...and just to add my 2<insert local currency>:
Though we're mostly EDIFACT, I use an alias on our TLE translator to point
all ORDRSP's to use the corresponding ORDERS map. Makes maintenance etc. a
lot easier.
-----Original Message-----
From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 December 2000 22:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 850 vs 860
Michael Weir, of Transform Research, wrote:
I'm looking at the 850 and the 860, trying to figure out
why there's an 860 in the first place. The 860 seems to
have just about the same fields that the 850 has. Since
there's only 999 document numbers available, why did they
define the 860 instead of adding some semantics to the 850?
After all, there is a Transaction Set Purpose Code of
04-Change, which is valid for the 850.
I assume that I'm missing something. Can anyone explain?
Dear Michael:
You're not missing anything at all. The ASC X12 850 Purchase Order is
indeed very similar in arrangement to the 860 Purchase Order Change
Request - Buyer Initiated. And we'd probably find out that both of
these transaction sets are somewhat like the 855 Purchase Order
Acknowledgment and the 865 Purchase Order Change
Acknowledgment/Request - Seller Initiated.
The very same thing happens in UN/EDIFACT, where the ORDERS (Purchase
Order), ORDCHG (Purchase Order Change Request), and ORDRSP (Purchase
Order Response) Messages are nearly identical in their segment and
segment group layouts. I'm sure I could find more examples by comparing
like-named messages using the EDISIM Comparator. See
http://www.foresightcorp.com/pages/products/edisim/ese.html.
As Dan Kazzaz indicated, a lot of this is "historical convenience," or
*Baggage*. Both X12 and EDIFACT have been equivocal about the matter of
when to create or "spin-off" a new message or transaction, even if of
similar function. For example, see the UN/EDIFACT WORKING GROUP (EWG)
Documents at http://www.edifact-wg.org/, where the Message and Code
Handbook (MACH)(CEFACT/GE.1/1998/4) says in Part I - Guidelines about
when to design a message: "there is no clear guidance on when to design
a new message instead of reusing an existing one." This is recognized
by some examples: "messages which cover several processing activities
(e.g. original, change, deletion, response, acknowledgement);" and
"messages which are limited to one processing activity (e.g. ORDERS,
ORDCHG, ORDRSP)."
Further, in section 2.5, Guidelines, the MACH states: "Message types
with similar structures may be an indication of similarities at business
function level. Similar message types may be combined in a more generic
message type supporting several business functions if it is agreeable to
parties involved in the business domains."
Even if similar messages or transaction sets were designed at the same
time, they often start diverging as time goes on and maintenance is
applied to the segment structure of one, but not the other. EDIFACT has
done a better job of keeping the messages in sync than X12 has, though.
William J. Kammerer
FORESIGHT Corp.
4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600
Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"Commerce for a New World"
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential
and protected from disclosure. The opinions expressed are those of the
individual and not Samsung Semiconductor Europe Ltd or Samsung
Electromechanics Ltd. Internet communications are not secure and
therefore Samsung Semiconductor Europe Ltd and Samsung
Electromechanics Ltd do not accept legal responsibility for the contents
of this message. If you think you have received this email in error please
notify the sender or mail "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and delete any
copies of the mail.
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
