> Syntax independent - MCIs - Messages > Details
|
Message Content Inventory |
Archived, and was part of release 200601 : Identifier : ROD090 - - (Données animal / Gegevens dier)- - ( UN/Edifact : added info ) - (UN/Edifact MIG : Fr / Nl ) - (XML/JSON : added info ) |
Sender :
Receiver :
Status : 3 - Version : 1
|
Seq. n° | n u d (*) |
Data element | Code list |
Usage Mandatory Conditional Optional (**) |
Condition(s) |
||
Indicator |
Identifier |
Version |
|||||
10 |
Riskobject, type
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
||
15 |
Type d'animal
|
Yes
|
1
|
Option.
|
|||
20 |
Nombre d'animaux
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
(*) 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.