|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Re: Repetition Seperator ISA-11
Just to make sure we all know what we're talking about, there are three
flavors of X12 data elements we're concerned with here:
1) Simple data element - has an atomic value
2) Composite data structure (sometimes called a composite element) - Is
defined to allow two or more atomic values
3) Component data element - A simple data element as used within a
composite data structure
The repeat count is an attribute of a simple data element or composite data
structure as used within a segment. So, both simple data elements and
composite data structures may repeat at their appropriate position within a
segment.
A component data element may *not* repeat within a composite data structure.
Mike
At 12:47 PM 8/14/03 +0000, usa coder wrote:
>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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>Message Identifiers: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>,
><OFF-TOPIC>
>Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
