The simple past tense (when referring to the past) means the action takes place in the past, and that this necessarily excludes the present. It is over before the moment of speaking. "I read your question 2 minutes ago." With the simple past, I am not connecting the past event of my reading to the moment of me writing that sentence.
The present perfect refers to an event or action that took place sometime in the past (before the time of speaking) that has psychological relevance at the time of speaking. It connects the past event to the present. The event or action may or may not still be happening at the moment of speaking. This largely depends on the verb.
I have read you question, and now I am going to answer it. To my mind, my reading of your question still has psychological relevance to me at the moment of writing that sentence.
The question is always: Why use the present perfect instead of the simple past?
The action of the present perfect tense verb may extend all the way to the moment of speaking:
I've studied these instructions for 2 hours and I still don't understand how to program this DVD player. I quit.
I've stood in line for three hours and I haven't received any help.
It can refer to a past action that has some relevance to the speaker at the moment of speaking:
I've finished my homework. Now can I go out and play?
I haven't seen John today (and its important to me that I see him because he owes me $100).
I've been to London, it was a glorious experience.
If there is no continuing relevance, just use the simple past:
I finished my homework.
I didn't see John today.
I went to London and came back.
The present perfect can refer to repeated or habitual past activities that have relevance at the moment of speaking:
I've tried six times to meet the mayor and I'm trying again today.
I've taught English for ten years. (And I'm still teaching it.)
Ten Taiwanese film directors, producers and screenwriters have been invited to participate in a two-day workshop in Paris next week,
The present perfect means the past action has relevance at the moment of speaking. Here, one could have used the past tense: were invited in the same clause. The past tense just reports on a past event. It does not indicate continuing relevance.
A total of five Taiwanese film projects have been selected to join the workshop, which will take place at CNC from Jan. 15-16.
Again the simple past could have been used in this same clause: was selected.
Both verbs have been selected and have been invited are in the present perfect passive. With actions such as select and invite the action is over when the speaker says the sentence, but the action has continuing relevance.
What that relevance is is not always easy to define. As I said, both actions could have been reported with the simple past.
In British English, the present perfect tense is used more often than in American English. This suggests that speakers of British see continuing relevance more often, at least in certain contexts. See these three resources that discuss this: a blog post written by a linguist, the Cambridge Dictionary, the TOEFL website.
If a kid is coming to the table to eat supper, in AmE it can be usual to state:
Did you wash your hands? (simple past)
In BrE, so I have read, it would almost always be
Have you washed your hands?
(The relevance obviously is ascertaining if that the kid is prepared to eat supper.)
So, "Ten film directors have been invited..." it really is the speaker or writer who sees the past action (invite) as having continuing relevance at the moment of writing.
And, "five projects have been selected..." works the same way.
The relevance may simply be to state that although they were invited / selected in the past, this is still true at the moment of speaking.
It does not necessarily have to do anything with the future; I have shown that, in American English, at least, the simple past could have easily been used in those same two sentences.
However, just like the kid having washed his hands, so he is now 'eligible' to eat..so the directors have been invited and they are now 'eligible' to attend. (They may, after all, decline the invitation.)
This is why I said the question is always why choose the present perfect instead of the simple past? Sometimes only the speaker knows, or sometimes it is just because that is the normal way to express the situation (British English).
Edit: Having seen the comment by John Lawler, I see that the present perfect is used to report "hot" or "fresh" news. A reason to do this is to imply that the news has some continuing relevance to the listener.
Have you read the news? It's "vitally important" that you do so
Did you read the news? does not have this same implication.