OO CR050-678 Segment Group End

Submitted by: Frank Oemig	Revision date: <<Date>>
Submitted date: December 21, 2010	Change request ID: OO CR050
Standard/IG: 2.8 Standard	Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>

Issue

See 2.8 change request File:OO CR050-678.doc for problem definition and proposal.

13-Jan-2011
- Suggestion to change to SGB
- Either mandatory in group, or other suggestion to move to Chapter 2 (akin to ADD, DSC segment use).
- Add more clarifying language.
- Motion to accept proposal as amended. Andrzej Knafel, Ken McCaslin.
  - Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 5
- Will move forward to Chapter 2 chairs.
7-Mar-2011
- Reviewed in I&M.
- General agreement on concept.
- Suggest to have both header and trailer segment as a new order may follow.
- Suggest to adjust name to SGH and SGT.
- Agreed with explicit declaration required in message structure.
- Will review with OO and then circle back with feedback.
31-Mar-2011
- Motion to accept as proposed and move forward to InM. Hans Buitendijk, Scott Robertson.
  - Suggestion to avoid the problem is to adopt XML encoding – because groups are explicit in the XML encoding - that is unambiguous in that representation.
  - If we have the end segment, does that generate an end tag and does that create a problem?
  - No further nesting in XML – should not create a problem, but it also is optional, so would not need to be used in XML.
  - Against: 0; Abstain: 3; In Favor: 7
20-Apr-2011 (FO)
- reviewed proposal as of 24-Mar-2011
- seems to work
- although the original intent was to use it for all groups
- this way it is just introduced for this specific problem