[Evergreen-acq] Moving to EDI Attributes - Question/Concern

Wed Jul 24 12:59:00 EDT 2019

Thanks for the suggestion, Chris.

I confirmed, and we already had INCLUDE_EMPTY_LI_NOTE set. Here is what my
test setup for B&T looks like:
[image: image.png]
<http://www.cwmars.org>

John Amundson | Library Applications Supervisor | CW MARS

jamundson at cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>

https://www.cwmars.org

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:34 AM Chris Sharp <csharp at georgialibraries.org>
wrote:

> John,
>
> Can you confirm that your example B&T account has INCLUDE_EMPTY_LI_NOTE
> set?  From my reading of the EDIWriter.pm code, if that's set, it should
> work as the action/trigger version does.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:11 AM John Amundson <jamundson at cwmars.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the reply, Tiffany.
>>
>> In my testing, the UPC was still attached to the PIA+5 segment in the old
>> version, so perhaps the new one is smarter and doesn't append it unless
>> it's present. In any case, it doesn't seem to be something to worry about
>> because my Midwest Tape setup is similar to yours.
>>
>> At least at first I think we will continue sending the GIR segments to
>> B&T. I don't want to rock the boat too much with some of our vendors, so
>> I'll plan to make changes only if needed.
>>
>> Querying our edi_message table, I find when this segment is included in
>> our ORDERS messages, only FTX+LIN+1 is sent. Although I did not verify
>> 100%, this seems to only be for B&T orders. It is not present for other
>> vendors.
>>
>> I do see more interesting segments in our responses, though, (ORDRSP
>> message type):
>> FTX+LIN++05:8B:28
>> FTX+LIN++400:1B:28
>> etc.
>>
>> We get these back from multiple vendors, not just B&T
>>
>> For reference, here is a comparison of the line item portion of an ORDERS
>> message to B&T before and after moving to attributes:
>>
>> *Before:*
>> 'LIN+752234++9781524702946:EN
>> 'PIA+5+9781524702946:EN
>> 'IMD+F+BTI+:::Odessa Sea
>> 'IMD+F+BPU+:::Penguin Audiobooks
>> 'IMD+F+BPD+:::20161115
>> 'IMD+F+BPH
>> 'QTY+21:1
>> *[GIR Segment]*
>> 'FTX+LIN+1
>> 'PRI+AAB:45
>> 'RFF+LI:28047/752234
>>
>> *After:*
>> 'LIN+752249++9781524702946:EN
>> 'PIA+5+9781524702946:EN
>> 'IMD+F+BTI+:::Odessa Sea
>> 'IMD+F+BPU+:::Penguin Audiobooks
>> 'IMD+F+BPD+:::20161115
>> 'IMD+F+BPH
>> 'QTY+21:1
>> *[GIR Segment]*
>> 'PRI+AAB:45.00
>> 'RFF+LI:28052/752249
>>
>> If you were sending order successfully prior to and after the change
>> without this segment, perhaps the segment is not needed.
>>
>> And finally, *we do have several B&T accounts that do not have a suffix
>> listed*. Are you saying that prior to the change to attributes, the
>> responses were landing on the correct account but not after? We haven't had
>> issues with this happening on the old system.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.cwmars.org>
>>
>> John Amundson | Library Applications Supervisor | CW MARS
>>
>> jamundson at cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>
>>
>> https://www.cwmars.org
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:49 PM Tiffany Little <
>> tlittle at georgialibraries.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> We've completely moved over to EDI Attributes, so I'll add my $0.02.
>>>
>>> Your testing method is pretty much exactly what I did, by the way. If
>>> you can run scripts or have someone willing to do it for you, you can also
>>> run edi_order_pusher.pl in testmode and it will just print what the EDI
>>> output would be without sending it anywhere.
>>>
>>> For Midwest Tape, I've attached a screenshot of how I have our EDI
>>> Attribute set up. With this setup, the UPC is being sent in the PIA+5
>>> segment which is for Product ID. I never heard a peep from Midwest when we
>>> did the changeover and they've kept sending everything accurately, so I'm
>>> guessing this is fine. My libraries don't get cataloging done from them,
>>> though, so YMMV.
>>>
>>> For Baker & Taylor, they're slightly different. I went off script and
>>> set up my own EDI Attribute for Baker & Taylor. I don't have any libraries
>>> getting vendor cataloging done from B&T so I labeled it as non-enriched
>>> accounts, since that's what B&T calls it. So for this profile we're not
>>> sending them funds, barcodes, etc. in the GIR segments.
>>>
>>> Now I did have a problem with this one, and I found a workaround because
>>> I didn't feel like delving that deep in at the time to figure out why it
>>> was happening. If you have multiple B&T accounts where some have a suffix
>>> and one doesn't (this is B&T's common practice, that your main account
>>> doesn't have one but subsequent accounts do) then when the order
>>> acknowledgements/invoices would come in they would attach to the wrong B&T
>>> EDI account. My hack was basically just to ask B&T's EDI specialists to
>>> give that main account a suffix, which apparently has no effect at all on
>>> them and they were happy to do. So if all B&T accounts for that library
>>> have a suffix, I haven't had any other issues with that at all.
>>>
>>> I've also started attempting to map EDI segments to the specific
>>> settings in EDI Attributes here:
>>> https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:edi_fields
>>>
>>> With our B&T setup, we do send LIN with every title; that corresponds to
>>> Acq's line item ID. We don't personally send FTX values; I *think* that
>>> might just be for line item notes? Please don't quote me on that, though. I
>>> looked both here:
>>> https://service.unece.org/trade/untdid/d01b/trmd/orders_c.htm#0070_X and
>>> through EDIWriter.pm for what FTX values are, and the EDIWriter references
>>> FTX when talking about line item notes. If you look through your old ORDERS
>>> messages and have FTX values, I'd be interested in what they are.
>>>
>>> Tiffany Little, PINES Services Specialist: Acquisitions
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Georgia Public Library Service | University System of Georgia
>>>
>>> 1800 Century Place NE Suite 580 l Atlanta, GA 30345
>>>
>>> (470) 512-1454 | tlittle at georgialibraries.org |
>>> help at help.georgialibraries.org
>>>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
>>> <https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>
>>>
>>> Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org> for stories of
>>> Georgia libraries making an impact in our communities.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:57 PM John Amundson <jamundson at cwmars.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello, Acquisitions community!
>>>>
>>>> I know there's a brave soul or two out there who has switched to using
>>>> the new EDI attributes.
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently testing the attributes for our network, and I've run into
>>>> two issues that may be of concern. My questions are *bolded *below.
>>>>
>>>> Before I get into that, some background. I'll share my testing process,
>>>> (maybe it will help others thinking about moving over - but be warned, we
>>>> haven't added attributes to our production environment, yet, so I cannot
>>>> vouch for how successful this method is).
>>>>
>>>> Using the Action Trigger PO JEDI template for reference, I updated the
>>>> EDI Attribute sets for the vendors we use to resemble the data included in
>>>> the template as closely as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Our libraries use three vendors: Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and Midwest
>>>> Tape.
>>>>
>>>> To test I created dummy accounts that will create EDI messages but not
>>>> send them, (nonexistent host). I then compared the output with the EDI
>>>> output from another PO that used the same vendor and line items but wasn't
>>>> using attributes. I would then adjust the attribute set again and activate
>>>> another PO until I got messages that resembled each other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ingram's conversion was visually identical.
>>>>
>>>> Midwest Tape was almost identical. For MW Tape, the old template
>>>> included UPC, but this is not an option with the new attributes. In looking
>>>> at old messages, it seems this usually resulted in a hanging UP at the end
>>>> of the ISBN anyway, so I don't know how much this is needed. *Anyone
>>>> using Midwest Tape with EDI Attributes have any trouble by not sending the
>>>> UPC?*
>>>>
>>>> Baker & Taylor's discrepancy may be a bigger issue. The old template
>>>> added the following information to each line item:
>>>> FTX+LIN+1
>>>> This is not present when using the Attribute set, nor is it an
>>>> available choice to add.
>>>> There is a comment in the PO JEDI template that says
>>>> "BT & ULS want FTX+LIN for every LI, even if empty".
>>>> *Anyone using Baker & Taylor with EDI Attributes run into any issues
>>>> with B&T not accepting orders without the FTX+LIN+1 affixed to each line
>>>> item?*
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> <http://www.cwmars.org>
>>>>
>>>> John Amundson | Library Applications Supervisor | CW MARS
>>>>
>>>> jamundson at cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cwmars.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Evergreen-acq mailing list
>>>> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
>>>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evergreen-acq mailing list
>>> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
>>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evergreen-acq mailing list
>> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Chris Sharp, PINES System Administrator
> ------------------------------
>
> Georgia Public Library Service
>
> 1800 Century Place NE Suite 580 l Atlanta, GA 30345
>
> (404) 235-7147 | csharp at georgialibraries.org
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
> <https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>
>
> Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org/subscription/> for
> stories of Georgia libraries making an impact in our communities.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-acq mailing list
> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-acq/attachments/20190724/e4d97839/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 40622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-acq/attachments/20190724/e4d97839/attachment-0001.png>