----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now the questions... should the 997 reflect the Standard or the IG.....
I saw that in the HIPAA spec myself. I have never seen 997s generated which
do validations of application data; or even (the HIPAA case) syntax checking
to an IG.
While I can support the HIPAA concept of checking for structure
(presence/absence of required/unsupported segments and elements), anything
beyond that and perhaps checking for supported code values in type ID
elements does not sound too smart. I would much prefer the 997 to be a
"receipt" document which essentially says, " I received your original
document and the box was undamaged; but I won't vouch for the contents until
I've opened it up."
It is probably true I feel this way because setting up commercial EDI
translators to handle this requires you define a new standard, which not too
many translators can do, and even then it's a bear of a job. ( I did this
ONCE with Gentran/MVS. Never want to do it again)
> Second question. Has anyone ever seen two 997's being sent...
Not since I've been working with ANSI EDI (1983). I have seen 997s followed
up with an '824' Application Advice or sometimes an '865' Seller Initiated
PO Change document, but never a second 997 FA.
I would think commercial translators which handle reconcilation could not
handle 2 997s for the same document.
( I know neither Gentran/400 or Trading Partner/MVS can handle it). At least
not without reporting some kind of error condition.
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems
Racine WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
