Other Freight Distribution and Logistics Centers --> Freight Distribution and Logistics Center:
load matching systems coordination
This triple is bi-directional. See also
Freight Distribution and Logistics Center --> Other Freight Distribution and Logistics Centers: load matching systems coordination
Definitions
load matching systems coordination (Information Flow): Coordination of intermodal load-matching information between peer systems.
Other Freight Distribution and Logistics Centers (Source Physical Object): Representing another Freight Distribution and Logistics Center, 'Other Freight Distribution and Logistics Center ' provides a source and destination for information exchange between peer centers. It enables sharing of intermodal logistics support information between centers.
Freight Distribution and Logistics Center (Destination Physical Object): The 'Freight Distribution and Logistics Center' provides intermodal logistics support and support for the efficient distribution of freight across transport systems and modes. This can include consolidation arrangements, warehousing, and consignor-to-consignee intermodal shipping arrangements. These capabilities may be provided as part of intermodal fleet management activities or can be provided by an independent logistics specialist.
Included In
This Triple is in the following Service Packages:
This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:
This Triple is described by the following Functional View Data Flows:
This Triple has the following triple relationships:
None |
Communication Solutions
- (None-Data) - Secure Internet (ITS) (43)
Selected Solution
Solution Description
ITS Application Entity
Development needed |
Click gap icons for more info.
|
||
Mgmt
|
Facilities
Development needed |
Security
|
|
TransNet
|
|||
Access
Internet Subnet Alternatives |
Note that some layers might have alternatives, in which case all of the gap icons associated with every alternative may be shown on the diagram, but the solution severity calculations (and resulting ordering of solutions) includes only the issues associated with the default (i.e., best, least severe) alternative.
Characteristics
Characteristic | Value |
---|---|
Time Context | Recent |
Spatial Context | Regional |
Acknowledgement | True |
Cardinality | Unicast |
Initiator | Destination |
Authenticable | True |
Encrypt | True |
Interoperability | Description |
---|---|
Regional | Interoperability throughout the geopolitical region is highly desirable, but if implemented differently in different transportation management jurisdictions, significant benefits will still accrue in each jurisdiction. Regardless, this Information Flow Triple should be implemented consistently within a transportation jurisdiction (i.e., the scope of a regional architecture). |
Security
Information Flow Security | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability | ||
Rating | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | |
Basis | Load matching information between centers should not be competitive, but is need-to-know. An unauthorized third party that learned the information in this flow might gain an understanding of operations they should not have, providing a competitive or informational advantage. | If corrupted, this could lead to confusion in load matching, reducing performance of CVO and drayage operations in particular. | CVO decisions including job acceptance, routing and work planning are impacted by the quality of this data, so incorrect, unavailable or fraudulent data could have a significant financial impact. |
Security Characteristics | Value |
---|---|
Authenticable | True |
Encrypt | True |