Skip to main content
  • Subscribe by RSS
  • Ex Libris Knowledge Center

    Do Harrassowitz EDI invoices have the correct volume format?

    • Article Type: General
    • Product: Aleph
    • Product Version: 18.01

    As seen in our SFProd institution, is Harrassowitz' "v.55" designation in the attached edi invoice correct? Can you tell us what it should be so we can relay the information to Harrassowitz? The edi and xml invoice and log can be found at:

    prod18-SFPROD18-SFU50 >>ls -ltr 26feb08.edi.sofla2*
    -rw-r--r-- 1 aleph aleph 4023 2008-02-26 07:44 26feb08.edi.sofla2
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 aleph aleph 528 2008-02-26 07:45 26feb08.edi.sofla2.log

    prod18-SFPROD18-SFU50 >>ls -ltr 26feb08.edi.sofla2*
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 aleph aleph 17920 2008-02-26 07:45 26feb08.edi.sofla2.xml
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 aleph aleph 128 2008-02-26 07:45 26feb08.edi.sofla2.xml.log

    It looks like the EDI segments are IMD+L+085+:::v.55'IMD+L+086+:::v.55. There are error messages from p_edi_10:
    prod18-SFPROD18 >>less sfu50_p_edi_10.06488

    The volume does not appear to be displaying in the client line items. The EBSCO edi invoices have a very different format, they seem to be handling volumes in PIA+5S and PIA+5E in addition to FTX+LIN++REN and FTX+LIN++FF segments that place the volume information in the Line Item Note field.

    The problem is with the BGM segment. This is meant to be a Serial Invoice. The two offending segments:


    are only valid for Serial Invoice. However, the Beginning of Message section (BGM) isn't coded as a Serial Invoice. To be a valid Serial Invoice, it needs to have the JINV indicator in the BGM segment. The absence of the JINV indicator indicates that this is a Book Invoice, and these IMD segments are invalid for a Book Invoice.

    The vendor sending this Invoice will have to correct the BGM segment.

    • Article last edited: 10/8/2013