Dear Sirs:
We have come across an interpretation ‘difference’ between vendors in the 837PA1 Loop 1000A PER segment, element PER02.
The V4010X098 IG (page 72) depicts this element as REQUIRED but with the
following note:
(start IG)
REQUIRED PER02 93 Name O AN 1/60
Free-form name
INDUSTRY: Submitter Contact Name
1816 NSF Reference:
1816 AA0-13.0
2792 Use this data element when the name of the individual to contact is
not already defined or is different than the name within the prior
name segment (e.g. N1 or NM1).
(end IG)
It is not modified in the V4010X098A1 IG. New syntax says required but the note says situational. Which one do we enforce?
In the V4050X143 (3MAR2003 Draft) IG (page 70) this conflict has been resolved:
(start IG)
SITUATIONAL PER02 93 Name O 1 AN 1/60
Free-form name
OD: 837Q1_1000A_PER02__SubmitterContactName
INDUSTRY: Submitter Contact Name
1647 Required when the name is different than the name in the Submitter
Name (1000A - NM1) and it is the first iteration of the PER. Not Used
in the second iteration of the PER.
(end IG)
Also, notes during the V4050X143 review process indicate that there was much thought behind the new ' PER02
should be NOT USED in a second iteration'. Source 4050_837P_notes(1).xls
(posted http://www.wpc-edi.com/conferences/)
(start source)
71 1000A - PER02 Situational note does not clearly allow for Not Used when PER is sent twice
Modify note as follows:
Required when the name is different than the name in the Submitter Name
(1000A - NM1) and it is the first iteration of the PER.
Not Used in the second iteration of the PER.
(end source)
This being the case, we see that some vendors are REQUIRING the PER02
element in this case, whereas, others are not.
There are two questions here:
1. In this specific case, for a V4010X098A1 implementation, should
Loop 1000A PER02 be Required or Situational?
2. For ‘contradictory’ cases such as this, should the V4050* IGs beused for implementation guidance.
Your interpretation is greatly appreciated,
Stephanie Fetzer
Ascential Software Inc.