Karen Norton's and Maria Safavi's replies (attached) raise the question of
the proper order to determine distinctiveness. Karen's answer indicates that
we should start from the inside and work outward to the envelope, Maria's
seems to say just the opposite.
This is an interesting discussion.
Karen Norton's comment
Mark,
I don't think they're dupes. The X12 Standards book has a Note in the
997 Transaction Set Table stating: "The Functional Group Header
Segment (GS) is used to start the envelope for the Functional
Acknowledgment Transaction Sets. In preparing the functional group of
acknowledgments, the application sender's code and the application
receiver's code, taken from the functional group being acknowledged,
are exchanged; therefore, one acknowledgment functional group responds
to only those functional groups from one application receiver's code to
one application sender's code."
So, if the GS codes are different, these 2 997s are different.
Karen Norton.
EDI Systems Analyst
Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
408-654-6709
--------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Maria Safavi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Duplicate Transaction Identification
If your question is - is it a unique interchange?.... the answer is NO. The
X12
standards clearly define uniqueness as follows:
"In order to provide sufficient discrimination for the acknowledgement
process
to operate reliably and to ensure that audit trails are unambiguous, the
combination of interchange sender's qualifier and ID (ISA05, ISA06),
interchange
receiver's qualifier and ID (ISA07, ISA08) and the interchange control
number
value (ISA13) shall by themselves be unique within a reasonably extended
time
frame whose boundaries shall be defined by trading partner agreement."
You may refer to this in the X12 standards manual for 4010 under section
X12.5.1.2.
Any translator that is checking for duplicate interchanges from a trading
partner would reject the 2nd one.
Maria Safavi
---------------------- Forwarded by Maria Safavi/US/NA/TCCC on 03/03/2000
09:59
AM ---------------------------
Brian Lehrhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/03/2000 08:28:29 AM
Please respond to Brian Lehrhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Maria Safavi/US/NA/TCCC)
Subject: Re: Duplicate Transaction Identification
They are not. The six keys to partner identification are IS sender and
receiver, GS sender and receiver, document and version. The smart thing
would be to get the partner to use two very different series of ST
control numbers so the documents wouldn't look like duplicates at face.
Mark Jasper wrote:
>
> List members, a question:
> If a trading partner sent you these two 997's, would you consider them to
be
> duplicates?
> Note:
> The ISA segments are identical
> The GS segments have different receiver identifiers
> All Control Numbers are the same
>
> ISA*00* *00* *14*AAAAAAAAAAAAA *ZZ*BBBBBBBB
> *000218*0931*U*00302*000000001*0*P*:
> GS*FA*111111111111*BBBBBBBB*000218*0931*00001*X*003020
> ST*997*32376
> AK1*PR*59
> AK2*855*0114
> AK5*A
> AK2*855*0115
> AK5*A
> AK9*A*2*2*2
> SE*8*32376
> GE*1*00001
> IEA*1*000000001
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ISA*00* *00* *14*AAAAAAAAAAAAA *ZZ*BBBBBBBB
> *000218*0931*U*00302*000000001*0*P*:
> GS*FA*111111111111*XXXXXXXX*000218*0931*00001*X*003020
> ST*997*32376
> AK1*PR*59
> AK2*855*0114
> AK5*A
> AK2*855*0115
> AK5*A
> AK9*A*2*2*2
> SE*8*32376
> GE*1*00001
> IEA*1*000000001
>
> Thanks!
> Mark Jasper
> EC Programmer Analyst
> Memec, Inc.
> 9980 Huennekens Street
> San Diego, CA 92121
> Tel: 858-450-8919
> E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
