[Tx-speed] TSI coding on Speede transcripts

[Mcgauhey, Jerry L]

Earlier in the life of our adventure with EDI transcripts we formed the Texas EDI Users Group.  Two main reasons for forming the group were to 1)communicate with each other and 2)form standards with which we could agree to which would make our individual efforts a little lighter.  This email is intended to claim both of those reasons as a basis.

My school is beginning a programming effort to pull TSI data off of the Speede transcripts being sent to us for upload into our host systems.  We went to the SPEEDE Implementation document which is hosted on the UT Austin Speede Server Website and is today's embodiment of what was originally the T-SIP document we agreed to use as our coding guide for Texas EDI constructs.  We compared what is in the Implementation document against what we are receiving on transcripts from our partners.

Sadly, I must report to you that we, as a state, are not complying with what we agreed to.  Admittedly, some of us "came on-board" with Speede after the fact and may not have been there when the agreement was made, but it's been explained year  after year at the UG meeting that the T-SIP/Implementation document is our guide to coding these RAP segments for TSI and Core.  Example:  We have received the following:
RAP|9TX|TSIALL|M=MetRequirements                 R|2|0|CM|030923~
In the Implementation Guide, for TSIALL, M=Military rather than MetRequirements.
RAP!9TX!TSIALL!C=COMPLETED=THEA!A!Y!CM!200311\
                C= is not even listed in the Implementation document.

I'm not suggesting that the above coding is not reasonable.....it's just not what we agreed to and that increases the programming requirements for every school wanting to upload the data.

I would like to propose that we, as a group, do one of two things.....or maybe both of them:

1.       Review and possibly re-code our transcripts so that we comply with the Speede Implementation document from the Speed server website, and/or

2.       Re-negotiate with each other some new "rules" that more closely match what we want to send, update the Implementation document, and then stick to those agreements
I have communicated with Dale Ganus, chair of the TACRAO Technology Committee.  Technology is willing to coordinate this for us relative to gathering revision suggestions and presenting them for possible vote at a UG meeting or seminar during  the next TACRAO conference in November.  If you have recommendations for coding, please send them to Dale at DALE.GANUS at ttu.edu<mailto:DALE.GANUS at ttu.edu> and to me at jerry.l.mcgauhey at uth.tmc.edu<mailto:jerry.l.mcgauhey at uth.tmc.edu> directly.  PLEASE do not just hit Reply to this email.....let's don't load all of the traffic onto the listserv(s). Someone on Technology can compile the recommendations and then communicate a consolidated list over the listserv(s).

Thanks for your patience,

[cid:image001.gif at 01C9F3F5.B3C55180]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/tx-speed/attachments/20090623/e8d82bc8/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 13193 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
Url : http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/tx-speed/attachments/20090623/e8d82bc8/image001.gif