Skip to Content

In this article, I will try to present a comparison between Value mapping and TPM UDFs for incorporating ISA and GS segment values in outbound EDI interfaces.


–  Populating Sender ID, Sender ID Qualifier, Receiver ID, Receiver ID Qualifier,element separator, sub-element separator and segment separator for different business partners.

–  Usage indicator based on environment (T – Test, P- Production)


Value Mapping Approach:



Mapping Details:

-Value mapping for vendor number conversion- SAP vendors are converted into Legacy Vendors

-Value mapping for retrieving sender/receiver IDs and qualifiers- The output combination is separated by a delimiter (:) , the values are split and mapped to respective        fields (SplitID UDF)

-Value mapping for retrieving separators- The output combination is separated by a delimiter (:), the values are split using a simple UDF and mapped to respective    separator fields (SpiltSep UDF)   

– fillUpToLengthWithSpace UDF is used to add spaces to the first input to the UDF (spaces equal to second input) 

– Parameter defined for usage indicator- run time T or P is assigned      


ESR mapping



Value Maps-


UDFs used-







NWDS configuration


Mass Export/Import-


Sample csv generated – maps can be added and the file can be imported




ReferenceValue Mapping

Part II- Predefined UDFs – ISA and GS segments mapping – Value mapping v/s Predefined TPM UDFs – II

To report this post you need to login first.


You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

Leave a Reply