> Syntax independent - MCIs - Messages > Details
SYNTAX INDEPENDENT
COMPONENTS
Implementation Related Components
|
> Syntax independent - MCIs - Messages > Details
|
SYNTAX INDEPENDENT
COMPONENTS |
|
| Message Content Inventory |
Identifier : AMECE - - (A Message Envelope - holding Contextally Exchanged Information)-
- Approved
, and is part of release 202101
- ( 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 : 1
|
| 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 |
Envelope Content - Contextual Question or Response
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
1 question or 1..n response - each of (EPTY002v5 / EPTY003v12 / ERODGENv8 / ECNTRCTv1 / ECLAFILNv1 / EDOCxxxv1 / ECNTRCTv2 / EPRENOTIDv1 / EPRENOTDETv1)
|
|
| 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.