I'd think "validation against an IG" rather than "against the the X12
standard " might entail a couple of different "levels" of compilance...
1. Required/optional/forbidden segments at various levels of the document.
'Required' could include "minimim/maximum required (per loop ID or document
position)".
2. For required/optional/not permitted segments, " business data" conveyed.
For example, an IG might read that (using a HIPAA-like example) two NM1
segments are required: One to identify the patient, one to identify the
facility.
You might see the same thing in an 850 PO: two DTM segments required, one
with "ship not before," one "ship not after."
3. Code values accepted for item type ID; may vary with the location of an
element within the document.
4. Then the trickest one, because there is no way any "off the shelf
commercial translator" to handle it: when the IG says, "Must be a valid
800-lb Gorilla, Inc. Purchase Order Number"
I think several people have commented about how the 997 is used in "REAL
LIFE" primarily as a "receipt" document, with application-specific variance
handled with an '824' or a phone call.
Interesting topic, this is....
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems
Racine WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Divoky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Dual 997's
> Enabling most current EDI translators to generate 997s based on an IG
would
> require a redesign. IGs include business rules which cannot be expressed
> easily or at all in most Standards Editors....
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
