|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Repetition Seperator ISA-11
Bill and others,
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the repetition separator can be
used for both data elements and composite elements.
If so, can a composite element that is defined to repeat contain a
data element that is also defined to repeat?
TIA,
Joe McVerry
--- In Bill Chessman <bill.chessman@i...> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Although it made its appearance in 004020, the repetition separator
didn't
> have any formal use until the 004040 release. There was a change in the
> syntax that mirrored a similar change in EDIFACT syntax which allows an
> element to repeat in a segment. That is to say each element in a
segment in
> the X12 (& EDIFACT) standards has a repetition factor (most often 1)
similar
> to the repetition factor allotted to segments and loops.
>
> A good example of this sort of thing would be the COM segment which, in
> 004060 is now defined as:
>
> 01 365 Communication Number Qualifier M 1 ID 2/2
> 02 364 Communication Number M 1 AN 1/256
> 03 C057 Communication Number Component O 9
>
> In this example, the 3rd element, C057 could be repeated up to 9
times and
> each repetiton would be separated by the repetition separator.
Assuming *
> for the element separator, : for sub-element separator and ^ for
repetition
> separator, you might see a COM segment that looks like this:
>
> COM*TE*(925)555-1212*AA:01^BN:(925)555-1200^FX:(925)555-1299~
>
> In that example, element COM01 is "TE", element COM02 is
"(925)555-1212",
> the first repeat of COM03 contains two sub-elements: "AA" and "01", the
> second repeat of COM03 contains "BN" and "(925)555-1200" and the third
> repeat contains "FX" and "(925)555-1299".
>
> There are several reasons for incorporating the concept of repeating
> elements into the standards:
>
> 1. They allow for transmission of repetitious data without having to
repeat
> entire segments.
> 2. They allow for transmission of data that is related in the form of an
> array.
> 3. They allow greater flexibility in adjusting the standards. For
example,
> suppose at some future time, another element were added to the end
of the
> COM segment. Let's say it is a flag that indicates digital or
analog (it
> doesn't really matter, and who's to say what will be requested). Now we
> have a COM segment that might look like this:
>
> 01 365 Communication Number Qualifier M 1 ID 2/2
> 02 364 Communication Number M 1 AN 1/256
> 03 C057 Communication Number Component O 9
> 04 xxx Comm medium type O 1 ID 1/1
>
> ...later, someone decides it would be better to have 10
communication number
> components instead of 9. In the olden days, when elements were
individually
> placed, that tenth would have required a new element to be added to
the end.
> Now, they just need to change the repeat factor to 10. I believe
this is
> thought to ease the pain for just about anyone who has to work with the
> segment.
>
> At this point, the repetition factor is not terribly commonly used (as I
> mentioned above, the default is 1...effectively providing the same
> functionality as pre-004020). I had heard rumors that many of the
segments
> with repetitious elements (SDQ, LIN, etc.) might one day get a
make-over to
> incorporate the repeating element concepts in order to make future
> maintenance that much simpler, but so far none of that has happened.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Best regards,
> Bill Chessman
> Inovis(tm), Inc.
>
|
|
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
