> Syntax independent - MCIs - Messages > Details
SYNTAX INDEPENDENT
COMPONENTS
Implementation Related Components
|
> Syntax independent - MCIs - Messages > Details
|
SYNTAX INDEPENDENT
COMPONENTS |
|
| Message Content Inventory |
Identifier : EROD020 - Echange contextuel, données terrain - (Données terrain / Gegevens terrein) - Approved , and is part of release 202101 - ( TB2-UN/Edifact MIG : Fr / Nl ) - ( TB2-XML : added info ) |
Version : 1 Status : 2 |
| Seq. n° | n u d (*) |
Data element | Code list |
Usage Mandatory Conditional Optional (**) |
Condition(s) |
TB2-UN/EDIFACT representation (including comments) |
||
Indicator |
Identifier |
Version |
||||||
| 5 |
Riskobject, type
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Mand.
|
ROD+020
|
||
| 10 |
Adresse optimisée sur base de
|
Yes
|
1
|
Option.
|
info: a better alternative is to use X099 in segment ADR
|
GIS+A09Y+x--x
|
||
| 20 |
Adresse - rue
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002+x--x
|
||
| 30 |
Adresse - numéro de maison
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002+:x--x
|
||
| 40 |
Adresse - numéro de boîte
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002+::x--x
|
||
| 50 |
Adresse - extension
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002+::::x--x
|
||
| 60 |
Adresse - identifiant
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002+:::::x--x
|
||
| 70 |
Adresse - code postal
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002++x--x
|
||
| 80 |
Adresse - localité
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002+++x--x
|
||
| 90 |
Adresse - code pays
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
ADR+002++++x--x
|
||
| 100 |
Surface
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
QTY+048:x--x:2:x--x in 007-m2 or in 009-ha
|
||
| 110 |
Longueur
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
QTY+024:x--x:2:008 (in m)
|
||
| 120 |
Largeur
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
QTY+026:x--x:2:008 (in m)
|
||
| 130 |
Usage
|
Yes
|
0
|
Option.
|
ATT to be defined
|
|||
| 140 |
Type de plantation
|
Yes
|
0
|
Option.
|
ATT to be defined
|
|||
| 150 |
Localisation
|
No
|
-
|
-
|
Option.
|
FTX+044+x--x:x--x:x--x:x--x:x--x
|
||
(*) 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.