I suspect that when most of the leading translators interpret an interchange
they actually bounce against the map for that given trading partner, etc.
and thus, actually report against the IG the results of the syntax analysis.
By default, and transparent to the user, the 997 is then actually against
the map for a given IG. However, this could also provide misleading positive
acks if, for example, a given map uses a code that is not valid for the
stated version of the transaction. Thus, even though the code is valid in
the map (i.e., the IG) it's not valid for the standard. Most of us know that
it's not at all uncommon for codes to be used inappropriately in the wrong
version.
Rachel
Jim Divoky asked:
>
> >> We all know in practice that the 997 is used in this way 90% of the
time.
> (This is referring to the practice of using 997s to report non-compliance
> with an IG.)
>
> Can someone cite some major companies that [use 997s to report against
> an IG]? Maybe my experience is biased but in working with dozens of
> multibillion dollar organizations in manufacturing, retail, utilities,
> automotive, and state government, I do not recall a single instance
> where this is done.
I work in X12C, which is where all the VAN and translator companies tend
to congregate, and while we have been discussing the 997/824 changes, every
single vendor around the table all said that their products do this, that
they provide value-add services on that basis and that a bare 997 against
only the standard wasn't useful to anyone. The only exceptions were one
or two of the older MS-DOS-based translators who only had the room to load
the standards tables; every other translator loaded IGs. Harbinger, for
example, sell sets of trading-partner enabled tables for their translator
and when you want to start trading with this partner or that partner you
ring up and they send you (for a fee, of course) the IG tables for that
trading partner and the hook into the ISA/GS switching table.
Our own VAN software (just been certified for the DEBX network) loads each
IG as the transaction comes through and validates all data against the IG
before delivery to a client's mailbox. We switch at the end of the ST
segment so as to fully implement ST03 where supplied, and have trading
partner tables that allow us to pick out the right IG based on transaction,
version, release, GS08 extension, GS02 or other criteria. That allows us
to detect unregistered or invalid transactions that clients shouldn't be
sending or can't receive. It also allows us to handle TS102 in with any
other transactions in a functional group or handle different IGs for
each transaction in an FG.
Jonathan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Jonathan Allen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Voice:
01404-823670
Barum Computer Consultants | | Fax:
01404-823671
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
