Hi Tim
Yes, Edifix does have all these UNCL codes internally available. The only
thing I had to check was which version of UNCL the UBL list equated to -
this is the D03A directory version.
The concern I have with regards to the line status and document status codes
is that I cannot find all the UBL values in the UNCL appropriate lists which
are 1229 for line status codes and 1225 or possibly 1373 for document status
codes. Some certainly match up such as 'cancelled' but others are missing or
not exact matches. I guess that we can deal with this later. Edifix can
subset code lists for EDI guidelines but I am not sure how this works for
schema use.
Finally, your proposal for the remaining code lists should be fine, I guess.
However, I am left wondering why these are code lists at all as they seem
like pairs of indicator values. Again a question for later on, I suppose.
regards
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:]
Sent: 15 March 2004 08:20
To: Sue Probert
Cc: Ubl-Lcsc;
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Code list content review
I assume when you say "OK to use full list from EF", you mean that
EDIFIX already has these codes and they don't need anne's (hard won)
text files!?
As for the other issues...
If you remember the discussion on DocumentStatusCode and
LineStatusCode, i think the concern was that the UNCL code lists were
too big - we want to limit those used to the 4 Document Statuses and 5
Line Statuses only. So these are a restriction on the UNCL code lists.
CargoTypeCode was only a 'placebo' and we are implementing 'standard
(and stock)' codes for the 1.0 package - so it is left undefined.
With ChipCode , OperatorCode and SubstitutionStatusCode the names have
not yet been added - because we have none. i propose that the names are
the same as the code value (the CodeContent). for example,
OperatorCode.Content = "multiply" and OperatorCode.Name="multiply"
w.r.t. the EDIFIX code values, we have to think about maintenace of
these values - so it would still help to have import and export of this
data sorted out, rather than rely on manual entry and checking.
Sue Probert wrote:
