Reference Standards & Frameworks
Nine industry standards and frameworks were assessed for relevance to terminal operating system architecture at CLdN's mixed cargo terminals. CLdN operates own terminals at 6 locations: Zeebrugge (3 terminals, 2M m²), Rotterdam (3 terminals, 888K m²), Vlissingen (1M m²), Killingholme (1M m²), London (660K m²), and Liverpool (110K m²). Cargo scope: trailers, containers (incl. tankcontainers), automotive and project cargo. Car carrier operations are out of scope. No single standard provides a complete TOS domain model — each covers a specific layer.
Comparison Overview
| Standard | Governing Body | Latest | Scope | Data Format | RoRo Fit | Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCSA Port Call | DCSA (9 container lines) | 2021 | Vessel/terminal interface — JIT timestamps, track & trace, B/L | REST / JSON / OpenAPI | Low | Free (GitHub) |
| PortCDM / IALA S-211 | IPCDMC / IALA | 2018 (v1.1) | Port call coordination — phases, timestamps, services | REST / JSON | Medium | Free |
| IMO FAL | IMO | 2024 (MSW mandate) | Maritime reporting — crew, cargo, hazmat declarations | XML / National MSW | Medium | Free (IMO Compendium) |
| EU EMSWe | EMSA / EU | Reg. 2019/1239 | EU port reporting — harmonized dataset (92 groups, 1120+ elements) | XML / EMSWe API | Medium | Open (EUR-Lex) |
| UN/CEFACT BSP | UN/CEFACT | 2010+ | Trade & transport — Buy-Ship-Pay & multimodal transport RDM | XML / UN/EDIFACT | Medium | Free |
| GS1 EPCIS 2.0 | GS1 (ISO/IEC 19987) | 2022 | Supply chain visibility — 5 event types, 42 CBV bizStep codes | JSON-LD / XML | Low | Free (GS1) |
| EDIFACT / SMDG | UN / SMDG | Ongoing | Port & shipping EDI — BAPLIE, COPRAR, COARRI, CODECO, MOVINS | EDI / EDIFACT | Low | Free |
| TIC 4.0 | TIC (Brussels, 70+ members) | 2025 (17 releases) | Container terminal IT — CHE telemetry, TOS data model, cycle/move semantics | API | Low | Members only |
| ISO 28000 | ISO | 2022 (3rd ed.) | Security management — PDCA, risk assessment, supply chain | Management system | High (process) | Paid (ISO) |
Standard Details
DCSA — Digital Container Shipping Association Low RoRo fit
DCSA defines open-source, API-first standards for the container shipping industry. Their Port Call 2.0 standard defines 110+ timestamp types for vessel/terminal coordination (JIT — Just-In-Time). The Track & Trace v2.2 standard tracks container events end-to-end.
Key Data Model Entities
RoRo Assessment
Port Call timestamps are cargo-agnostic and applicable to RoRo vessels. However, T&T, B/L, Booking, and Load List standards are container-only (ISO 6346 container IDs). No VIN tracking, no RoRo deck assignment, no vehicle manifest standard. Terminal is modelled as a data receiver, not a primary actor.
PortCDM / IALA S-211 Medium RoRo fit
Port Collaborative Decision Making (PortCDM) is the most port-call-coordination-complete standard. S-211 (registered by IALA) defines a port call message format with timestamps for 5 phases: pre-arrival, arrival, alongside, cargo operations, and departure. Terminal operators are explicitly named as actors.
Key Data Model Entities
RoRo Assessment
Cargo-type neutral — timestamps work for any vessel type. However, S-211 only knows "cargo ops start/complete" — it has no visibility into what cargo is being handled or how it moves within the terminal. Port call coordination layer, not an operations layer.
IMO FAL & EU EMSWe Medium RoRo fit
IMO FAL mandates electronic reporting via Maritime Single Window: 7 FAL forms covering vessel particulars (FAL 1), cargo declaration (FAL 2), crew list (FAL 5), passengers (FAL 6), dangerous goods manifest (FAL 7). The IMO Compendium provides field-level data element IDs (IMO0021–IMO0191).
EU EMSWe extends IMO FAL with a harmonized European dataset: 92 data groups, 1,120+ elements (Delegated Reg. 2023/205). Mandatory for all EU member states.
Key Data Model Entities
RoRo Assessment
Terminal is NOT a direct reporting party — ship agents submit to the MSW. Cargo data is description-level only (no VIN, no individual trailer ID). No dedicated RoRo unit identifier field — container-ID (ISO 6346) is the primary cargo reference. However, DG manifest data (FAL 7) is relevant for IMDG handling at terminal.
UN/CEFACT Buy-Ship-Pay RDM Medium RoRo fit
The Buy-Ship-Pay Reference Data Model covers the full trade cycle: purchase orders, transport instructions, customs declarations, invoicing. The Multimodal Transport RDM extends this with transport-leg-specific entities. Key for understanding how terminal data fits into the wider supply chain — but not a terminal-level standard.
Key Data Model Entities
RoRo Assessment
The "Transport Equipment" entity is generic and can model trailers — but at supply chain level, not terminal operational level. Useful for customs/EDI integration context. The Consignment model informs how cargo manifests relate to terminal pre-advice.
GS1 EPCIS 2.0 Low RoRo fit
Electronic Product Code Information Services captures supply chain visibility events across 5 dimensions: What (GTIN/SSCC/VIN), When, Where, Why (bizStep + disposition), How. Five event types: ObjectEvent, AggregationEvent, TransformationEvent, TransactionEvent, AssociationEvent.
RoRo Assessment
EPCIS can model VIN-level tracking (VIN is a supported EPC identifier). However, no terminal-specific bizStep codes exist — existing codes cover retail/FMCG. An EPCIS-based approach would require custom business vocabulary for terminal operations (gate_in, yard_park, vessel_load, etc.). Theoretical fit, not practical off-the-shelf.
EDIFACT / SMDG Low RoRo fit
SMDG maintains the implementation guides for terminal-specific EDIFACT messages:
- BAPLIE — Bayplan/stowage (container positions on vessel)
- COPRAR — Container discharge/loading orders
- COARRI — Container discharge/loading confirmations
- CODECO — Gate in/out reports
- MOVINS — Stowage instructions (work instructions for terminal)
RoRo Assessment
Entirely container-centric. BAPLIE models bay/row/tier (container positions), not RoRo decks/lanes. No EDIFACT message for RoRo cargo manifests, vehicle deck plans, or vehicle condition reports. CODECO could theoretically be extended for trailer gate-in/out, but this is non-standard.
TIC 4.0 Low RoRo fit
Terminal Industry Committee 4.0 defines data models for container terminal equipment telemetry and TOS integration. Key concepts: CHE Data Model (Container Handling Equipment — crane moves, fuel, status), Cycle/Move Semantics (standardized move types), Carrier Visit, Cargo Visit, Reefer definitions.
Key Data Model Entities
RoRo Assessment
Container terminal focused. CHE telemetry models (STS cranes, RTGs, AGVs) are relevant for CLdN's reach stackers and RTGs but not for RoRo-specific equipment (tugmasters, ramps, linkspans). No vehicle deck model, no lane concept, no VIN tracking. Equipment telemetry patterns are transferable but the specific data model is container-only.
ISO 28000 — Supply Chain Security High (process-level)
A management system standard for supply chain security — not a data model or IT architecture. Follows Plan-Do-Check-Act. ISO 28004-2 specifically addresses seaport implementation. Complements ISPS Code and AEO certification.
RoRo Assessment
Directly relevant at the process level — CLdN operates ISPS-secured terminals. ISO 28000 informs the security context of gate access control, hazmat procedures, ISPS compliance, and the security sub-domain within a TOS bounded context. Does not define a TOS data model but shapes requirements.
Industry TOS Vendors — Domain Models
Vendor TOS products define de facto domain models:
- Navis N4: Market-leading container TOS. Entities: Unit, Vessel Visit, Carrier Visit, Yard Block/Bay/Row, Berth, Equipment, Work Instruction. Modules: Gate, Yard, Vessel Planning, Rail, Billing, EDI. SOAP API.
- Navis Master Terminal: RoRo/mixed cargo variant. Adds: Vehicle, Deck, Lane, Ramp, Cargo Polygon, VIN, PDI record. The closest commercial product to CLdN's needs.
- Kalmar One: Automation layer between TOS and equipment (AGV, ASC, RTG). SmartPort modules. Not a TOS — container terminal only. No RoRo modules.
- Tideworks Mainsail: North American focused. Has a RoRo module (Mainsail Ro/Ro). SaaS on AWS. Also: Spinnaker (planning), Genoa (breakbulk).
DDD Bounded Contexts for Terminal Operations
Domain-Driven Design analysis of terminal operating system domains, synthesized from Evans/Vernon DDD methodology applied to terminal operations practice. Viewed through the lens of an Enterprise Architect and Business Analyst. This is original synthesis work — no academic paper applies DDD bounded contexts to terminal operating systems (confirmed by literature review, March 2026).
Nine bounded contexts are identified for CLdN's multi-terminal footprint (6 owned locations, 15 ports total): 3 core (competitive differentiators), 3 supporting (necessary but not differentiating), and 3 generic (commodity/buy).
Context Map
┌─────────────────────┐
│ VESSEL & PORT CALL │ ← DCSA Port Call (ACL)
│ [CORE] │ ← PortCDM / S-211 (ACL)
└──────────┬──────────┘
│ VesselArrived
┌───────────────┼───────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│ CARGO INTAKE │ │ VESSEL OPERATIONS│ │ COMPLIANCE & │
│ & PLANNING │ │ & HANDLING │ │ REGULATORY │
│ [CORE] │ │ [CORE] │ │ [GENERIC] │
└──────┬───────┘ └────────┬────────┘ └─────────────────┘
│ │ ↑ IMO FAL (ACL)
│ CargoRegistered │ CargoDischarged ↑ EU EMSWe (ACL)
▼ ▼
┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐
│ GATE & ACCESS│ │ YARD & TERMINAL │ ← RoRo differentiator
│ CONTROL │ │ OPERATIONS │ (decks, lanes, polygons)
│ [SUPPORTING] │ │ [SUPPORTING] │
└──────┬───────┘ └────────┬────────┘
│ │
└────────┬─────────┘
▼
┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│ EQUIPMENT │ │ COMMERCIAL & │ │ REPORTING & │
│ MANAGEMENT │ │ BILLING │ │ ANALYTICS │
│ [SUPPORTING] │ │ [GENERIC] │ │ [GENERIC] │
└──────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └──────────────────┘
↑ TIC4.0 CHE (ACL) ↑ BC ERP (ACL) ← all BCs (read)
↑ Trackunit (ACL) ↑ Qargo TMS
↑ Ultimo (ACL)
Legend: [CORE] = competitive differentiator
[SUPPORTING] = necessary, not differentiating
[GENERIC] = commodity / buy
ACL = Anti-Corruption Layer (integration boundary)
──▶ = upstream → downstream (domain events flow)
Bounded Context Details
Key Aggregates
- VesselVisit (root)
- BerthAssignment
- CarrierVisit
- PortCallEvent
Domain Events
- VesselArrived, BerthAssigned
- CargoOpsStarted, CargoOpsCompleted
- VesselDeparted
Standard Integration
- DCSA Port Call (ACL) — JIT timestamps
- PortCDM / S-211 (ACL) — port call phases
Ubiquitous Language
- ETA, ETB, ETD, ATA, ATB, ATD
- Port Stay, Berth Window, Vessel Rotation
Key Aggregates
- CargoManifest (root)
- LoadingPlan
- DischargeOrder
- VehicleRecord
Domain Events
- ManifestReceived, VINConfirmed
- LoadOrderCreated, DeckAssigned
- PreAdviceReceived
Standard Integration
- EDIFACT BAPLIE/COPRAR (ACL)
- DCSA B/L (ACL) — container only
Ubiquitous Language
- VIN, IMO Number, Cargo Polygon
- Deck Assignment, Pre-advice, Load List
Key Aggregates
- WorkInstruction (root)
- DischargeOperation
- LoadOperation
- OperationsLog
Domain Events
- CargoHandled, UnitDischarged, UnitLoaded
- WorkInstructionComplete
- RampDeployed, HatchOpened
Standard Integration
- EDIFACT COARRI (ACL) — confirmations
- EDIFACT MOVINS (ACL) — stow instructions
Ubiquitous Language
- Ramp, Lashing, Hatch Sequence
- Stow Position, COARRI, Move, Tally
Key Aggregates
- GateTransaction (root)
- TruckVisit
- DriverCredential
- HazmatDeclaration
Domain Events
- TruckArrived, GateApproved
- IMDGVerified, UnitPickedUp
- RailUnitReceived
Standard Integration
- EDIFACT CODECO (ACL) — gate reports
- EU Customs ICS2 (ACL)
- ISO 28000 — ISPS process framework
Ubiquitous Language
- Gate-in, Gate-out, IMDG Class
- UN Number, Gatepass, Fast Lane, OCR
Key Aggregates
- YardPosition (root)
- VehicleLane
- DeckPolygon
- SlaveStack (multi-stack)
Domain Events
- VehicleParked, VehicleMoved
- DeckFull, LaneReassigned
- IMDGSegregationChecked
Standard Integration
- TIC 4.0 yard position model (ACL)
- No standard for RoRo lanes/decks
Ubiquitous Language
- Deck, Lane, Pillar, Twistlock Grid
- Cargo Polygon, Slave Number, Slot
Key Aggregates
- Equipment (root)
- MaintenanceRecord
- OperatorAssignment
- PreShiftChecklist
Domain Events
- EquipmentAssigned, DefectReported
- MaintenanceDue, MachineImmobilized
- ChecklistCompleted
Standard Integration
- TIC 4.0 CHE telemetry (ACL)
- Trackunit / IDEM GPS (ACL)
- Ultimo maintenance (ACL)
Ubiquitous Language
- CHE, RTG, Reach Stacker, Tugmaster
- OOS, Running Hours, CAN Bus, SOP
Key Aggregates
- CustomsDeclaration (root)
- HazmatManifest
- IMODeclaration
- EMSWeReport
Domain Events
- CustomsCleared, HazmatApproved
- EMSWeSubmitted, HoldPlaced
Standard Integration
- IMO FAL (ACL) — FAL 1-7 forms
- EU EMSWe (ACL) — harmonized dataset
- Belgian customs PLDA/NCTS (ACL)
Ubiquitous Language
- FAL Form, EMSWe, ICS2, ENS
- T1/T2, AEO Status, IMDG Class
Key Aggregates
- TariffStructure (root)
- ServiceOrder
- Invoice
- CustomerContract
Domain Events
- ServiceCompleted, InvoiceGenerated
- PaymentReceived, DemurrageTriggered
Standard Integration
- Business Central ERP (ACL)
- Qargo TMS (Shared Kernel)
- EDIFACT INVOIC (ACL)
Ubiquitous Language
- Handling Fee, Demurrage, Free Days
- Quay Order, Chargeable, Commercial Unit
Key Aggregates
- KPISnapshot (root)
- OperationalReport
- ThroughputMetric
- TerminalComparison
Domain Events
- ReportGenerated
- KPIThresholdBreached
- ShiftSummaryPublished
Standard Integration
- All other BCs (read-only consumers)
- Data lake / BI integration
Ubiquitous Language
- TEU, Lane Meters, Throughput
- Dwell Time, Vessel Turnaround, Utilization
Anti-Corruption Layer Recommendations
Each external standard integration should be isolated behind an Anti-Corruption Layer (ACL) to prevent external data models from contaminating the internal ubiquitous language:
- DCSA ACL: Translate DCSA Transport Call + Timestamp into internal VesselVisit + PortCallEvent. DCSA's container-centric Equipment concept does not map to CLdN's mixed cargo Unit concept.
- IMO FAL / EMSWe ACL: Consume FAL 2 (cargo) and FAL 7 (DG) data elements from the Belgian MSW. Map IMO Compendium field IDs to internal entities. Terminal is a downstream consumer, not a submitter.
- EDIFACT ACL: Parse BAPLIE/COPRAR/COARRI messages into internal LoadingPlan and DischargeOrder aggregates. Handle EDI encoding/decoding at the boundary — internal domain uses JSON.
- TIC 4.0 ACL: Map TIC CHE telemetry to internal Equipment events. Extend for non-container equipment types (tugmasters, forklifts) not covered by TIC.
- ERP ACL: Business Central integration uses ACL to translate internal ServiceOrder into BC Sales Order. Prevent BC's chart-of-accounts model from leaking into terminal operations.
Gap Analysis: CLdN Use Cases vs. Reference Standards
CLdN's 583 workshopped use cases across 8 domains are mapped against the 9 reference standards. The heatmap below shows coverage per domain — revealing significant structural gaps, particularly in RoRo-specific operations.
Coverage Heatmap
| CLdN Domain | DCSA | S-211 | FAL/EMSWe | CEFACT | EPCIS | EDIFACT | TIC4.0 | ISO28000 | UN MMT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gate (42 UC) | -- | -- | ~ | -- | ~ | CODECO | -- | ISPS | Events |
| Yard (98 UC) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | containers | -- | Gap |
| Vessel Ops (88 UC) | Port Call | timestamps | -- | ~ | -- | BAPLIE | -- | -- | Voyage |
| Equip Mgmt (45 UC) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | CHE | -- | Equipment |
| Equip Avail (30 UC) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | partial | -- | COPARN |
| Rail (18 UC) | -- | -- | -- | transport | -- | IFTMCS | -- | -- | MMT chain |
| Admin (42 UC) | -- | -- | reporting | -- | -- | INVOIC | -- | audit | Booking |
| Technical (217 UC) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | EDI | API | -- | Events |
Legend: Standard = good coverage · ~partial = partial/container-only · -- = no coverage
Critical Gaps
Critical RoRo Vehicle Cargo Operations
98 yard + 88 vessel = 186 use cases affected. No standard covers VIN-level tracking, lane/deck assignment, vehicle condition records (PDI), or cargo polygon allocation. Container standards (BAPLIE, TIC 4.0 yard model) use bay/row/tier — fundamentally different from RoRo deck/lane/pillar. This is the largest gap and CLdN's primary differentiator. Must be built as proprietary domain model.
Critical Mixed Terminal Orchestration
All 583 use cases affected indirectly. No standard addresses how RoRo trailers, LoLo containers, breakbulk, and trade cars are coordinated in a single terminal sharing berths, yard space, and equipment. Each standard assumes a single cargo type. The TOS must mediate between cargo-type-specific workflows while sharing gate, yard, and vessel resources.
Critical IMDG Segregation at RoRo Terminal Level
~40 use cases across Gate, Yard, Vessel. IMO FAL provides DG manifest data (FAL 7), but geo-mapped segregation logic — checking physical distances between hazardous units on a terminal with mixed cargo — is entirely outside any standard. IMDG code defines rules; no standard provides the spatial computation model for terminal layout compliance.
Important Rail Terminal Interface
18 use cases. EDIFACT IFTMCS covers rail transport manifests at supply chain level, but no standard covers terminal-level rail operations: wagon allocation, computer vision portal verification, RID compliance checking at terminal, or rail-to-yard handoff. Must be built or sourced from rail-specific vendors.
Important Equipment Maintenance & IoT Integration
217 technical + 45 equipment = 262 use cases. TIC 4.0 covers container CHE telemetry, but CLdN's use cases span CAN bus integration, EV charging (Kempower), running hour equalization, Trackunit GPS, and Ultimo maintenance workflows. No standard covers the TOS-to-maintenance-system integration pattern for mixed fleets including non-container equipment (tugmasters, forklifts, slave units).
Nice to have Customer Portal / VBS Integration
~30 use cases. Vehicle Booking System and customer-facing cargo tracking are not covered by any reference standard. DCSA Track & Trace covers container events but not customer appointment booking or terminal slot management. This is a competitive differentiator but not a standards gap — no terminal expects this from a standard.
Reverse Gaps: Standards with No CLdN Coverage
Some reference standard domains are NOT represented in CLdN's current 583 use cases:
- GS1 EPCIS supply chain visibility — CLdN use cases don't include end-to-end product tracking beyond the terminal boundary. EPCIS would be relevant if CLdN offers door-to-door visibility to customers (D2D business unit scope).
- DCSA Bill of Lading / Booking APIs — CLdN is a terminal operator, not a carrier. B/L processing is the shipping line's responsibility. However, if CLdN's D2D business acts as a transport operator, B/L integration becomes relevant.
- ISO 28000 formal certification — Use cases reference ISPS compliance but not a formal ISO 28000 management system certification program. Could be added as a governance workstream.
UN Multi-Modal Transport Reference Data Model
Analysis of the UN/CEFACT MMT RDM domain model documents shared by the Shipping Systems project team. Three documents examined: Transport Platform Architecture v4, Booking & Commercial Domain Model v0.3, and Customs & Cross-Border Domain Model v0.1.
Key finding: The UN MMT RDM defines 12 bounded contexts but Port Operations does not exist as a context. This is exactly the gap a TOS must fill. The model explicitly flags Port Operations as a “NEW bounded context” that needs to be added.
12 Bounded Contexts in UN MMT Architecture
| Context | Status | TOS Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Booking & Commercial | v0.3 | 8 cargo types, multi-leg bookings, overbooking & yield management |
| Customs & Cross-Border | v0.1 | ENS, customs manifest, DoNotLoad constraints, FAL/EMSW clearance |
| Equipment & Rolling Stock | Planned | Containers, mafis, cassettes, bolsters, trailers, stacking rules |
| Cargo Space & Stowage | Referenced | BAPLIE, deck allocation, tentative vs. committed positions |
| Vessel & Fleet | Planned | Vessel type (cellular vs RoRo), deck layout, ramp SWL |
| Voyage Management | Referenced | Port call data, operational vs commercial schedules |
| Multimodal Transport Chain | Planned | Cross-leg coordination, connection windows |
| Operators & Parties | Planned | Stakeholder roles, carrier/shipper/terminal operator |
| eDocumentation | Referenced | B/L, manifests, customs declarations |
| Track & Trace | Referenced | Shipment visibility, status events |
| Network & Service Design | Referenced | Route network, service schedules |
| Port Operations | NEW — Missing | Gate, yard, equipment assignment, loading sequence — this is the TOS |
8 Bookable Cargo Types (Vessel-Type Agnostic)
The commercial model defines 8 cargo types that are vessel-type agnostic from a booking perspective. The TOS must resolve physical handling method downstream:
| Type | Description | TOS Handling |
|---|---|---|
| CONTAINER | Cellular or RoRo; loading method determined by Stowage/Port Ops | Crane (cellular) or ramp (RoRo) |
| ACC_TRAILER | Accompanied trailer; driver stays aboard | Ramp, driver is passenger (FAL 6) |
| ACC_VEHICLE | Self-propelled vehicle; driver as passenger (new in v0.3) | Self-drive, FAL 6 entry required |
| VEHICLE | Unaccompanied; port driver only | Port driver moves vehicle |
| BREAKBULK | On carrier equipment (mafi/cassette/bolster) | Ramp, requires carrier equipment |
| ACC_BREAKBULK | On customer chassis; driver stays (new in v0.3) | Strip/stuff transfer likely |
Port Operations — The Missing Context (What a TOS Must Provide)
The UN MMT model explicitly identifies Port Operations as a gap. Here is what that context must own:
| Function | Consumes | Emits | Enforces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gate Control | BookingCheckedIn event (truck arrival) | CODECO message (gate in/out) | DoNotLoad constraints, exit evidence, customs holds |
| Equipment Assignment | Booking confirmation, equipment pre-advice (COPARN) | BookingOnEquipment event | Stacking rules, SWL three-gate checks |
| Stowage Allocation | BAPLIE (stowage plan), capacity data | BookingAllocatedToDeck event | Tentative vs. committed positions, real-time mutations |
| Load/Discharge | COPRAR (load order) | COARRI (load confirmation), BookingLoaded/Discharged | Loading sequence, pull-forward/send-back decisions |
| Vessel/Berth | Voyage assignment, vessel type, deck layout | Port call completion events | Berth window, ramp assignment |
| Transfer Service | Strip/stuff request, equipment reservation | TransferServiceCompleted event | Carrier equipment availability |
Customs Compliance — TOS Enforcement Points
The Customs & Cross-Border context defines 5 transport leg types with per-leg obligations. The TOS must enforce these at the gate and loading stages:
| Leg Type | Exit Formalities | Entry Formalities | DoNotLoad Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU → EU (RSS+ETD) | None | None | Manifest data completeness deadline |
| UK → EU | Shipper arranges export | ICS2 ENS (F10) — carrier files | ENS deadline; exit evidence missing |
| EU → UK | Shipper arranges export | S&S GB ENS — carrier or customer | ENS deadline; exit evidence missing |
DoNotLoad sources: ENS non-compliance, exit evidence missing, manifest incomplete, ENS risk assessment, terminal exit obligations. All must be queryable at gate release.
EDIFACT Message Integration Points
| Message | Purpose | When |
|---|---|---|
| COPARN | Equipment pre-advice (container notification) | Before gate arrival |
| CODECO | Gate in/out events | At gate |
| VERMAS | Verified Gross Mass | Before loading |
| COPRAR | Load/discharge order | Before loading/discharge |
| COARRI | Load/discharge confirmation | After loading/discharge |
| BAPLIE | Stowage plan (bay plan) | Pre-loading & during operations |
Critical Gaps in the UN MMT Model
Seven areas where the UN model is incomplete — and where a TOS vendor must provide its own solution:
- Port Operations Context — Does not exist yet; must be added. Missing: gate control, yard management, berth scheduling, load sequence optimisation.
- Transfer Equipment Reservation — Cannot reserve carrier equipment (mafi/cassette) for strip/stuff pre-operations. Equipment context incomplete.
- Real-Time Stowage Mutations — Cannot support pull-forward/send-back decisions during active loading. Needs tentative vs. committed positions.
- Connecting Voyage Management — Multi-leg bookings require coordination at transhipment ports. Connection windows not modelled.
- Terminal Hold Integration — Terminal operator’s exit obligation holds (TERMINAL_HOLD DoNotLoad source) not modelled.
- Vessel Swap Cascades — When vessel is swapped, RSS eligibility changes; must cascade to all bookings. Not modelled.
- Per-Port Variations — Port Operations may need per-port customisation. Different terminals have different capabilities, processes, equipment types.
The UN MMT RDM is a strong commercial and compliance model but deliberately stops at the terminal boundary. A TOS selection must evaluate how each vendor fills this “Port Operations” gap — especially for RoRo mixed-cargo operations where no standard exists.