|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Digest Number 777
Lincoln,
You are aware, of course, that there is quite a difference between common
practice and what the standards say. As far as X12 goes, the 997 is only
intended to report acceptance or errors in regard to syntactic checking of
groups and documents against the standard. The new 999 is intended to
report compliance with an implementation guide, and the 824 and various
other messages may be used for application level acknowledgement.
That said, I've only worked with one translator that used the full standard
as the yardstick for syntax checking. In most of the translators I've
worked with your map reflects your implementation guide, and the
transaction set as defined in the map is what is used for syntax checking
and generating a 997. However, in my experience most companies do not
specifically tell trading partners that this is how they are going to do
things, certain parts of the U.S. federal government being a notable
exception. As well, the HIPAA guidelines for using the 997 may also be an
exception.
The general rule among large retailers seems to be that 997s are generated
against the standard. Errors in compliance with implementation guides are
often reported separately by e-mail.
Mike
> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:33:23 -0000
> From: "lincoln37215" <
>Subject: Basis for FA's "syntax" check? Standard vs. map guidelines?
>
>Scenario:
>
>We are generating FAs to send back to trading partners.
>
>Inbound EDI data sent by the trading partner is being translated to
>our flat file based on our mapping guidelines.
>
>Question:
>
>When we create the FA to send back, should the FA check syntactical
>compliance of the received EDI data based on the subset of the
>standard as coded in the map, or based on the general standard?
>
>If based on subset, it would be a syntax error if the TP did not
>send a field that was Optional in the general standard, but was a
>segment that our map considered to be mandatory (based on the our
>mapping guidelines).
>
>I am wondering what is the common practice among other EDI
>translation departments.
>
>-Lincoln Yarbrough
>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
