Jennifer,
Thanks for your reply.
Does this mean that the Bill Type in the 276 is the
concatenation of all three subelements in the CML05 without the subelement
seperator?
This would bring numerous problems because I cannot
reconstruct a unique association. For example the "111" in the 276 IG
example could be
whereby the colon (:) represents the
subelement seperator.
I believe now that the Bill Type Identifier in
its current incarnation in the 276 is useless or even dangerous.
Martin
********************************************************************** To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request. ====================================================== The WEDI SNIP listserv to which you are subscribed is not moderated. The discussions on this listserv therefore represent the views of the individual participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the WEDI Board of Directors nor WEDI SNIP. If you wish to receive an official opinion, post your question to the WEDI SNIP Issues Database at http://snip.wedi.org/tracking/. Posting of advertisements or other commercial use of this listserv is specifically prohibited. |
Title: RE: 276 Bill Type
- 276 Bill Type Martin Scholl
- RE: 276 Bill Type Jennifer Ayres
- RE: 276 Bill Type Martin Scholl
- RE: 276 Bill Type Alex Chernyak
- RE: 276 Bill Type Cabral, Mike
- RE: 276 Bill Type Alex Chernyak
