Jonathan,
I am certainly not one of the "experts on the EDI-L", however I would like to throw in my 2 cents worth regarding your questions.
Regarding your first question---whether to base your 997 on the standard or the Imp guide, I really think you've answered your own question, but let me throw an analogy at you. I found out long ago that speaking proper English is great, but to really communicate with your audience you need to use language they understand. I would think that you're running into the same situation. You can speak 'proper' EDI and go by the standards, but if your TP's don't understand what you're saying, then you've wasted your time and theirs. Better to use language that is common to both of you.
Your 2nd question is just a continuation of the previous thought. If your TP isn't going to understand what you're sending when you base your 997 on the standard, then why waste the time to create & send it, the cost to send it, and your TP's time to receive it and figure out that they can't understand it. 997's are not large transactions, but every byte costs to send and if they're going to get the information they need from an IG-based 997 why do anything more, Forget the standard and just send them what's been previously agreed upon.
Now if you have to undergo lots of trauma in order to implement a non-standard 997, then it may be worth your while to consider the benefits/problems of sending a 'standard' 997....or perhaps at that point it's time to re-evaluate your EDI software
Drake Weideman
Manager-Tech Support-Trinary Systems
Ph: (248) 442-8540
Fax:: (248) 442-9125
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Dual 997's
A topic came up in the course of conversation about whether 997's should
reflect the Standard or the Imp Guide (IG)... to narrow it down a bit this
would be for transactions that fall under HIPAA. This means that the US Govt
has built the IG's for a set of transactions and all parties using these
transactions will all use the same IG.
Now the questions... should the 997 reflect the Standard or the IG. I believe
that creating a 997 from the standard is not very useful when it comes to
syntax checking... there could be a valid qualifier/element/segment but
because it's not in the IG I can't use it and will error out the transaction
because I can't map the data. For example, if there were 5 relationship codes
in the IG but the transaction being sent contains 6 (the 6th one valid
according to the standard) but one not in the IG and therefore doesn't map.
Second question. Has anyone ever seen two 997's being sent. The first one to
reflect the standard and the second to reflect the IG. I think this is a bad
idea because if the first one says all syntax is correct and then the second
one says there is a syntax error base on the IG.... the first one is of very
little or no value.
I have never seen this put in place but because I could have lived a sheltered
life up to this point I thought I would ask the world of experts on EDI-L
Thanks!
Jonathan Showalter
Omaha NE USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
