It sounds like the electronics biz (EIDX) has some of the same problems we have when it comes to identification and routing. Just goes to show you that solutions coming out of our proposed Healthcare CPP Registry might be generally applicable across all business domains. Supply-chain, anyone?
William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859 +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "William J. Kammerer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EDI-L Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Identifying Parties in X12 Stephenie: The REF*EO would not contain enough information to say what *kind* of identifier you're talking about (e.g., DUNS, UCC/EAN GLN, etc.), so it would be unsuitable for reconstructing the ISA receiver ID on a response. The REF EO qualifier (Submitter Identification Number) came into the X12 standard at the same time (003030 in 1992) as the 837 Healthcare claim, so I suspect it's a Healthcare type o' thing - something vestigial from HCFA National Standard Format (NSF) claims carried over into X12. It's probably better to derive ISA and GS receiver IDs from application fields, like the N103 and N104, anyway - as your consortium's (EIDX?) guidelines say. Though it seems like some folks are able to preserve the ISA and GS sender IDs for a turnaround, it appears as if it's something you can't rely on as not every translator has a transparent means of doing so. We've wrestled with this same problem in WEDI/SNIP for identification and routing of HIPAA standard administrative healthcare transactions; see http://www.novannet.com/wedi/ for an overview of the Healthcare CPP Registry spec we're proposing. We're not counting on the ISA sender ID for anything other than returning TA1 and 997 acknowledgements (which are usually a function of the translator). By the time healthcare transactions are translated, the ISA and GS fields might have been long discarded. So other indirect means have to be devised for determining the control envelope receiver fields - generally using the NM1 loop identifiers (analogous to using N103 and N104). William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. Columbus, US-OH 43221-3859 +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephenie Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EDI-L Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May, 2002 01:05 AM Subject: [EDI-L] Identifying Parties in X12 Hi. I browsed through message archives for this list to see if my question has already been answered but could not find anything. Apologies if this is old news, but I do need some input. My experience is that the ISA and GS are the domain of the gateway, and many mapping solutions cannot refer to those segments when parsing inbound data during translation. At the company I used to work at, that was so for three mapping solutions I encountered in my 13 years of EDI. But we had a workaround - the company's internal file format used envelopes, which were added on outside the third-party mapping software. The internal envelope required a partner identifier, and we used the GS sender ID and Functional Group as a lookup key to get that partner ID from the gateway data base. I am currently dealing with someone who insists, that since the sender ID's in the ISA and GS can't be mapped to the internal application, that an REF with REF01 = EO must be used (let's abbreviate that to "REF*EO"). My consortium's guidelines say that if ISA and GS are insufficient identification, that N1 loops should be used. I can find lots of documents from other organizations and companies that have N1 loops included but I can find none for any organization or company that mention an REF*EO. This beloved colleague is passionate in his assertion that the REF*EO is the only right answer. First question: Does anyone's mapping solutions prevent them from being able to map data from the ISA and/or GS to the internal application? Second question: If your mapping solution doesn't allow you to map from ISA and GS, what do you use instead? Second question: Are the sender ID's on ISA and GS sufficient most of the time or are the insufficient most of the time? Third question: If your mapping solution doesn't allow you to map from ISA and GS, or the ISA and GS sender ID's you get are not always sufficient, what do you use to identify the sender? Variation on third question: Are any of your trading partners asking you to send or receive an REF*EO? Best regards, Stephenie Cooper EIDX ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Tied to your PC? Cut Loose and Stay connected with Yahoo! Mobile http://us.click.yahoo.com/QBCcSD/o1CEAA/sXBHAA/OIFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Identifiers: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
