Search Results igw_prpo_headers_v




Overview

IGW_PRPO_HEADERS_V is a seeded Oracle E-Business Suite view owned by the APPS schema within the IGW – Grants Proposal product family. Its documented purpose is to display core proposal information, and the underlying SQL confirms that the view assembles a flat, integration-oriented projection of proposal header data rather than a normalized transactional entity. The "PRPO" prefix in the object name refers to the proposal document type used in the EDI/e-commerce transaction framework, and the view is therefore intended primarily to supply outbound trading-partner and interface extracts.

In Oracle EBS 12.1.1 and 12.2.2, the view operates as a read-only presentation layer. The fixed literal values ('EDI', 'PRPO') and the SYSDATE-derived transaction date are embedded in the SELECT list, which is characteristic of a view built to produce a fixed-format interface record rather than to support ad hoc transactional updates. Because it is a VIEW with a VALID status and no documented dependent database objects, it should be treated as a reporting and integration artifact only.

Underlying Base Objects

The documented metadata does not enumerate referenced base objects, but the view text reveals the principal sources it joins. These include the EDI transaction header and detail tables (aliased ETPH and ETPD, providing TEST_FLAG, DOCUMENT_TYPE, TRANSLATOR_CODE, DOCUMENT_STANDARD and the attribute flexfield columns), the trading-partner location table (aliased RAA, supplying ECE_TP_LOCATION_CODE), the proposal master (aliased PROP, providing PROPOSAL_ID, PROPOSAL_NUMBER, PROPOSAL_TITLE, PROGRAM_NUMBER and related attributes), a run/status source (aliased RUN, supplying STATUS_DATE), a lookup source (aliased LKUP, supplying MEANING), and the standard Oracle HR/permanent and applicant person tables aliased SO and AO for the submitting and applicant officials. Organization details, including APORG.ORGANIZATION_NAME, DUNS_NUMBER and CONGRESS_DISTRICT, are joined from an AP organization source. A call to IGW_EXTENSION_PKG.PERSON_GOVT_ID resolves the government identifier for the person records, which confirms the IGW schema dependency.

Key Columns

  • PROPOSAL_ID / PROPOSAL_NUMBER / ORIGINAL_PROPOSAL_NUMBER — the primary identifier of the proposal record and any originating proposal it supersedes.
  • PROPOSAL_TITLE, PROGRAM_NUMBER (aliased PROGRAM_ID_NUMBER), PROGRAM_TITLE — descriptive identity of the funding program associated with the proposal.
  • NOTICE_OF_OPPORTUNITY_CODE and its LKUP.MEANING — the funding opportunity reference and its decoded display value.
  • DOCUMENT_TYPE, TRANSLATOR_CODE, DOCUMENT_STANDARD, TEST_FLAG — EDI/e-commerce control attributes that govern how the record is transmitted.
  • SO_* and AO_* columns — the name, address, title and contact details of the submitting official and applicant official respectively, plus their government identifiers.
  • APORG.* columns — the applicant organization name, address, congressional district and DUNS/DUNS+4 identifiers.
  • TRANSACTION_DATE and STATUS_DATE (formatted YYYYMMDD and HHMISS) — the interface timestamp and the source run status date split into date and time strings.
  • ATTRIBUTE_CATEGORY and ATTRIBUTE1 through ATTRIBUTE15 — descriptive flexfield values carried both from the EDI header and detail records.

Common Use Cases and Queries

The primary scenario is generating a formatted proposal extract for a trading partner or downstream federal grant interface. Because the column names are not stable (several are unnamed expressions), a robust query selects by position or aliases the expressions at runtime. A representative query is:

SELECT proposal_number, proposal_title, program_id_number, notice_of_opportunity_code FROM apps.igw_prpo_headers_v WHERE proposal_number = :p_proposal_number;

More commonly, the view is consumed by a concurrent program or EDI map that reads the full row without naming columns. Analysts should note that the view applies no WHERE clause of its own, so it returns a row for every qualifying proposal across all organizations and will perform poorly unless the calling query filters on PROPOSAL_NUMBER or PROPOSAL_ID and the supporting indexes on the base tables are intact.