will be required.
3
Any Australian data standard should be designed and
published in a free and open manner. Specifically,
Australian data standards should never require
…then use data foundations for
payment to third parties (including Standards globally agreed, industry specific
Australia1) or government bodies. 2
data
It is important for export industries to describe
themselves and their products in terms that are
Start with globally agreed, compatible with internationally agreed definitions.
industry agnostic foundations 1 Adopting internationally agreed standards over locally
defined approaches provides several benefits:
Traceability data (place, events, actions) have been
● maximised international compatibility,
defined internationally for all industry sectors. While
increasing international market access
agricultural (and fisheries and forestry) industries may
not view themselves similarly to mineral extraction or
● large support for common standards - pharmaceuticals, the underlying data points are similar.
decreasing risk of ‘legacy’ definitions
For the data foundations, these similarities are key to
ensuring greatest adoption, and greatest resilience to
● increased market access for local suppliers
international interoperability.
(agriculture and ag-tech) services.
It may be necessary to find common elements of EU-
Fig 5: Australian, agriculture-sector data standards should be clearly built on national, and international standards
US- and other import country requirements, however,
starting from agreed international standards will
expedite this.

1. Standards Australia, and ISO, continue to charge for most standards (between $100 to $300 per standard), which is a
significant barrier to new entrants, and to those wishing to comply with mandatory Australian standards. See this older
article for details

7
Consultation question 2: Refer to section 2.3.1. Do you agree with the
criteria for selecting existing interoperability resources to leverage in the
framework?

Mostly, but… Consultation question 3: Refer to
section 2.3.1. Are there any other
criteria for selecting existing
Whilst we agree that the standard resources should resources that should be included?
be selected from reputable sources, the selection criteria for the resources is oriented toward “using a standard off the shelf” as though it were a piece of software, being purchased “as is”. This may be a simplicity of language, and we are hopeful that selecting resources is intended as a starting point
Yes: what is essentially a survey of existing resources.

We recommend adding:
Longevity: we do not agree with this as written. In use beyond (although possibly including)
This prioritises standards created by long-term agriculture: Is the resource already in use, credibly incumbents and risks solidifying market share of and industry wide, in an equivalent product-claim, those with a “history in the industry.” fast-moving-consumer-goods, or similar area in
Sadly, many such incumbents have build “data another industry?
exchanges” and “data sharing” that operate as digital moats for data and are not designed for Freely accessible: Is the resource freely available interoperability. It is not clear why a resource for use by the Australian community? If not, will offered by a market player with a long history funding be provided to overcome paywalled should be preferred automatically over a ‘better’ standards?
modern resource used in an equivalent data sharing industry - eg. open banking.
Ease of implementation: Does the standard include
an existing or example technology implementation?
If not, what is the likely cost to build such an
exemplar, and by whom?

Image: Toby Osborn 8
Consultation question 4: Refer to section 2.3.2.1. Do you agree with the Consultation question 5: Refer to section 2.3.2.2. Please indicate your
criteria for selecting the most important data terms to be included in the preference from the following:
vocabulary? a) Critical tracking events and key data elements developed by the United
States based Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) should be used as the
foundational traceability data terms.
Common definitions: Look beyond Agriculture.
We partly agree. Minerals, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing all
b) We should define our own data terms for traceability.
have similar common requirements.
These should be examined, to avoid a “special”
The current prioritisation of data elements is highly Regsoft strongly supports the use of established (b) Regsoft strongly rejects a localised,
definitions that are limited to the interests of one industry focussed, which is important. international foundational elements. To the extent Australian-based standard that is built around
Australian Government department - ie, “land use”
We note that a few criteria are missing: means the same for crops, dairy and livestock. It that this is achieved through option (a), we prefer local requirements with limited connection to
also means the same for mineral extraction and is option (a) over option (b). international requirements.
largely the same for property planning. However, In our view, localised data standards
Re-use international models. Data terms that can be adopted directly from established international The GS1 standards from the IFT are more ● present a barrier to entry - they help local standards should be prioritised. Regulatory requirements: the data terms that comprehensive and inclusive than those of the US incumbents sustain barriers for new
industry provides to governments (state and systems. These standards have been adopted across entrants by requiring new entrants to match
federal) are highly impacted by the choices of the world, including under EU regulations, and the data offerings of the incumbent
metrics government departments decide upon and across sectors.
also on the choices of software services that ● introduce risks for data matching as
support Departmental workflows. Regulatory products move beyond Australian borders
The foundation data elements of the
requirements should be considered from the
interoperability should rest on world best practices, ● limit market competition: smaller software
perspective of what ought to be measured, rather
to meet future data requirements, and avoid developers are less likely to build specialised
than what is currently being asked for.
selecting one or two international bodies as offerings for local data systems
“foundational”
● Encourage hyper-localised data approaches,
eg, per jurisdiction, or per sub-sector

● Isolate Australian product offerings from
international best practice.

Image: Tim Hufner
9
Consultation question 6: Refer to section 2.3.3. Would an agricultural
traceability and product data ontology be a valuable resource to support
interoperability?

The value of an ontology resource is built on a few
Yes, we strongly agree. similar elements. Successful development will drive
a network/platform model for data:
● Networked use: like a telephone network,
As part of our funded work, Regsoft has developed a
value grows with the square of number of preliminary conversion between dairy product data,
users (ie, small value for pilots, and very
GS1 (XML, JSON-LD) encoding and regulatory
large value for community adoption) requirements.
Regsoft would be happy to collaborate and support ● (Very) Low barrier to adoption, and ongoing the development of the ontology and extension of value addition. We would encourage the this. Department to resource the development of
the ontology to the point that it was a freely
It is our strong view that an Australian traceability
accessible resource.
and product data ontology would be a highly a valuable resource to support interoperability.
● Early adopter benefits: creating
The value of this resource will depend on: competitive advantages for joining early,
Does it provide a competitive advantage for before the ontology is fully developed.
industry? Eg. If the ontology is available, will it mean that different industries can communicate more ● Currency - being up to date - and aligning to easily with regulators? A barrier to use would be international markets current regulators not using the standard: demanding compliance to their own workflows and ● More than one agency user - we understand data terms, whilst encouraging industry to be the need to start, and we also understand interoperable in a new standard. that adding more cross-agency involvement
tends to slow decision making. However, if
the ontology can be designed to address
Is it low cost for industry to adopt? similar needs in other regulated
environments, this presents a unique
Is it governed, and maintained? If the ontology potential to build global opportunities.
becomes “out of date” or becomes research oriented (such as SnoMED) then the value will diminish

Can it provide a backbone for other traceability related initiatives- eg. cross-border electricity trade, and so-called Green Lane approaches?

Image: Brooke Lark
10
Consultation question 7: Refer to section 2.3.6. What other standards should be considered in the list of recommended standards to support
interoperability?

Standard name Details Standard name Details
An industry consortium standard for data exchange in
AgGateway ADAPT agriculture, facilitating compatibility between various Useful for metadata standards when dealing with geospatial
ISO 19115 (Geographic information - Metadata)
systems and machinery. agricultural data.
AgGateway Precision Ag Data Exchange (PDX) A data exchange format for precision agriculture data. A standard for specifying the data products generated by
ISO 19131 (Data Product Specification)
ISO 10871 (Agricultural Equipment - Airblast Equipment - Standard for classifying and describing airblast equipment on-farm machinery.
Vocabulary and Classification) used in agriculture. ISO 19156 (Geographic information - Observations and Pertains to encoding observations and measurements data in
ISO 10967 (Agricultural equipment - Control and communication measurements) agriculture.
Related to data communication in agricultural equipment. A standard for encoding observations and measurements data network) ISO 19156 (Observations and Measurements)
A standard for testing the performance of agricultural data in agriculture, including weather and soil information.
ISO 11221 (Agricultural tractors - Performance test code) ISO 21283 (Tractors and machinery for agriculture and
tractors. Standard for identifying basic types of agricultural machinery.
ISO 11780 (Tractors and machinery for agriculture and forestry - forestry - Basic types - Identification)
A part of ISO 11783 related to general requirements for A standard for data models used in farm management
Serial control and communications data network - Part 1; General ISO 27974 (Agriculture - Farm Management Data)
communication networks on agricultural machinery. systems.
requirements)
This standard defines the communication protocol for A standard for vocabulary related to chainsaws used in
ISO 2972 (Forestry machinery - Chainsaws - Vocabulary)
ISO 11783 (ISOBUS) agricultural equipment, enabling interoperability between forestry.
different manufacturers. ISO 36520 (Agriculture and Forestry - Geospatial Imagery and
Standards for geospatial data used in precision agriculture.
ISO 11785 (Tractors and machinery for agriculture and forestry - Specifies the use of Controller Area Network (CAN) in Data Requirements for Precision Agriculture)
Serial control and communications data network) agricultural machinery. ISO 37120 (Sustainable development of communities - Can be applied to assess the sustainability of agricultural
ISO 11788 (Tractors and machinery for agriculture and forestry - Indicators for city services and quality of life) communities.
Rotary disk mowers and flail mowers - Vocabulary and selection Vocabulary and criteria for selecting mowers. ISO 4254 (Agricultural machinery - Safety) Standards for safety requirements for agricultural machinery.
criteria)
ISO 639-1 (Codes for the representation of names of languages Relevant for multilingual data management in the agricultural
ISO 12639 (Digital data exchange - Architecture, edifice, and basic Relevant for data exchange in agriculture, especially in the
- Part 1; Alpha-2 code) sector.
information standard) context of infrastructure.
ISO 6974 (Natural gas - Calculation of calorific values, density, Useful for energy calculations in agriculture. Also relevant for
ISO 13131 (Data management and communication in the Addresses data management and communication in
relative density, and Wobbe index from composition) data collection in DCCEEW carbon legislation utilization of agricultural tractors and self-propelled machinery) agricultural machinery.
ISO 730 (Agricultural machinery - Safety signs and hazard Standards for safety signs and hazard pictorials on
Provides a reference model for geographic information,
ISO 13569 (Geographic information - Reference model) pictorials - General principles) agricultural machinery.
which can be applicable in agricultural systems.
ISO 734 (Agricultural machinery - Cereal and grain legume
ISO 14530 (Agricultural and forestry machinery - Electromagnetic Standards for ensuring electromagnetic compatibility of Standard for vocabulary related to threshing machinery.
threshers - Vocabulary) compatibility) agricultural and forestry machinery.
A standard for managing data quality, which is important for
Part of the standard that focuses on data communication ISO 8000 (Data quality)
ISO 15143-2 (Tractor Implement Interface - Data communication) accurate agricultural data.
within the tractor-implement interface.
Relevant for vehicle diagnostics and maintenance of
A standard for exchanging data related to the location and ISO 9141 (Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems)
ISO 15143-3 (TCI) agricultural machinery.
activities of agricultural vehicles.
ISO 15143-3 (Tractor Implement Interface - Electronic hitch Specifies a communication protocol for tractor-implement control) interfaces.
ISO 15143-4 (Tractor Implement Interface - Sensor Focuses on sensor communication within the communication) tractor-implement interface.
ISO 15686-4 Buildings and constructed assets - Service life
Service life planning using data from service life testing planning - Part 4
ISO 17115 (Agricultural irrigation equipment - Center-pivot and Standard for vocabulary and classification of irrigation moving lateral irrigation machines - Vocabulary and classification) equipment.
Pertains to the conceptual schema of geographic
ISO 19103 (Geographic information - Conceptual schema)
information, which is applicable in agriculture.

11
Some current and emerging initiatives to collect and exchange farming data Other relevant metadata standards

INITIATIVES GOVERNING ORGANISATION DETAILS MATURITY ISO/IEC 11179 - Metadata Registries (MDR): ISO 8000 - Data Quality:
Part 3: Registry Metamodel and Basic Attributes Part 110: Master Data: Exchange of Characteristic
ADAPT + references AgGateway Operational (ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013): This standard defines the Data: Syntax, Semantic Encoding, and Conformance
AgDatahub AgDatahub Operational metamodel for a metadata registry, including the to Requirements for Data Exchange (ISO
structure and attributes necessary to register 8000-110:2009): Specifies requirements for the
Agripilot Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Under development metadata about data elements and their exchange of master data and includes metadata
AgriRouteur DKE-Data Operational interrelationships. requirements necessary to ensure data quality.
Part 7: Metamodel for Data Set Registration Part 120: Data Quality Management: Roles and
Brazilian Association of Machinery and Equipment
BDCA Under development (ISO/IEC 11179-7:2019): This standard extends the Responsibilities (ISO 8000-120:2016): Focuses on
Industry
MDR to include metadata describing datasets, the management of data quality, including metadata
DAPLOS, eDAPLOS + references AgroEDI Europe Operational including their provenance and quality. roles and responsibilities.
DataConnect John Deere, CNH, Claas, 365FarmNet Operational Part 140: Application of Data Quality Management
in Electronic Commerce (ISO 8000-140:2016):
DataLinker Red Meat Profit Partnership (RMPP) Operational ISO 23081 - Managing Metadata for Records:
Applies data quality management principles to
ISOXML AEF Operational Part 1: Principles (ISO 23081-1:2006): Establishes e-commerce, specifying the necessary metadata.
the principles necessary to define metadata for
JoinData JoinData Operational
records management.
MyEasyFarm MyEasyFarm Operational SDMX (Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange):
Part 2: Conceptual and Implementation Issues (ISO
Nevonex Bosch Operational 23081-2:2009): Provides guidelines on SDMX 2.1: Provides technical specifications for the
implementation and conceptualization of metadata exchange of statistical data and metadata, including
FNSEA, Coopération agricole, Groupe Avril, APCA
Numagri Under development for records. formats for XML, JSON, and CSV. It outlines the
(France)
structure and necessary metadata for data
Part 3: Self-Assessment Method (ISO/TR
Emerging data standards for on-farm machinery One of the key standards in this domain is the exchange to ensure clarity and consistency
23081-3:2011): Offers guidance on conducting
are pivotal in the modernization of agriculture, Agricultural Industry Electronics Foundation (AEF) (SDMX).
self-assessment on records metadata in relation to
promoting efficiency, sustainability, and data-driven ISOBUS standard. ISOBUS is a standardized
their creation, capture, and control
decision-making. These standards are being communication protocol that allows tractors,
developed to facilitate the seamless exchange of implements, and software to exchange data
information among various agricultural equipment, seamlessly. It provides a common language for
software, and stakeholders. different machinery brands, ensuring that they can
work together without compatibility issues. This
As agriculture becomes increasingly mechanized
standard covers data related to equipment control,
and data-driven, the need for interoperability and
sensors, and precision farming, streamlining
data standards for on-farm machinery has become
on-farm operations.
paramount. Emerging data standards aim to
standardize the way data is collected, shared, and Emerging data standards also address the security
used across different agricultural equipment and and privacy concerns associated with agricultural
software platforms. These standards enable data. They include guidelines for data encryption,
farmers to manage their machinery and operations user authentication, and access control to protect
more efficiently while promoting sustainable sensitive information collected by farm machinery.
farming practices.
These standards support precision agriculture
practices, such as variable rate application of OBSERVATION #
fertilizers and pesticides. They also enable real-time
data monitoring, predictive maintenance, and the While standards (such as ISOBUS) emerge for
integration of machine learning and artificial sharing data between machinery, digital moats and
intelligence to optimize farming practices. the commercialisation of farm data remain
significant barriers to sharing.

12
ADAPT: An example of data sharing across whole farm management

The ADAPT standard is a free, open web system design for building interoperability between proprietary Farm
Information Management Systems. It allows multiple manufacturers’ systems to work compatibility and support data valuation for data providers and users.

Images courtesy of AgGateway Images courtesy of AgGateway

Fig 6: Cross-standard data sharing approaches exist in agriculture already
13
Consultation question 8: Refer to section 2.3.6.2. How can the issue of
multiple location identifiers be addressed?

Define the preferred Consultation question 9: Refer
to section 2.3.6.2. Are there any source of truth. other gaps in data standards you
Location identifiers are best (most fully) aligned for would like to see addressed?
critical infrastructure and emergency services.
Regsoft recommends involving the agencies most closely align with geo-location:
Yes, but…
● Geoscience Australia
● Geoscape In our view, the ‘gaps’ in standards are less critical
● Department of Industry than the need to address use cases and scenarios:
where gaps exist, these will become evident.
Each have coordinated a mechanism to specifically align on location identifiers. Our recommendation is to develop clear use cases
for interoperability, and map preferred dat
standards against this.
The next step is to map each of these, to a single
In our experience, many data standards will partly standard interface, which may be GS1.
support the desire and use-cases given but none will
The document notes several GS1 options, and completely deliver the required outcome. In this contrasts with other (less than ideal) options. case, mapping the inputs of the relevant ingredient
standard and providing clear provenance for all data
No new approach for location identities can hope to
fields will be more important than agreeing on remove the tendency for others (including
which gaps exist.
Australian Federal and State governments and local councils) to use incompatible legacy identifiers.
Regsoft recommends selecting a small number of ideal identifiers, mapping them to a single standard
– possibly GS1 if that is the optimal choice - and encouraging other location identifiers to be mapped as needed.

14
Image: Mario Schebel
Consultation question 10: Refer to section 2.3.6.3. Are there any risks or Consultation question 12: Refer to section 2.4.2. Is the proposed
issues you know of with the W3C verifiable credentials and decentralised governance structure adequate to support the development and
identifiers (DID) standards? maintenance of the framework?

We’re not sure. Consultation question 11: Refer Mostly. Consultation question 13: Refer to
to section 2.4.1. Do you think any section 2.4.2. Please list any
The W3C verifiable credentials and decentralised
parts of the framework should be stakeholder groups you believe to identifiers (DID) standards provide a compelling
We have some uncertainty with the structure of the be missing from the proposed decentralised accreditation option. mandatory to use in the governance, as the terms of reference are not yet
Positives: development of data systems? defined.
governance structure.
The standard is freely available, and as it is Is this a consensus driven approach? The structure
appears to be designed around consensus and emerging hsa a strong international support.
Whilst some work has been done in demonstrating Not yet, but later: yes. “behind the scenes” discussions. This might be asking this, we believe more should be done to provide implementable examples - beyond descriptive text.
We encourage shifting to an open dialog structure
that drives active, wide consultation continuously
the wrong question…
In our experience, data standards have little value over point-in-time discussion papers and Australia’s government agencies associated with
It is important to avoid conflating DIDs, general
until they are enforced. Definitions of which parts, presentations. An example would be IEEE data appear to be missing, unless they are decentralised approaches and other distributed
and what “mandatory” means should also be standards, or Consumer Data Right, which have considered part of the general “government” ledger offerings – all of these are quite different.
determined. wide ranging voluntary inputs, clear deadlines for stakeholder group:
decisions and operate internationally. Committee
Greenlane options: The Australian Government ● The Office of the National Data
discussions should be publicly accessible and not
Our concerns with the DID standards: (and DAFF in particular) can support activating the Commissioner
limited to select members. Disagreements between
We are very happy with a decentralised approach standards by noting that data received in ● Digital Transformation Agency
standards’ offerings should be articulated clearly for identification and credentialing. compliance with the standard will have a lower cost ● Equivalent agencies in each state & territory
and openly.
of doing business. This might involve less assurance, ● Data Champions network
However, the examples offered for “decentralised” a higher threshold for interventions and more rapid credentials are all central agencies, or turn around in applications. Intellectual Property in the standard governance is communication between central agencies. We note that a public, open consultation where all
not defined. It is important to note that some
We believe that more is needed to validate the members of the AATGG have a direct benefit and standards discussion are openly accessible by all regulatory and assurance side of the credentials, Assurance options: before a standard becomes will mitigate the risk of “missing” stakeholders.
interest in certain decisions related to IP ownership rather than their technical security. In our view, the “mandatory” validation and compliance can be used
and control. In other standards, these are known as This may be better than trying to ensure that all concepts and definitions of DID’s are established. as a marketing and support approach. Developing a
“standards essential patents” (SEPs) ie. a patent that relevant stakeholder have been appropriately
More demonstrated uses of these artifacts would small cohort who can demonstrate net benefits for
is essential to deliver components and be compliant included in the wider governance structure.
help support adoption. business will also support standardised without
to the standard - and thus presents the risk of a
mandatory elements.
standard mandated monopoly for the patent
owned, nad a natural conflict of interest.
As noted, the “DAFF Traceability AgTrace project is piloting such a protocol through a number of use cases. Any mandatory parts of the standard should be
This protocol is called the ‘Australian Agricultural freely available, and should have open access
Regsoft recommends that the standards’
Traceability Protocol’ (AATP).” It would be very useful examples. Mandating compliance with a standard
governance adopt a process, in which SEPs are to have public demonstrations provided and opened that costs money to view simply creates a
freely accessible by all. All possibly controlling IP once the pilot has reached sufficient maturity. cost-to-comply for business.
should be declared, and if included a free-for-use,
under reasonable terms should be required.

15
Verifiable Credentials (VC) - some additional context

Verifiable Verifiable
Credential Presentation

Metadata Metadata

Partly Redacted
Claims
Claims

Issuer Proof Holder Proof Verifier

Fig 8: Verifiable Credentials and Verifiable Presentation with partially redacted claims from [2]

Fig 7: Verifiable Credential Ecosystem from [1]

Why verifiable credentials? Verifiable Credentials have 3 parts:

Regulation is fundamental about behaviour: who ● Metadata: A standard header, containing did what and why. Verifiable credentials assure the information like the credential type (e.g. the
“who” in regulatory engagements. country of origin), the issuer (e.g. DAFF or
DFAT), subject identity (e.g. the pallet
Verifiable Credentials (VC’s) are defined by the
packing identity) and issue date (e.g. 2023)
World-Wide-Web Consortium (W3C) Verifiable
● Claims: A set of claims (eg. that the pallet
Credential (VC) standard [1].
contains organic produce) and
In the physical world, a credential might consist of: ● Proof: Cryptographically verifiable proof
● Information related to identifying the subject of that the VC has not been tampered with.
the credential (eg., a photo, name, or Verifiable Credentials promise the following:
identification number)
● Decentralised: in the same way we carry a
● Information related to the issuing authority (eg.,
driver’s license in a (digital) wallet, a verifier
a city government, national agency, or
of the VC does not need to contact the
certification body)
issuer (e.g. the ACT Registry office)
A verifiable credential can represent all of the same
● Paper Compatible: VCs represent digital information that a physical credential represents. The
versions of existing paper products and addition of technologies, such as digital signatures,
maintain similar workflows makes verifiable credentials more tamper-evident and more trustworthy than their physical counterparts. ● Privacy preserving: VC holders may choose
to reveal only certain aspects of the VC (e.g.
Holders of verifiable credentials can generate verifiable
organic origins, but not price) presentations and then share these verifiable presentations with verifiers to prove they possess ● Cryptographically secure: providing (e.g.
verifiable credentials with certain characteristics. public-private key encryption) to inhibit
forgery.
Verifiable credentials also have a presentation
approach which allows the holder of the credential
to redact (or withhold) some information. This
supports identity certification using a common
regulatory approach can mitigate privacy risks.
1. Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1 W3C Image: social cut
2. See also United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) White Paper on eDATA Verifiable Credentials for
Cross Border Trade which addresses key data requirement for trusted cross-border trade, including supporting traceability. This white paper
summarises [1] and we have extracted various elements for this overview.

16
Consultation question 14: Refer to section 3.1. How might these barriers be
addressed?

"It always seems Consultation question 15: Refer to
section 3.1. Are there any other impossible until it's barriers to adoption of the
framework that you can think of?
done."
Nelson Mandela
Government (and
In our view, most of the barriers can be overcome by simply committing to start, and by a commitment
regulators) are the to support the roadmap to standards. The following are suggested approaches to address the main
main drivers for data barriers:
Commercial challenges: The development of
sharing standards should create a business benefit. Without A significant barrier for adopting interoperable data this, there is no incentive for businesses to adopt standards is the lack of interoperability between them. regulators’ systems.
Future business use, including government use and Put simply: Industry will find it hard to justify an procurement, of standard compliant services will investment in new “data sharing” standards when partly address this barrier. the compliance and regulatory requests for data are
designed for legacy (and even pre-digital)
Legacy rural: The digital service standard provides
approaches.
significant support for this. Further, for those who cannot use digital technologies, other support can This has been tangentially referred to as “lack of be provided rather than building a data standard to leadership” but the main barrier is lack of address paper based uses. agreement between government agencies and even
within government agencies, to agree on a minimum
Technical: An operating technical example of the
set of data definitions that can be interoperable.
standard will help to address these barriers. This will support adoption, and re-use and extension based on technical (vs. written) details
Licensing costs: both ISO and Standards Australia charges and proprietary standards: these are commercial decisions, and can be addressed via an appropriate funding mechanism. Some approaches include:
● publish, and prioritise standards supporting
CC BY 4.0,
● provide (limited) funding to standards
bodies to “buy out” paywalled standards
documents
● Avoid providing developed standards to
bodies who require paywall access.

17
Image: ThisIsEngineering
Thankyou

Image: Britt Gaiser 18