Bob, Even if your recollection is not correct, that actually sounds like a valid explanation. But why two years and not three, four, etc.? It does meet mey initial theory of someone with a "VERY SPECIFIC agenda". :) The mere IDEA of sitting in one of these sessions causes me to <YAWN!>. After 15 minutes, I'd probably be trying to chew my leg out of the bear trap. Matt ________________________________ Matthew Brown eBusiness Analyst eBusiness Standards & Practices EasyLink Services International Corporation www.easylink.com
[email protected] Direct: 732-658-5419 Fax: 212-999-7375 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Sigsworth Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:54 AM To: Leah Halpin; [email protected] Subject: Re: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general I sat in on some of the X12 Purchasing Subcommittee meetings back in the '80s when the 855 was being fleshed out, and to the best of my recollection, they chose 104 for that loop because it's two years of weekly schedules. Of course I could be wrong because those meetings were so exciting that it was hard to retain everything. Bob Sigsworth Akron, OH At 11:31 AM 6/10/2011, Leah Halpin wrote: > > >Hi Doug, >I think it's the "4" part that's got us >giggling. Why not 100? or 105? or 103? > >Leah > >________________________________ >From: Doug Anderson ><<mailto:Doug_Anderson%40kleinschmidt.com>[email protected]> >To: 'Leah Halpin' ><<mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com>[email protected]>; >Matt Brown ><<mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com>[email protected]>; ><mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:28 AM >Subject: RE: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > >Leah > >My guess would be >that the business case submitted to X12 requested 104 occurrences of that loop >and it was well documented. No reason to make it > >1. > >It is Friday, but I >hope I don't start the >1 discussion again...... > >Doug >Doug Anderson >Chair, ASC X12 Transportation >Subcommittee >Vice President Sales Support >Kleinschmidt Inc. >847-405-7457 (Office direct) >847-826-3531 (cell) >847-945-4619 (fax) ><http://www.kleinschmidt.com/>http://www.kleinschmidt.com/ > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Leah Halpin [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM > >To: Matt Brown; <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] > >Subject: Re: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > > > > > >Matt, > >Nope, no DTM in ACK loop for this particular TP. I like your >suggestion and your confidence. I'm going to go with it. One of >the people on this list is/was on an X12 committee, perhaps he knows why the >104? There are 26 standard codes, maybe he only wanted 4 repeats of each >code? No, that doesn't make sense either. Perhaps you're right and >it was a bit of whimsy. Or maybe it was Friday! > > > >Thank >you. > >Leah > > > >________________________________ > >From: Matt Brown ><<mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com>[email protected]> > >To: >Leah Halpin ><<mailto:leahhalpin%40yahoo.com>[email protected]>; >"<mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected]" ><<mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected]> > >Sent: >Friday, June 10, 2011 10:56 AM > >Subject: RE: [EDI-L] PO ACK business process >question - general > > > >Leah, > > > >Is the DTM in the ACK loop >active? > > > >If so, and assuming the Date Qualifiers are relevant, you could >send > > > >ACK*IC*400*EA > >DTM*011*(today) -- or DTM*068*(current schedule >ship) -- or DTM*067*(current sch. deliv.) > >(or whatever qual/date is >applicable) > > > >ACK*IC*300*EA > >DTM*068*next >date > > > >ACK*IC*300*EA > >DTM*068*next date > > > >Otherwise, I would say >they expect > > > >ACK*IC*1000*EA > > > >and then your three SCHs later in >the PO1 loop. > > > >Matt > > > >P.S. Yes, that "104" max on the ACK >loop has always made me laugh. Whoever was on the X12 committee which >set that either had a sense of humor or a VERY SPECIFIC >agenda. > >________________________________ > >Matthew Brown > >eBusiness >Analyst > >eBusiness Standards & Practices > >EasyLink Services >International Corporation > >www.easylink.com > > > ><mailto:mbrown%40easylink.com>[email protected] > >Direct: >732-658-5419 > >Fax: 212-999-7375 > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: > <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leah Halpin > >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:37 AM > >To: <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected] > >Subject: >[EDI-L] PO ACK business process question - general > > > >I'm directing this >question to those of you who have retail experience. I am working on an >855 and I've come across something that's new to me. The implementation >guideline I'm working with shows the SCH available for use. The SCH at >the line item level is not subordinate to the ACK segment. I'm wondering >how to acknowledge a PO with multiple changes to the quantity and scheduled >date, such as: > > > >Customer orders 1,000 pieces. I have 400 on hand >and I know they want the rest as quickly as I can make them, I can ship 300 >later this week and 300 next week. > > > >ACK is limited to a max >repeat of 1, ACK loop (optional) is max repeat 104 (wtf?), only segment >allowed within the ACK loop is the MAN segment which is optional and not >applicable to my business process. > > > >ACK01 codes allowed which refer to >date or quantity change are: > >DR = Item accepted - date rescheduled > >IC = >Item accepted - Changes made > >IQ = Item accepted - quantity >changed > > > >SCH is it's own loop, max repeat 200. > > > >I am not able, at >this time, to ask the customer what they would like (which is what I want to >do) so please don't suggest that. > > > >Should I use the generic ACK01 = IC >and then list out my proposed shipping schedule in three SCH segments or >should I use two ACK segments one with DR and one with IQ and then list out my >three SCH segments or should I skip the ACK all together (which seems odd) and >just write my thee SCH segments. > > > >Thanks for any insight you can >offer. > > > >Leah > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been >removed] > > > >------------------------------------ > > > >... > >Please use >the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, ><JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, ><OFF-TOPIC> > > > >Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or >requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a >prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been >removed] > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------ ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
