Seems to me there are at least two different aspects to this question,
and one requirement that is getting missed somewhat.
The unstated business requirement is that your boss wants to make sure
your company doesn't transmit EDI transaction sets that have problems
with the business data, above and beyond being syntactically correct. I
don't see how you can reasonably challenge that requirement.
Given this requirement, the practical aspect of the problem then becomes
deciding the best place to do validation against the relevant business
rules. If it is already being done in the business application
generating the data, your boss is going a bit overboard, but he's your
boss. If it isn't being done in the business application, then your
choices are to modify the business application (if you even can), add a
validation step prior to EDI processing, or try to make your EDI system
do the validation. This is a practical systems architecture question
that must be decided on a case by case basis, driven by the systems you
have in place now. There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.
The standards aspect comes into play if you are considering inbound
translation and validation instead of outbound. In X12 the 997 is
intended only to report on the results of syntax analysis against the
standard. The 999 is intended to report on syntactic analysis against an
implementation of the standard. The 824 is intended to report on
application edits (validation against business rules in the
application), and can be generated completely independently of the
transaction set data. 997s and 999s are best generated in the EDI
system. As a general rule (your mileage may vary), the data for an 824
is best generated in the business application.
Mike
-----------------------------------------
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
Tom Smith (Yes, that's REALLY my name!) wrote:
> I just had this little *discussion* with my boss.
> It's his contention that part of the EDI process is data validation.
> He says the during translation I should make sure "everything adds up".
> I say that EDI just takes application data and formats it into an EDI
> standard doc. If the application data is incorrect, it's not EDI's
> function to "correct" it prior to sending to TP.
>
> What say ye?
>
>
>
> ...
> Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>,
> <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
>
> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS>
> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
...
Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>,
<JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS
REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
