[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference rocks::dec_edi

Title:DEC/EDI
Notice:DEC/EDI V2.1 - see note 2002
Moderator:METSYS::BABER
Created:Wed Jun 06 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:3150
Total number of notes:13466

3105.0. "UNOB without UNA (DEC/EDI V2.1D)" by BERN02::MUNT () Thu Apr 24 1997 16:48

    A customer wishes to receive EDIFACT messages from a partner with UNOB
    syntax (UNB segment) but without UNA segment. These transmission files
    fail with "Failed interchange header separation". 
    (DEC/EDI V2.1D Alpha).
    
    Is there any way to make this work?
    
    Thanks
    ...colin
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
3105.1The separators are set in concreteMETSYS::HELLIARhttp://samedi.reo.dec.com/Thu Apr 24 1997 18:4714
    Colin,
    
    Depends on what the separators are: In Theory we should be able to
    receive UNB<GS>UNOB<US>1...<FS> without any preceding UNA. This is as
    per ISO 9735 : 1988 (E). If we dont support this then IPMT it.
    
    If, however the user wants us to accept UNB+UNOB:1...' then this can
    only occur with a preceeding UNA to declare the NON-STANDARD
    separators. If the user wants us to support this non-standard method
    then 'a customer funded project' would be needed.
    
    Graham
    
    
3105.2Also UNOC on V3.1COPCLU::FINNTue May 06 1997 14:3115
    DEC/EDI V3.1A
    
    A customer wishes to receive EDIFACT messages from a partner with UNOC
    syntax (UNB segment) but without UNA segment. These transmission files
    fail with "invalid EDIFACT Syntax Level".
    
    The customer also claims that according to the ISO standard this should
    be possible.
    
    Is there any way to make this work?
    
    if not, what is the reason that DEC/EDI don't support it?
    
    Thanks a lot,
    :-) Finn.
3105.3Separators hold the keySYSTEM::HELLIARhttp://samedi.reo.dec.com/Tue May 06 1997 19:3915
    Finn,
    
    Once again what separators are they using?
    
    ISO 9735 : 1988/Amd.1: 1992 (E) which defined UNOC states
    
    NOTES
    1. In UNOC, UNOD, UNOE, and UNOF, the same information separators as in
    UNOB will be used unless other separators such as those in UNOA are
    specified in segment UNA.
    
    If, UNOC with the non-printable separators of UNOB failed in 3.1A then
    its a bug and should be IPMT'ed.
    
    Graham
3105.4":+.? '"COPCLU::FINNMon May 12 1997 13:3812
    Graham,
    
    Thanks for your reply. The customer are using the following separators:
    
    ":+.? '" 
    
    So, if I understand you correct, this should NOT work according to ISO
    9735, but if the interchange was build with UNOB separators, it should
    work?
    
    Thanks,
    :-) Finn.
3105.5IJSAPL::DEWIJKGJ from the DutchlandsMon May 12 1997 22:547
    Hi Finn,
    
    Correct, because the customer is using the UNOA separators an UNA
    segment is required. If the customer had chosen to use the UNOB-UNOC
    default seperators, the UNA segment would not be required.
    
    GJ