Correct, the TA1 reflects a valid interchange, regardless of the validity of the contents of the data included inside the header/trailer envelope.
The TA1 does NOT confirm the content of the transaction, only the content of the ISA is validated. This is a good approach for initial trading partner testing, but not for other levels of testing or production The 997 does further details on the content of the transactions. Julie A. Thompson Vice President EDI Services Concio, Inc. Silicon Valley California http://www.concio.com 408-562-6611 -----Original Message----- From: Bill Chessman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:11 AM To: 'WEDI Transactions List' Subject: RE: Transaction acknowledgments 997 No. As pointed out previously, when ISA14 = 1, the receiver should respond with a TA1 segment back to the sender. Best regards, Bill Chessman Peregrine Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Julie A. Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:02 AM To: 'Martin Scholl'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Transaction acknowledgments 997 This means when the sender sends ISA14 = 1, the receiver should respond with a 997 back to the sender. Julie A. Thompson Vice President EDI Services Concio, Inc. Silicon Valley California http://www.concio.com 408-562-6611 -----Original Message----- From: Martin Scholl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 6:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Transaction acknowledgments 997 It is my interpretation that a "1" in element 14 of the ISA segment indicates whether the sender wants to receive an acknowledgement. This should be the case for any EDI message, not only healthcare. Martin Scholl Scholl Consulting Group, Inc. 301-924-5537 Tel 301-570-0139 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SchollConsulting.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wojnowski, Charlotte M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:21 PM Subject: Transaction acknowledgments 997 > After reading the 834 IG, I received the impression that an 997 is required > to respond to the 834. Is this a correct statement? Is the sender required > to receive the 997? If this is the case with the 834, are the other > transactions also set up the same way? > > Charlotte Wojnowski > Caremark > 847-444-6065 >
