Identifier Standardization Challenges in Golden Record and Onboarding Processes

[maximilianong]

Overview

Explain the topic in 2 sentences

In the golden record process, non-standardized identifier values and overlapping identifier types, especially for HRB numbers, risk creating duplicates. Additionally, if identifier inputs don't match the clearing house's regex requirements, company validation fails during onboarding.

What's the benefit?

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

Dependencies to Portal.

Detailed explanation

Current implementation

1. Actual problem in the golden record process:
   We do not standardize identifier values which can cause duplicates in the golden record process. There are also some identifier types which overlap.

Especially for the HRB number there multiple possibilities to create a combination of the number of and the name of the local court. (#605)

2. Problem in the on-boarding process
   If the identifier input does not align on the regex with the clearing house, the validation of the company fails.

Proposed improvements

Maybe lets start with the identifiers that are in scope of the clearing house to have a data model and a proof that those identifiers fit to the requirements:

Commercial Identifier	Technical Name	Example Value	Format
VAT ID number	vatID	DE129395680	see VIES FAQ, Q11 for structure
Economic Operators Registration and Identification number (EORI)	eori	PL1234567890ABCD	17-character alphanumeric string
Commercial register number	local	HRB55933	see Appendix A at the end of this page
Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)	leiCode	5299004XPX8GS3AHAV34	20-character alphanumeric string

Feature Team

Contributor

• Contributor 1
• Contributor 2

Committer

• Committer 1
• Committer 2

User Stories

• Issue 1, linked to specific repository
• Issue 2, linked to another specific repository

Acceptance Criteria

• Criteria 1
• Criteria 2
• Criteria 3

Test Cases

Test Case 1

Steps

1. Do something
2. Click something
3. Add something

Expected Result

1. Expectation
2. Expectation
3. Expectation

Architectural Relevance

The following items are ensured (answer: yes) after this issue is implemented:

• This feature aligns with our current architectural guidelines
  • Data Sovereignty: All data sharing activities across company boundaries follow the Catena-X Regulatory Framework, in particular the Data Exchange Governance, and the Dataspace Protocol via a compliant Connector (like the tractusx-edc or similar, see Connector KIT)
    • CX-0010 Business Partner Number
    • CX-0013 Identity of Member Companies
    • CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
    • CX-0049 DID Document Schema
    • CX-0050 Framework Agreement Credential
    • CX-0149 Verified Company Identity
  • Interoperability: Digital Twins are used (compliant to the Digital Twin KIT and the Industry Core KIT)
    • CX-0001 EDC Discovery API
    • CX-0002 Digital Twins in Catena-X
    • CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • Data Format:
    • The data model is based on a published Semantic Model
• The impact on the overall system architecture has been assessed. The Feature does not require changes to the architecture or any existing standard? Please have a look here on the overarching architecture
• Potential risks or conflicts with existing architecture has been assessed

Justification: (Fill this out, if at least one of the checkboxes above cannot be ticked. Contact the Architecture Management Committee to get an approval for the justification)

Additional information

• I am aware that my request may not be developed if no developer can be found for it. I'll try to contribute a developer (bring your own developer)

[stephanbcbauer]

Some hints from Release Management (@ther3sa) and Tractus-X Project Lead (@stephanbcbauer)

• Status currently in Inbox. ⇾ Only features with status backlog are considered in open planning
• Please add missing sections from the feature template, or fill them out
• Please add contributor and committer
• Please add assignee (overall responsible person who drives the feature)
• Since the feature seems to have an dependency to portal ... did you talk to the team? @MaximilianHauer

[evegufy]

@maximilianong is this a duplicate to #605?

[stephanbcbauer]

Since this feature was not presented in the Open Planning ⇾ I will add the status “not in release” ⇾ if this feature is planned for 25.03, let's talk. If it is planned for 25.6, please add the label and set the status back to Inbox.

[stephanbcbauer]

Just to clean up, this feature is set to Inbox and the label Prep-R25.06 is added