> Syntax independent - MCIs - Messages > Details
|
Message Content Inventory |
Identifier : AMEME - - (A Message Envelope - holding Message(s) being Exchanged)-
- Approved
, and is part of release 202501
- ( UN/Edifact : added info ) - (UN/Edifact MIG : Fr / Nl ) - (XML/JSON : added info ) ( Additional information is present below the details-table ) |
Sender :
Receiver :
Status : 2 - Version : 5
|
Seq. n° | n u d (*) |
Data element | Code list |
Usage Mandatory Conditional Optional (**) |
Condition(s) |
||
Indicator |
Identifier |
Version |
|||||
10 |
Message Envelope - Syntax version number
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
||
20 |
Envelope Sender Domain Address
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
||
30 |
Envelope Sender User Address
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
||
40 |
Envelope Sender Type Coded
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
||
50 |
Envelope Recipient Domain Address
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
||
60 |
Envelope Recipient User Address
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
||
70 |
Envelope Recipient Type Coded
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
||
80 |
Envelope Content Group Type
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
||
90 | u |
Envelope Content - Message = Exchange Unit
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
1..n occurrences - each one of (M0101v20 / M0103v20 / M0104ANNv7 / M0104MODv20 / M0104REMv20 / M0104RESv7 / M0104REXv20 / M0104SUSv6 / M0104TFTv20 / M0104TFTRv16 / M0105v7 / M0108v6 / M0109v14 / M0114v20 / M0118v20 / M0119v18 / M0121v16 / M0122v16 / M0123v16 / M0124v15 / M0125v8 / M0126v13 / M0130v9 / M0131v8 / M0140v3 / M0147v5 / M0202v14 / M0203v9 / M0204v14 / M0205v14 / M0206v14 / M0207v7 / M0210v14 / M0211v14 / M0214v7 / M0215v5 / M0216v3 / M0302v4 / M0303v2 / M0304v14 / M0306v5 / M0307v2 / M0308v4 / M0401v2 / M0403v2 / M0405v2 / M0410v13 / M0603v3 / M0701v3 / M0901v1 / M0902v1 / M9101v2 / M9103v8 / M9120v4 / M9130v1 / M9730v6)
|
100 |
Message Envelope - Syntax version number
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
(*) n u d : new / updated / deleted since previous version.
(*bis) u : updated : this can be a codelist-version incrementing.
Note that in many, not to say all such cases, the user-community does not await such next release to implement/activate such new codelist-values.
The reasoning is that such added value does not affect the current data-structures and hence is considered easely implementable.
Such reasoning tends to forget how given new codelist-values might not simply affect the data, but also affect the process, which might be more of a problem...
(**) Usage: The indications Mandatory / Conditional / Optional are to be understood in respect of the actual level of the Data element:
example given; some party data-set as a whole can be optional, while, if present, the party's name within that party data-set can be mandatory.
Remark: in UN/Edifact, "Mandatory / Conditional" are notions used within the standard.
And within edi-guides (a refinement of a standard) the "Conditional" can become "Required / Optional / Dependent / Advised / Not used".
Ideally we should implement the same ideas.