BAPLIE — EDIFACT Bay Plan / Stowage Plan (D.97A)
The BAPLIE message is the loading plan of a container vessel: it describes the physical position of each container (bay, row, tier), whether loaded, empty or planned, with its weight, IMDG class and contents. It is the central exchange between terminals and carriers. This page summarises the segment structure as published by UN/CEFACT for directory D.97A.
Purpose
The BAPLIE message is the loading plan of a container vessel: it describes the physical position of each container (bay, row, tier), whether loaded, empty or planned, with its weight, IMDG class and contents. It is the central exchange between terminals and carriers.
This page focuses on the structure published by UN/CEFACT for directory D.97A. The segments listed, their status (M / C), position and repetition factor are extracted from the official file baplie_c.htm hosted on service.unece.org.
Segment structure
The BAPLIE D.97A message has 0 header entries, 0 detail entries and 0 summary entries (segments and groups combined). Groups are shown in bold and their members are indented by actual nesting depth.
Header
No segment in this section.
Detail
No segment in this section.
Summary
No segment in this section.
Changes vs D.96A
Top-level differences between D.96A and D.97A for the BAPLIE message (segments directly inside header / detail / summary, ignoring nested groups). The comparison is indicative: a given tag may have evolved inside nested groups without showing up in this synthesis.
Segments removed vs D.96A
UNHin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.BGMin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.DTMin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.RFFin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.NADin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.TDTin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.LOCin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.FTXin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.GIDin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.GDSin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.MEAin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.DIMin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.TMPin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.RNGin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.EQDin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.EQAin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.DGSin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.UNTin the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.97A at the same level.
Structural example
Minimal example of an BAPLIE D.97A message with mandatory segments only. The goal is to show the exact version declared in UNH (BAPLIE:D:97A:UN) — not to replicate a full business case (see the BAPLIE D.96A page for an annotated example).
UNB+UNOC:3+5410000000123:14+5410000000456:14+260514:1430+CTRL097001'
UNH+1+BAPLIE:D:97A:UN'
BGM+244+BAPLIE-2026-MSC1234+9'
DTM+137:202605141430:203'
TDT+20+MSC1234W+1++MSC::ZZZ+++9301234:103:::MSC OSCAR'
LOC+5+FRLEH::6'
LOC+147+0010186::ZZZ'
EQD+CN+MSCU1234567+45G1+++5'
MEA+AAE+G+KGM:24500'
UNT+8+1'
UNZ+1+CTRL097001' Common errors
- Misaligned UNH tokens — The
UNH+...+BAPLIE:D:97A:UNtoken must reflect exactly the directory in use — a mismatch between the UNH release and the release agreed with the partner is rejected by every strict validator. - Wrong UNT segment count — The value after
UNT+must include UNH and UNT themselves. By far the most common sender-side error, regardless of the directory in use. - Stale code lists — Between D.96A and D.97A, several code lists received new qualifiers (DTM status, RFF qualifier, NAD codes…). Reusing an older directory’s code tables triggers warnings or even rejections depending on the partner’s strict-conformance mode.
Related messages
Other versions of this message available on ediverse.io: BAPLIE D.96A, BAPLIE D.01B, BAPLIE D.10A, BAPLIE D.16B, BAPLIE D.21B, BAPLIE D.24A, BAPLIE D.99B, BAPLIE D.00B, BAPLIE D.02B, BAPLIE D.05A, BAPLIE D.08A, BAPLIE D.13B, BAPLIE D.18B, BAPLIE D.20B.