1 / 21

Tigers Working Group

Tigers Working Group. 4.x Schema review. Participants. Scott Mueller, Wisconsin Richard Rogers & JoAnn Costa, California Toraino Owens, Florida Penny Berman, Maryland Angela Gridley & Preston Barnett, Ceridian Jenine Hallings, PayChex Joyce Inouye, ADP Winston Stein, BSWA

cardea
Download Presentation

Tigers Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tigers Working Group 4.x Schema review

  2. Participants • Scott Mueller, Wisconsin • Richard Rogers & JoAnn Costa, California • Toraino Owens, Florida • Penny Berman, Maryland • Angela Gridley & Preston Barnett, Ceridian • Jenine Hallings, PayChex • Joyce Inouye, ADP • Winston Stein, BSWA • Faye Shea, Intuit

  3. Meeting Goals • General Schema review, including alignment with MeF • Packaging • Support for FTP and. Web Services • Allow transmission packaging to support larger service providers • Support for Acknowledgements • Support for PDF attachments • The Question of a Manifest • New Hire and Contractor Reporting • Enrollment and Data Exchange Schema Updates • Gateway update • Need for new service to support Data Exchange Response • Progress on creating a Reference WSDL for use in developing a Web Service solution • Accompanying documentation • Including Standard Error messaging

  4. 4.x Alignment with MeF • WH, UI and Combined filings and payments review is complete • New Hire and Contractor reporting • Verified initial Schemas provided • Scott will evaluate latest version against 4.x standards – To be done before Orlando • Data Exchange and Enrollment • Verified alignment with MeF • Questions from Tucson meeting • TimeStamp – Concern that this may be a reserved word • Tag is used in MeF, and is also in the other filing schemas. • Team recommendation - Leave this tag as is and address all schemas if the decision is made to change it. • Length of tag names • Team recommendation - Tag names are consistent with MeF and other filing schemas

  5. Packaging

  6. Packaging: One to Many Submissions per transmission • HTTPS/FTP • Transmission sent with Transmission and Transmission header • Include 1 to many submissions of Return State • Web Services • Each submission is a separate instance documents • Submissions can be zipped and transmitted together

  7. Packaging – Acknowledgements • Support for Acknowledgements • Message Receipt for transmission • Each return has a submission id allowing acknowledgements for each submission

  8. Packaging – PDF Attachments • Utilize existing MeF mechanism to provide support for Binary Attachments • Consists of 4 elements • Reference (Form & Line number) • Document Type (PDF) • Description (Text – for example POA) • Attachment Location (File Name, for example SubmissionId.pdf • 2 Folders inside zip file • Separate folders for XML and PDF • Naming Standards • xml • attachment • Example Enrollment1.xml • Enrollment1.pdf • … • Enrollment99.xml • Enrollment99.pdf

  9. The Question of a Manifest • Purpose – IRS identification and minimal validation of state filings • Identify Jurisdiction • FEIN, Name Control Check • Determine Link v. Unlinked submission • Designed to allow IRS to read and react without reading state return • Team Recommendation • – No need for a manifest until FSET is included in MeF. We can add at that time.

  10. New Schemas for 4.x

  11. New Hire and Contractor Reporting Added to Return State Structure

  12. Enrollment Schema Updates • Modifications to Enumerated List • A,C,D to Add, Change, Delete • EML, FAX, USP to E-mail, Fax, USPS • Restructured to support: • Multiple Enrollment per transmission • Separate Acknowledgement for each enrollment • Support for PDF Attachments

  13. Enrollment Schema • Support for FTP and. Web Services • Allow transmission packaging to support larger service providers • Support for Acknowledgements • Support for PDF attachments

  14. Data Exchange Schema Update Categorization of Data • Requirement • Provide ability to send separate data exchange requests • This could be required for agencies with multiple back-end systems (Today CA has 3 separate data exchange formats), or for WH data vs. UI data • Proposal • Addition of 3 optional tags • EFT, Rates, and Applied for • If Agency chooses to use the tags, implementation documentation will provide instructions on how to populate this field and what fields will be returned for each option. • This also allows for one submission • All tags could be checked, or the tag could be omitted

  15. Data Exchange Schema Update One v. Two Schemas • Requirement • Determine optimal schema format to allow: • Only required fields to request data to be sent to agency • Separate Request and Response elements • Allow for repetition of Request elements in Response – while minimizing complexity of maintenance (if the tags are changed in either it is changed for both) • Proposal • RequestExchangeDataState.xsd • Contains only the elements to be sent when sending a request • ResponseExchangeDataState.xsd • Includes RequestExchangeDataState.xsd as well as all possible response elements

  16. Data Exchange Schema Update • Packaging • Support for FTP and Web Services • Allows for Transmission packaging to support larger service providers • Support for Acknowledgements • Support for PDFs? Is this required?

  17. Gateway Update

  18. Gateway Methods • Recommended Gateway Services can be used for this new structure • SendSubmissions • GetAcks • GetNewAcks • ChangePassword • Additional Gateway Service required to Get Response for Data Exchange • GetResponse, GetNewResponse?

  19. Gateway – Next Steps • Creation of ‘Reference’ WSDL for state use • Documentation for implementation • Update WSDL recommendation to reflect decisions • Include supported services • Name for new services • GetResponse, GetNewResponse • Document Mandatory vs Optional Services • For example ChangePassword may be optional • How to implement Gateway • Include flowchart of how the process works • Include ‘Lessons learned’ • Volunteers to work with Richard • Faye will help with documentation • Scott will help with technical part • Other volunteers welcomed!

  20. Still To Be discussed . . . . • Recommendation for Standardized error messages • Recommendation for Supporting documentation

  21. Actions from February Discussion • Open • State Contractor Schema name to long – can’t be longer than 30 • Verify persontype is consistent with other 4.x schemas in New Hire and contractor reporting • Location of submission id on various schemas • Working group to discuss, document both options and send with pros & cons for group vote • Closed • Packaging - folders • Recommendation included in this PPT • Is there a need for the gateway to handle submissions through one gateway to send to other agencies in the state • This will not be supported in Version 1 • We can reopen if the need arises • If we extend the gateway to support this, it may reopen the question of the manifest

More Related