ISO/TS 17444-2:2017
(Main)Electronic fee collection — Charging performance — Part 2: Examination framework
Electronic fee collection — Charging performance — Part 2: Examination framework
ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 defines the Examination Framework for the measurement of charging performance metrics defined in ISO/TS 17444‑1 to be used during Evaluation and/or on-going Monitoring. It specifies a method for the specification and documentation of a Specific Examination Framework which can be used by the responsible entity to evaluate charging performance for a particular information exchange interface or for overall charging performance within a Toll Scheme. It provides a toolbox of Examination Tests for the roles of Toll Charger and Toll Service Provider for the following Scheme types: a) DSRC Discrete; b) Autonomous Discrete; c) Autonomous Continuous. The detailed choice of the set of examination tests to be used depends on the application and the respective context. Compliance with this specification is understood as using the definitions and prescriptions laid out in ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 whenever the respective system aspects are subjected to performance measurements, rather than using other definitions and examination methods than the ones specified in ISO/TS 17444-2:2017. The following aspects are outside the scope of ISO/TS 17444-2:2017. - ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 does not propose specific numeric performance bounds, or average or worst-case error bounds in percentage or monetary units. Those decisions are left to the Toll Charger (or to agreements between Toll Charger and Service Provider). ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 does not consider the evaluation of the expected performance of a system based on modelling and measured data from trial at another place. - ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 does not consider the specification of a common reference system which would be required for comparison of performance between systems. - ISO/TS 17444-2:2017 defines measurements only on standardized interfaces. Proprietary interfaces are excluded, because it is not possible to define standardized metrics on such system properties. These excluded interfaces are among others the link between Toll Charger RSE and central systems in DSRC systems, and the additional sensor input of GNSS modules (inertial sensors, CAN-bus for wheel ticks, etc.).
Perception du télépéage — Performance d'imputation — Partie 2: Cadre d'examen
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
TECHNICAL ISO/TS
SPECIFICATION 17444-2
Second edition
2017-09
Electronic fee collection — Charging
performance —
Part 2:
Examination framework
Perception du télépéage — Performance d'imputation —
Partie 2: Cadre d'examen
Reference number
©
ISO 2017
© ISO 2017, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 749 09 47
copyright@iso.org
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
Contents Page
Foreword .vi
Introduction .vii
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 2
4 Symbols and abbreviated terms . 6
5 Examination Framework . 7
5.1 General . 7
5.2 Method for defining a Specific Examination Framework . 8
5.2.1 General. 8
5.2.2 Selection of metrics to be evaluated . 9
5.2.3 Definition of environmental conditions and associated
performance requirements . . 9
5.2.4 Determination of Required Sample Sizes . 9
5.2.5 Selection of methods for generating Charging Input and Reference Data .10
5.2.6 Determination of Test Routes/Subset of Charged Network for generating
representative trips .10
5.2.7 Documentation of the Specific Examination Framework .10
5.3 Sources of data .10
5.4 Methods of generating charging input .13
5.4.1 General.13
5.4.2 Predefined routes (identifier: “PVP”) .14
5.4.3 Reference System (used in combination with identifiers: “PVR” and “UVR”) .15
5.4.4 Simulated OBE/FE (identifier: “SO”) .16
5.4.5 Dedicated OBE Testing (identifier: “DO”) .17
5.5 Applicability of metrics scheme types .17
5.6 Charging Metric Selection Tables .22
5.6.1 General.22
5.6.2 DSRC Discrete .22
5.6.3 Autonomous Discrete .23
5.6.4 Autonomous Continuous .24
6 Examination Tests .26
6.1 Common (and DSRC Discrete) Examination Tests .26
6.1.1 General.26
6.1.2 ET-CM-E2E-1 E2E — Correct Charging Rate .26
6.1.3 ET-CM-E2E-2 E2E — Overcharging Rate .27
6.1.4 ET-CM-E2E-3 E2E — Undercharging Rate.27
6.1.5 ET-CM-E2E-4 E2E — Late Charging Rate .28
6.1.6 ET-CM-UA-1 UA — Correct Charging Rate .29
6.1.7 ET-CM-UA-2 UA — Overcharging Rate .29
6.1.8 ET-CM-UA-3 UA — Undercharging Rate .30
6.1.9 ET-CM-UA-4 UA — Accurate application of Payments and Refunds .31
6.1.10 ET-CM-UA-5 UA — Accurate Personalisation of OBUs .31
6.1.11 ET-CM-PC-1 PC — Correct Charging Rate .32
6.1.12 ET-CM-PC-2 PC — Overcharging Rate .32
6.1.13 ET-CM-PC-3 PC — Undercharging Rate .33
6.1.14 ET-CM-PC-4 PC — Latency — TC .34
6.1.15 ET-CM-PC-5 PC — Late Payment Claims Rate .34
6.1.16 ET-CM-PC-6 PC — Rejected Payment Claim Rate .35
6.1.17 ET-CM-BD-1 BD — Correct Charging Rate.35
6.1.18 ET-CM-BD-2 BD — Overcharging Rate .36
6.1.19 ET-CM-BD-3 BD — Undercharging Rate .37
6.1.20 ET-CM-BD-4 BD — Incorrect Charging Rate .37
6.1.21 ET-CM-BD-5 BD — Latency — TC .38
6.1.22 ET-CM-BD-6 BD — Late Billing Details Rate .38
6.1.23 ET-CM-BD-7 BD — Rejected Billing Details Rate .39
6.1.24 ET-CM-BD-8 BD — Incorrectly rejected Billing Details Rate .39
6.1.25 ET-CM-BD-9 BD — Inferred Billing Details Rate .40
6.2 DSRC Discrete — Optional DSRC Toll Declaration Metrics .40
6.2.1 General.40
6.2.2 ET-CM-TD-1 TD — Correct Toll Declaration Generation Rate .40
6.2.3 ET-CM-TD-2 TD — Incorrect Toll Declaration Generation Rate .41
6.2.4 ET-CM-TD-3 TD — Late Toll Declarations Rate .41
6.2.5 ET-CM-TD-4 TD — TSP Charge Parameter Change Rate .42
6.2.6 ET-CM-TD-5 TD — TSP False Positive Rate .42
6.3 Autonomous Discrete Specific Examination Tests .43
6.3.1 General.43
6.3.2 ET-CM-TD-1 TD — Correct Toll Declaration Generation Rate .43
6.3.3 ET-CM-TD-2 TD — Incorrect Toll Declaration Generation Rate .43
6.3.4 ET-CM-TD-3 TD — Late Toll Declarations Rate .44
6.3.5 ET-CM-TD-4 TD — TSP Charge Parameter Change Rate .44
6.3.6 ET-CM-TD-5 TD — TSP False Positive Rate .45
6.3.7 ET-CM-DTD-1 DTD — Correct Charging Rate (charge object detections) .45
6.3.8 ET-CM-DTD-2 DTD — Incorrect Charge Event Recognition Rate .46
6.3.9 ET-CM-DTD-3 DTD — Missed Charge Object Detection Rate .46
6.3.10 ET-CM-DTD-4 DTD Overcharging Rate .47
6.3.11 ET-CM-CR-1 CR — Correct Charge Report Generation Rate .47
6.3.12 ET-CM-CR-2 CR — Incorrect Charge Report Generation Rate .48
6.3.13 ET-CM-CR-3 CR — Charge Report Latency .48
6.3.14 ET-CM-CR-4 CR — TSP Front End Charge Parameter Change Rate .49
6.3.15 ET-CM-CR-5 CR — TSP Front End False Positive Rate .49
6.3.16 ET-CM-DCR-1 DCR — Correct Charging Rate (charge object detections) .50
6.3.17 ET-CM-DCR-2 DCR — Incorrect Charge Event Recognition Rate .50
6.3.18 ET-CM-DCR-3 DCR — Missed Charge Object Detection Rate .51
6.3.19 ET-CM-DCR-4 DCR — Overcharging rate (Incorrect false positive Charge
Event Recognition) .51
6.4 Autonomous Continuous Specific Examination Tests .52
6.4.1 General.52
6.4.2 ET-CM-TD-1 TD — Correct Toll Declaration Generation Rate .52
6.4.3 ET-CM-TD-2 TD — Incorrect Toll Declaration Generation Rate .52
6.4.4 ET-CM-TD-3 TD — Late Toll Declarations Rate .53
6.4.5 ET-CM-TD-4 TD — TSP Charge Parameter Change Rate .53
6.4.6 ET-CM-TD-5 TD — TSP False Positive Rate .54
6.4.7 ET-CM-CTD-1 CTD Correct Charging Rate .54
6.4.8 ET-CM-CTD-2 CTD Overcharging Rate .55
6.4.9 ET-CM-CTD-3 CTD Accuracy of Distance/Time Measurement .55
6.4.10 ET-CM-CR-1 CR — Correct Charge Report Generation Rate .56
6.4.11 ET-CM-CR-2 CR — Incorrect Charge Report Generation Rate .56
6.4.12 ET-CM-CR-3 CR — Charge Report Latency .57
6.4.13 ET-CM-CR-4 CR — TSP Front End Charge Parameter Change Rate .57
6.4.14 ET-CM-CR-5 CR — TSP Front End False Positive Rate .58
6.4.15 ET-CM-CCR-1 CCR — Correct Charging Rate .58
6.4.16 ET-CM-CCR-2 CCR — Overcharging Rate .59
6.4.17 ET-CM-CCR-3 CCR — Accuracy of Distance/Time Measurement .59
Annex A (informative) Examination Test documentation template .61
Annex B (informative) Examination Framework considerations .62
Annex C (informative) Statistical considerations .66
iv © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
Annex D (informative) Methods for reducing sample sizes for very high/low probability
metrics during the Evaluation Phase .72
Annex E (informative) Example-specific Examination Frameworks .76
Bibliography .93
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see the following
URL: www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 204, Intelligent transport systems.
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO/TS 17444-2:2013), which has been
revised with the following changes:
— editorial and formal corrections, as well as changes, to improve readability;
— updated terminology.
A list of all parts in the ISO/TS 17444 series can be found on the ISO website.
vi © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
Introduction
Electronic tolling systems are complex distributed systems involving critical technology such as
dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) and global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), both
subject to a certain random behaviour that may affect the computation of the charges. Thus, in
order to protect the interests of the different involved stakeholders, in particular Service Users and
Toll Chargers, it is essential to define metrics that measure the performance of the system as far as
computation of charges is concerned and ensure that the potential resulting errors in terms of size and
probability are acceptable. These metrics will be an essential tool when establishing requirements for
the systems and also for examination of the system capabilities both during acceptance and during the
operational life of the system.
In addition, in order to ensure the interoperability of different systems, it will be necessary to agree on
common metrics to be used and on the actual values that define the required acceptable performances
although this is not covered in this document.
This document is defined as a toolbox standard of examination tests plus a method for defining and
documenting Specific Examination Frameworks to meet specific needs. The detailed choice of the set
of examination tests within an Examination Framework depends on the application and the respective
context. Compliance with this specification is understood as using the definitions and prescriptions
laid out in this document whenever the respective system aspects are subjected to performance
measurements, rather than using other definitions and examination methods than the ones specified in
this document.
ISO/TS 17444-1 defines a set of charging performance metrics with appropriate definitions, principles
and formulations, which together make up a reference framework for the establishment of requirements
for EFC systems and their later examination of the charging performance.
These charging performance metrics are intended for use with any toll scheme, regardless of its
technical underpinnings, system architecture, tariff structure, geographical coverage, or organizational
model. They are defined to treat technical details that may be different among technologies as a “black
box”. They focus solely on the outcome of the charging process, i.e. the amount charged in relation
to a pre-measured or theoretically correct amount, rather than intermediate variables from various
components as sensors, such as positioning accuracy, signal range, or optical resolution. This approach
ensures comparable results for each metric in all relevant situations.
The metrics are designed to cover the information exchanged on the front-end interface and the
interoperability interfaces between Toll Service Providers and Toll Chargers, as well as information on
the end-to-end level.
Metrics for the following information exchanges are defined:
— Charge Reports;
— Toll Declarations;
— Billing Details and associated event data;
— Payment Claims on the level of user accounts;
— End-to-End Metrics which assess the overall performance of the charging process.
The proposed metrics are specifically addressed to protect the interests of the actors in a toll system,
such as Toll Service Providers, Toll Chargers and Service Users. The metrics can be used to define
requirements (e.g. for requests for proposals) and for performance assessment.
Toll schemes take on various forms as identified in the ISO 17575 series and ISO 14906. In order to
create a uniform performance metric specification, toll schemes are grouped into two classes based on
the character of their primary charging variable:
— charging based on discrete events (charges associated to the fact that a vehicle is crossing or
standing within a certain zone);
— those based on a continuous measurement (duration or distance).
In all these toll schemes, tolls may additionally vary as a function of vehicle class characteristics such
as trailer presence, number of axles, taxation class, operating function, and depending on time of day or
day of week, such that, for example, tariffs are higher in rush hour and lower on the weekends.
With this degree of complexity, it is not surprising to find that the attempts to evaluate and compare
technical solutions for Service User charging have been made uniquely each time a procurement
or study is initiated, and with only limited ability to reuse prior comparisons made by other testing
entities.
Examination Framework
The Examination Framework that is defined in this document is designed for measuring the metrics
defined in ISO/TS 17444-1. The general aim is to achieve a maximum comparability and reproducibility
of the results without restricting the technological choices in system design. Specific Examination
Frameworks may be defined for the Evaluation and Monitoring Phases of a project due to the differences
in the availability of equipped vehicles.
Evaluation Phase
This phase encompasses system evaluation and selection, as well as commissioning and ramp up during
implementation. Important aspects of this phase are
— relatively small sample sizes, and
— well controlled behaviour of test vehicles.
Monitoring Phase
After the system has gone into operation, its behaviour needs to be monitored for several reasons, such
as fine-tuning of the system performance, monitoring of SLAs between contractual partners (supplier,
Toll Charger, Toll Service Provider, etc.). In this phase, the following system aspects can be expected:
— very large sample sizes possible, but with unknown behaviour of the vehicles;
— in principle all measurements from implementation phase possible, too.
Readers Guide
To understand the content of this document, the reader should be aware of the methodology and
assumptions used to develop the Examination Framework and associated examination tests; therefore,
a suggested reading order is given below.
a) Annex B provides details of the underlying considerations for developing the Examination
Framework.
b) Annex C provides background statistical information which will enable the reader to determine
sample sizes and confidence limits based on the defined performance requirements.
c) Clause 5 provides the definition of the Examination Framework for the evaluation of Charging
Performance.
d) Clause 6 contains the toolbox of Examination Tests for the evaluation of charging performance for
the identified scheme types.
viii © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
e) Annex D contains methods which can be used to reduce the required sample sizes for metrics with
high/low probabilities during the evaluation phase.
f) Annex E provides examples of Specific Examination Frameworks which have been developed in
accordance with the methodology in 5.2.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ISO/TS 17444-2:2017(E)
Electronic fee collection — Charging performance —
Part 2:
Examination framework
1 Scope
This document defines the Examination Framework for the measurement of charging performance
metrics defined in ISO/TS 17444-1 to be used during Evaluation and/or on-going Monitoring.
It specifies a method for the specification and documentation of a Specific Examination Framework
which can be used by the responsible entity to evaluate charging performance for a particular
information exchange interface or for overall charging performance within a Toll Scheme.
It provides a toolbox of Examination Tests for the roles of Toll Charger and Toll Service Provider for the
following Scheme types:
a) DSRC Discrete;
b) Autonomous Discrete;
c) Autonomous Continuous.
The detailed choice of the set of examination tests to be used depends on the application and the
respective context. Compliance with this specification is understood as using the definitions and
prescriptions laid out in this document whenever the respective system aspects are subjected to
performance measurements, rather than using other definitions and examination methods than the
ones specified in this document.
The following aspects are outside the scope of this document.
— This document does not propose specific numeric performance bounds, or average or worst-case
error bounds in percentage or monetary units. Those decisions are left to the Toll Charger (or
to agreements between Toll Charger and Service Provider).This document does not consider the
evaluation of the expected performance of a system based on modelling and measured data from
trial at another place.
— This document does not consider the specification of a common reference system which would be
required for comparison of performance between systems.
— This document defines measurements only on standardized interfaces. Proprietary interfaces
are excluded, because it is not possible to define standardized metrics on such system properties.
These excluded interfaces are among others the link between Toll Charger RSE and central systems
in DSRC systems, and the additional sensor input of GNSS modules (inertial sensors, CAN-bus for
wheel ticks, etc.).
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
3.1
absolute charging error
difference between the measured charge (toll) value and the actual value as measured by a reference
system where a positive error means that the measurement exceeds the actual value
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.1]
3.2
accepted charging error interval
interval of the relative charging error that the toll charger considers as acceptable, i.e. as correct
charging
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.2]
3.3
average relative charging error
ratio between the sum of computed charges (measurement) associated to a set of vehicles during a
certain period of time and the actual charge due (reference) minus 1
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.3]
3.4
billing detail
information needed to determine or verify the amount due for the usage of a given service
Note 1 to entry: If the data is accepted by both the Toll Charger and the Toll Service Provider, then it is called a
concluded Billing Detail which can be used to issue a Payment Claim.
Note 2 to entry: For a given Transport Service, the Billing Detail is referring to one or several valid Toll
Declaration(s). A valid Billing Detail should fulfil formal requirements, including security requirements, agreed
between the Toll Service Provider and the Toll Charger.
[SOURCE: ISO 12855:2015, 3.1]
3.5
charge object detection
functionality of the system responsible for detecting chargeable events associated with a charge
object (3.6)
Note 1 to entry: This event refers to the use of a certain object and not to the mechanisms by which detection is
produced.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.5]
3.6
charge object
geographic or road related object for the use of which a charge is applied
[SOURCE: ISO 17575-1:2016, 3.6]
2 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
3.8
charge parameter change
event occurring within a tolling system, that is relevant for charge calculation, such as change of vehicle
category, but not for the detection of a charge object (3.6) itself
Note 1 to entry: Examples of this type of event are changes in vehicle category or time zone.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.7]
3.9
charge report
information containing road usage and related information originated at the Front End
[SOURCE: ISO 17575-1:2016, 3.6]
Note 1 to entry: In the 2009/750/EC, Charge Report is referred to as “Toll Declaration”.
3.10
discrete toll scheme
toll scheme where the charge is calculated based on distinct events associated with the identification of
charge objects (3.6) such as crossing a cordon, passing a bridge, being present in an area, etc.
Note 1 to entry: Each event is associated with a certain charge.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.11]
3.11
continuous toll scheme
toll scheme where the charge is calculated based on the accumulation of continuously measured
parameter(s), such as, distance, time, etc.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.10]
3.13
evaluation
systematic process of determining how individuals, procedures, systems or programs have met
formally agreed objectives and requirements
[SOURCE: ISO 10795:2011, 1.90]
3.14
Front End
part of a tolling system consisting of an OBE and possibly a proxy where road tolling information and
usage data are collected and processed for delivery to the Back End
Note 1 to entry: The Front End comprises the on-board equipment and an optional proxy.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 19299:2015, 3.17]
3.15
false positive event
event that was erroneously detected but did not take place
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.13]
3.16
missed recognition event
usage of a charge object (3.6) that is not recorded by the system
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.16]
3.17
monitoring
collection and assessment of status data for a process or a system
Note 1 to entry: This can be used to observe metrics during operation.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.16]
3.18
overcharging
situation when the calculated charge is above the accepted charging error interval (3.2)
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.17]
3.19
payment claim
recurring statement referring to concluded billing details (3.4) made available to the payer by the payee
indicating and justifying the amount due
Note 1 to entry: The payment claim is used by the Toll Service Provider to issue financial objects to its customers
(e.g. invoices on behalf of the Toll Charger). A given toll payment claim refers to billing details and takes into
account any specific commercial conditions applicable to a vehicle, a fleet of vehicles, a customer of a Toll Service
Provider and/or a Toll Service Provider. A valid payment claim should fulfil formal requirements, including
security requirements, agreed between the Toll Service Provider and the Toll Charger.
[SOURCE: ISO 12855:2015, 3.10]
3.20
charging performance metrics
specific calculations used to describe the charging performance of a system
Note 1 to entry: These calculations are technology and schema-independent.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.8]
3.21
population
totality of items under consideration
[SOURCE: ISO 3534-1:2006]
3.22
relative charging error
ratio between the absolute charging error (3.1) and the reference value
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.19]
3.23
representative trips
trips that are of a distance larger than a defined threshold and so should be considered by the
related metrics
Note 1 to entry: Only trips which exceed the threshold and cover the specific types of roads of the Toll Regime
should be considered.
Note 2 to entry: The threshold may be defined as zero.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.20]
4 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
3.24
sample
subset of a population made up of one or more of its individual parts
[SOURCE: ISO 3534-1:2006, modified]
3.25
toll service user
customer of a toll service provider, i.e. one liable for toll, owner of the vehicle, fleet operator or driver
depending on the context
[SOURCE: ISO 17444:2017, 3.23]
3.26
specific examination framework
particular instance of a set of examination tests defined by an entity to determine the performance of
specific selected charging metrics during either evaluation and or monitoring
3.27
successful charging
situation where the user has been correctly charged according to the rules of the system
Note 1 to entry: For discrete Toll Schemes, this means that for a given chargeable journey the charge object
detections have been correctly identified and for continuous schemes that the Charge determined is within the
Accepted Charging Error Interval.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.21]
3.28
toll charger
legal entity charging toll for vehicles in a toll domain
Note 1 to entry: In other documents, the terms operator or toll operator can be used.
[SOURCE: ISO 17573:2015, 3.16]
3.29
toll service provider
legal entity providing customer toll services on one or more toll domains for one or more classes of vehicle
Note 1 to entry: In other documents, the terms issuer or contract issuer can be used.
Note 2 to entry: The Toll Service Provider can provide the OBE or can provide only a magnetic card or a smart
card to be used with OBE provided by a third party (just as a mobile telephone and a SIM card can be obtained
from different parties).
Note 3 to entry: The Toll Service Provider is responsible for the operation (functioning) of the OBE with respect
to tolling.
[SOURCE: ISO 17573:2010, 3.23, modified]
3.30
toll declaration
statement to a toll charger that confirms the presence of a vehicle in a toll domain in a format agreed
between the Toll Service Provider and the Toll Charger
Note 1 to entry: A valid Toll Declaration should fulfil formal requirements, including security requirements,
agreed between the Toll Service Provider and the Toll Charger.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 19299:2015, 3.44]
3.31
trip
part of space-time trajectory of a particular vehicle within a toll domain
Note 1 to entry: The exact definition of the start and end of trip is dependent on the Toll Regime and technology
approach.
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.27]
3.32
undercharging
situation where the calculated charge is below the accepted charging error interval (3.2)
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.28]
3.33
user account
centrally or on-board stored transport related service rights of the user in his relationship to a service
provider
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.291]
3.34
user complaint
complaints from users related to a specific service provision
[SOURCE: ISO/TS 17444-1:2017, 3.30]
4 Symbols and abbreviated terms
ARCE Average Relative Charging Error
BD Billing Details
CCR Continuous Charge Report
CCTV Closed Circuit Television (ISO/TS 17444-1)
CELB Charging Error Interval Lower Bound
CEUB Charging Error Interval Upper Bound
CI Charging Input
CM Charging Metric
CR Charge Report
CTD Continuous Toll Declaration
DCR Discrete Charge Report
DO Dedicated OBE Testing
DSRC Dedicated Short Range Communications (ISO 14906)
DTD Discrete Toll Declaration
E2E End to End (ISO/TS 17444-1)
EETS European Electronic Toll Service (ISO 17573)
6 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
EFC Electronic Fee Collection (ISO 17573)
ESA Enforcement System ANPR
ESD Enforcement System DSRC
FE Front End (ISO 17575-1)
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System (ISO/TS 17444-1)
GPP GNSS path post processing
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IS Independent Reference System
ITS Intelligent Transport Systems (ISO/TS 17444-1)
KPI Key Performance Indicator
MBDD Maximum Billing Details Delay
MPCD Maximum Payment Claim Delay
MTDD Maximum Toll Declaration Delay
MUSD Maximum User Statement Delay
OBE On-Board Equipment (ISO 17573)
PC Payment Claim
SLA Service Level Agreement (ISO/IEC 20000-1)
SO Simulated OBE/FE
TC Toll Charger (ISO 17573)
TC-BO Toll Charger back office
TD Toll Declaration
TSP Toll Service Provider (ISO 17573)
TSP-BO Toll Service Provider back office
UA User Account
5 Examination Framework
5.1 General
A toolbox of Examination Tests for the following scheme types are listed in 6.1 to 6.4:
a) DSRC Discrete (6.1 and optionally, 6.2);
b) Autonomous Discrete (6.3);
c) Autonomous Continuous (6.4).
NOTE These Scheme Types are defined in ISO/TS 17444-1.
Each of these subclauses contains the specific examination tests for the applicable Charging Metrics
identified in ISO/TS 17444-1:2017:
— 5.2 defines the process that should be followed to define a specific Examination Framework for a
particular purpose;
— 5.3 provides a definition of the sources of data that can be used by the Examination Tests to calculate
the Charging Metrics;
— 5.4 provides the definitions of the methods of generating Charging Input referenced in the
Examination Tests defined in 5.5;
— 5.5 defines the applicability of the defined Charging Metrics for the Roles of Toll Charger and Toll
Service Provider for the three identified scheme types;
— 5.6 provides tables for the selection of Charging Metrics and associated Examination Tests for the
Roles of Toll Charger and Toll Service Provider for each identified Scheme Type.
5.2 Method for defining a Specific Examination Framework
5.2.1 General
Figure 1 provides an overview of the process that should be followed to define a specific instance of an
Examination Framework for the evaluation of Charging Metrics for the roles of Toll Service Provider
and/or Toll Charger, in a particular, Toll Scheme. Further details are provided in 5.2.2 to 5.2.7.
Figure 1 — Method for defining a Specific Examination Framework
8 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
5.2.2 Selection of metrics to be evaluated
The entity responsible for the definition of the specific Examination Framework shall determine the
metrics to be measured in the phases of Evaluation and Monitoring for the roles of Toll Service Provider
and/or Toll Charger using the appropriate tables in 5.6.
a) DSRC Discrete
— Table 5 — DSRC Discrete — Metric Selection Table
— Table 6 — DSRC Discrete — Optional DSRC Toll Declaration Metric Selection Table
b) Autonomous Discrete
— Table 7 — Autonomous Discrete — Metric Selection Table
c) Autonomous Continuous
— Table 8 — Autonomous Continuous — Metric Selection Table
5.2.3 Definition of environmental conditions and associated performance requirements
The entity responsible for the definition of the specific Examination Framework shall determine the
environmental conditions (Representative/Challenging) and associated performance requirements to
be met for each metric selected in 5.2.2.
NOTE 1 Assessment of Charging Metrics in a Representative Environment allows performance in the
operational environment to be assessed. However, care is to be taken to ensure that the Charging Data
Input/selection of representative trips is comparable to that expected for the operational environment.
The choice of representative environmental conditions will, in practice, result in a multidimensional parameter
space (e.g. air moisture, topography, electromagnetic environment, etc.). It is important to choose these
parameters and their values with care to ensure that tests are performed in all realistic sets of conditions (or at
least the most probable ones) while keeping the number of necessary tests to a minimum.
NOTE 2 Assessments of Charging Metrics in a Challenging Environment are typically used to determine
behaviour for worst case scenarios in the operational environment. Due to the nonlinear dependence of system
performance on the environmental conditions, it is difficult to transpose measured performance levels to those
in operational systems.
The environmental conditions and associated performance requirements to be met for each metric
selected should be documented in each Examination Test within the specific Examination Framework.
NOTE 3 In cases where comparative testing is chosen (e.g. a new population of OBE is introduced into
an existing tolling system), the influence of the environmental conditions on the comparison results could
be reduced if the tests were performed in parallel. In this case, both populations are exposed to the same
conditions. Nonetheless, it is still necessary to perform the step described in 5.2.3. This is important to ensure
that the comparative test is performed under all relevant conditions; it also helps to pinpoint dependencies of
performance differences to issues with robustness to certain environmental conditions, i.e. one population of
equipment being more sensitive to certain environmental conditions than the other.
5.2.4 Determination of Required Sample Sizes
Based on the pe
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.