26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 1/8

Transcription

1 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 1/8 Audit Statement for the UN/EDIFACT Directory D.01A This directory set is the official approved version of UN/EDIFACT Directory D.01A. Following the preparation of the directory by the UN/Secretariat, it was examined by the Directory Audit Team (DAT) which has confirmed in a report to the UN/EDIFACT Working Group (EWG) Chair and the UN/CEFACT Steering Group (CSG) that the content was prepared in accordance with approved procedures and is considered satisfactory for implementation. A copy of the full audit report is available from the UN/ECE secretariat, <cefact@unece.org>. The directory is the final version of D.01A for user implementation. Under no circumstances will any corrigenda, addenda or revisions be issued. If during implementation a user identifies what is considered to be an error, this should be notified in a Data Maintenance Request (DMR) to allow possible amendments in a subsequent official approved version of UN/EDIFACT Directory. A DMR form can be obtained from the nearest UN/EDIFACT Processing Point in either Brussels, Sydney, Tokyo or Washington D.C., who will advise the process to be followed for its submission and may assist in the completion of the form. Michael D. Conroy Chair, Directory Audit Team 26 October 2000

2 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 2/8 The Directory Audit Team REPORT On the audit of the D01A Directories 23rd of October to 26th of October 2000 Team members : Chair : M. D. Conroy G. Spadin A. Dechamps M. Dill UN/Secretariat : M. Pikart, T. Kangur, C. Meza, Y. Le Marchand

3 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 3/8 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION NEED TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS OF SUPPRESSING NOTES DMR UN POSTPONED TO NEXT DIRECTORY RELEASE THE NUMBER OF DMRS GENERATED WITHIN THE EWG PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO ACTUAL USER REQUESTS THE USE OF THE MINUS SIGN TO INDICATE DATA ELEMENTS DELETED FROM A DIRECTORY MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO DIRECTORY TEXT FILES PERTINENCE OF THE MESSAGE DMR CHANGE INDICATORS INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SOURCE FIELD OF THE BOILERPLATE APPARENT INCONSISTENCY IN THE DESCRIPTIONS OF CODES FOR DATA ELEMENT DMRS INSTALLED IN THE D01A DIRECTORY RELEASE STATISTICS ON INSTALLED DMRS DATES FOR THE NEXT DAT MEETING RECAPITULATION OF DAT RECOMMENDATIONS....8

4 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 4/8 1. Introduction. DAT is pleased to announce that the D01A directory has been produced in compliance with the UN/EWG procedures and we consider it satisfactory for implementation. The automated process is helping in speeding up the production process but there are still some points, identified below, which need to be ironed out before considering the process completely stabilised. 2. Need to improve the process of suppressing notes. A large number of DMRs were implemented to suppress notes which appeared in the data element directory. The DMRs in question, however, were difficult to understand as nowhere there appeared an explicit indication to suppress the note in question. This is a source of error and should be improved. It appears that in one instance there were several notes for the data element in question and the means employed to indicate the suppression of one of the notes was to reproduce the remaining notes without the note to be deleted. However the remaining note in question was incorrectly duplicated and thus generated an error. This does demonstrate that the means to handle the addition, suppression or modification of notes is not yet complete. RECOMMENDATION 1 : DAT recommends that T1 and the UN/Secretariat come up with a clear and unambiguous means of handling notes. 3. DMR UN postponed to next directory release. The DMR in question concerns a modification to the COREOR message and it introduces a segment collision in the segment table. After several discussions with the T1 chair it has been decided to postpone the implementation of this DMR until the next directory release as it appears that a previous DMR may have been incorrectly implemented. RECOMMENDATION 2 : DAT recommends that T1 clarify with D4 the correct implementation of the DMR in question. 4. The number of DMRs generated within the EWG process as opposed to actual user requests. There were 1718 DMRs processed to produce the D01A directory. However, after an analysis of the DMRs in question it was established that over 90% of them were

5 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 5/8 generated within the EWG process. In other words, only 9% of the DMRs in question (149 DMRs in all) were effective user requests for this directory run. Only 130 odd of these DMRs concerned effective user requested codes. With such a current rate of request this would mean introducing something like 60 code DMRs per quarter. Bearing in mind the effort which will be necessary to put into action (mainly that of validation, both by the UN/Secretariat and DAT) and that the process of producing such directories has not yet been thought through properly (i.e. numbering convention, documentation, content, etc ) DAT questions the validity of instigating the new directory productions at this point in time. RECOMMENDATION 3 : DAT recommends that the EWG hold off introducing 4 code production cycles until such a time as the process has been clearly defined and the volume of requests warrant it. 5. The use of the minus sign to indicate data elements deleted from a directory. Data element 7405 was marked for deletion from the interactive directory in D98A due to the suppression of the composite E206. Following the new procedure of R1023 a minus sign was introduced against it along with a note indicating that it would disappear in D01A from one of the directories (batch or interactive). In D99B (DMR UN /JT) the data element in question was reinstated indirectly by the reuse of composite E206 through DMR UN in the interactive directory. However, neither the note nor the minus indicator were removed. The error was not picked up in the directory releases D99B, D00A and D00B(i.e. the note remained active even though it was no longer valid). RECOMMENDATION 4 : DAT recommends that T1 review the validity of the use of the minus sign indicator and its corresponding note especially since the usage indicator is automatically generated by the directory production process. 6. Modifications necessary to directory text files DAT recognises that the task of updating the directory text files has been assigned to the EWG group G5. This work concerns in particular Part 3, which needs a major overhaul, and Part 4 chapters 1, 2.1 and 2.3 which need also to be reviewed as they contain references to the previous structure. As a consequence DAT has not audited the files in question.

6 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 6/8 RECOMMENDATION 5 : DAT recommends that G5 update as a matter of the upmost priority the directory text files. 7. Pertinence of the message DMR change indicators Some of the message DMR modifications were not correctly implemented due to the incorrect use of the operators. For example, on occasions the change code employed was a "C" when a change code of "O" was expected. The automated process consequently incorrectly implemented the change. This occurred frequently during this directory production. RECOMMENDATION 6 : DAT recommends that T1 clarify the use of the change codes for message DMRs and take the necessary steps to ensure that they are correctly specified. 8. Inconsistencies in the source field of the boilerplate There are still some inconsistencies in the source field of the boilerplate. Most of the inconsistencies concern the use of a hyphen between the working group number and name. This is not compliant with R1023R6. The messages concerned are COPAYM, DEBREC,ICSOLI, IFTICL, INFCON, ISENDS, REGENT, SLSRPT, SKDREQ, SKDUPD, TSDUPD, TUPREQ, TUPRSP. RECOMMENDATION 7 : DAT recommends that T1 align the source fields of the indicated messages. 9. Apparent inconsistency in the descriptions of codes for data element The UN/Secretariat picked up an inconsistency with a set of DMRs submitted for data element After examination by DAT it appears that effectively the descriptions are not in concordance with the names. The description for code 60 appears to belong to code 61, the description for code 61 belongs to code 62; code 62 to 63, code 63 to 64; code 64 to 65; code 65 to 66; code 66 to 67, code 50 to code 60 and perhaps the description for code 67 to code 50. The DMRs in question are UN , 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363,1364, and RECOMMENDATION 8 : DAT recommends that T1 verify the exactitude of these descriptions with D6 and resubmit DMRs if they are effectively in error.

7 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 7/8 10. DMRs installed in the D01A directory release. See attached file : DAT-REPORT-D01A-Part-2-of-2.xls which contains the complete list of the DMRs installed and the error processing carried out against them. 11. Statistics on installed DMRs. Number of system generated DMRs Number of DMRs user generated Number of DMRs forewarded to CWG TOTAL EDED EDCD/IDCD EDSD/IDSD 3 3 UNCL EDMD/IDMD MIDs 6 6 TOTAL Percentages 90,98% 8,67% 12. Dates for the next DAT meeting. The next DAT meeting is provisionally scheduled for the 14 th to 18 th of May 2001.

8 26 October 2000 DAT REPORT Page : 8/8 13. Recapitulation of DAT recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 : DAT recommends that T1 and the UN/Secretariat come up with a clear and unambiguous means of handling notes. RECOMMENDATION 2 : DAT recommends that T1 clarify with D4 the correct implementation of the DMR in question. RECOMMENDATION 3 : DAT recommends that the EWG hold off introducing 4 code production cycles until such a time as the process has been clearly defined and the volume of requests warrant it. RECOMMENDATION 4 : DAT recommends that T1 review the validity of the use of the minus sign indicator and its corresponding note especially since the usage indicator is automatically generated by the directory production process. RECOMMENDATION 5 : DAT recommends that G5 update as a matter of the upmost priority the directory text files. RECOMMENDATION 6 : DAT recommends that T1 clarify the use of the change codes for message DMRs and take the necessary steps to ensure that they are correctly specified. RECOMMENDATION 7 : DAT recommends that T1 align the source fields of the indicated messages. RECOMMENDATION 8 : DAT recommends that T1 verify the exactitude of these descriptions with D6 and resubmit DMRs if they are effectively in error.