UN/EDIFACT DRAFT DIRECTORY
RESTRICTED
TRADE/WP.4/R.982
9 August 1993
ENGLISH ONLY
COMMITTEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE
Meeting of Experts on Data Elements
and Automatic Data Interchange (GE.1)
(Forty-eighth session, 21-22 September 1993
Item 4 of the provisional Agenda)
UN/EDIFACT DIRECTORY VERSION/RELEASE PROCEDURES* * *
Transmitted by the Directory Reference Group (DRG),
the Team of Technical Advisors (TTA) and the Syntax Development Group
(SDG) *
* The present document is reproduced in the form in which is was
received by the secretariat.
SOURCE: DRG; TTA; SDG
STATUS: COMMITTEE DRAFT
ACTION: FOR APPROVAL at the GE.1 meeting, 1993-09-21/22, agenda item **
1. As a result of the approval at the March 1993 session of WP.4 of
the new directory issue cycles (see TRADE/WP.4/GE.1/91, paragraph
43.4) and, in particular, the adoption of the concept of Working
and Standard Directories, there has been an impact on version and
release procedures.
2. This paper suggests how, within a message, the 'version and
release data elements' within UNH can be directly used to
identify the type of directory in which the message was published
in addition to the directory issue.
3. Up until now, in the UNH segment data element 0052 has been used
to identify the status of the message type and data element 0054
to indicate the directory type and issue. This system, which
posed problems in the past, is even less adequate under the new
directory issue criteria.
With this in mind, the Syntax Development Group (SDG) is in the
process of revising the UNH service segment fully to meet the
requirements of the user community. However, it is not likely
that the results of this work will be approved before 1995,
thus an interim solution is needed to solve the immediate
problem.
4. It is expected that the SDG solution will provide a means for
separate identification of code list directories. However, until
the syntax is able to accommodate this, we would propose the
incorporation of the most recent Consolidated Code List (CCL), at
the time of publication, into both the Working and Standards
directories as the code directory.
5. The report of the 47th session of GE.1 (TRADE/WP.4/GE.1/91)
identified in paragraph 43.4 ii. for recommendation to WP.4 that
"From April 1993, the concept and philosophy put forward in
the ESD report of a Working directory and of a Standards
directory should be adopted;" This was reflected in the report
of the 37th session of WP.4 (TRADE/WP.4/183) in paragraph 31. as
the need "To agree on the terminology of Standards and Working
directories to replace the current terminology of Status 2 and
Status 1 (trial) directories;".
6. In reviewing the terminology to be adopted, it becomes
apparent that:
i) the directory containing "Recommendations" (i.e.
United Nations Standard Messages also referred to as
Status 2 messages) should be referred to as the
"Standards" directory;
ii) the directory containing "Draft recommendations"
(i.e. Status 1 messages for trial and all Status 2 messages
in their latest form) should be referred to as the
"Draft" directory, as this corresponds best to its
actual contents and current, understood, practice in most
standard organizations; and
iii) the day to day work-in-progress is applied to the
Maintenance Database, which comprises the Standards and
Draft directories, plus messages under development (i.e.
Status 0 messages), plus all related Data Maintenance
Requests (DMRs). In the past, it was from this maintenance
database that "Work Books" were derived.
It would therefore, be misleading to call any directory
except the one held in the Maintenance database (which is
never published except in "Workbooks") a Working
Directory.
7. The key Version and Release issue is how to indicate the
publication of multiple directories of the same type within one
year. Such identification can only, within the current UNH
segment, utilize two fields - the above mentioned 0052 and 0054.
It is therefore proposed that data element 0052 be used to show
the directory type and data element 0054 be used to indicate the
directory issue. The data to be used in these data elements
would be as follows:
Directory Type 0052 0054
Status 0 0 Document Revision Number
Draft D YYA
Standard S YYA
YY = Year
A = Directory issue within the year shown by an alphabetic
sequential indicator commencing with A for the first
issue of a directory type within a year.
Notes:
a) with regard to data element 0052 this is a significant
departure from current usage where 0052 used to
contain the MESSAGE's STATUS and NOT the DIRECTORY
TYPE.
b) Status 0 messages are not in a directory, however,
this is the information to be shown in the areas on
the boilerplate cover page corresponding to the
above version/release information.
8. Using the proposed solution, the data elements 0052 and 0054 in
the UNH segment are envisaged to be used as shown in the
following example:
Message DE DE
Directory Acronym Type 0052 0054
1st standards directory, 1993 S.93A CREADV S 93A
1st draft directory, 1993 D.93A CREADV D 93A
1st draft directory, 1994 D.94A CREADV D 94A
2nd draft directory, 1994 D.94B CREADV D 94B
1st standards directory, 1994 S.94A CREADV S 94A
(Note that the suggested acronym is a shorthand means of
referring to the directory in question. The acronym
concatenates the data in elements 0052 and 0054.)
9. The proposed solution allows for the identification of a
directory within which the message being transmitted is found.
Once the directory is known, all of the information required
for the processing of that message, for example the segment
structures etc, can be determined. However, the proposed
solution does not allow the possibility, in the case of a
message within a draft directory, to determine whether that
message has attained status 2.
10. To provide the information regarding message status, it is
proposed that the message indexes found in the directory set be
extended to include a message status column to indicate whether
a message is status 1 or 2.
11. In addition, it is proposed that a message revision number be
shown as part of the message index, to indicate changes in the
message boilerplate (including the structure). When a change
occurs in a message's boilerplate or structure between directory
publications, the revision number would increment by one. This
would allow message implementors to immediately identify changes
which could affect their applications.
12. This means that a message appearing in both the Draft Directory
and the Standards Directory will share a sequential message
revision number, which will only change when there has been a
change to the message in question.
13. The following is an example of message index layout for the
index by message type code, using a sample of entries from the
92.1 directory set. The index will be a separate file in the
directories circulated by the UN/ECE, and the example index
shown would be that for a Draft Directory:
Code Name Status Revision
+ BANSTA Banking Status Message 1 1
BAPLIE Bayplan - occupied and empty 1 3
BAPLTE Bayplan/Stowage Plan Total Numbers 1 3
+ CONDPV Direct Payment Valuation Message 1 1
* CREADV Credit Advice Message 2 5
* INVOIC Invoice Message 2 7
NOTES:
"+" indicates that the message is appearing for the
first time in the directory;
"*" indicates that the message has changed from its
previous form;
Where no symbol is shown in front of the message type
identifier, the message is unchanged from its previous
form;
The "Status" and "Revision" columns
show not only what will appear in the index for the
directory, but also what will be shown on a paper copy
of the message.
The example uses fictitious revision numbers which are
shown as a guide only. The actual revision numbers for
each of the messages will have to be determined in
consultation with the message design groups.
An important point which will need to be considered by
message design groups, is what constitutes a
"change" to a message which would result in
the revision number being incremented by one?
This document suggests that there only two types of change
which fall into this category:
i) where a message has its structure changed as a result
of a "Message Structure" Data Maintenance
Request being approved under the procedures;
ii) when a message design group decides to take advantage
of a change to a segment used by one of its messages,
by amending the boilerplate for the message to reflect
the change.
14. As the above example shows, the concept of Status 1 and Status 2
messages WILL continue under the new system of Draft and
Standards Directories. Message progression should, therefore,
continue as previously: from Status 0 to Status 1 and,
ultimately, to Status 2. In essence, Draft Directories may
contain Status 1 messages and Status 2 messages, whereas Standards
directories shall only contain messages which have progressed to
United Nations Standards Messages (Status 2). (Refer to DRG
document on Directories Progression.)
Issues List
Issue 1: Impact on DIRDEF
Description: The DIRDEF message, which is due for presentation at
the September 1994 Session of GE.1, has not been
designed to take into consideration the need for
transmitting Message Revision Numbers as shown above.
If the proposal for Message Revision numbers is
adopted then the DIRDEF message will require minor
modification. The addition of the Message Status
column to the index may also impact DIRDEF.
Keywords: DIRDEF modification,
Message Revision Number,
Message Status Column,
WP.4/GE.1,
Directory Type
Originator: Directories Reference Group (DRG); Team of Technical
Advisers (TTA); Syntax Development Group (SDG).
|
|
|