170 likes | 421 Views
A Brief Introduction to the Semantic Representations of the UN/CEFACT CCTS-based Electronic Business Document Artifacts. Asuman Dogac, METU, Turkey Yildiray Kabak, SRDC Ltd.,Turkey. The Problem Addressed: All CCTS based standards use CCTS differently.
E N D
A Brief Introduction to the Semantic Representations of the UN/CEFACT CCTS-based Electronic Business Document Artifacts Asuman Dogac, METU, Turkey Yildiray Kabak, SRDC Ltd.,Turkey
The Problem Addressed: All CCTS based standards use CCTS differently
The Solution Envisaged: Developing Semantic Tools to Semi-Automate the Mappings among Different CCTS based Standards
SET TC Objectives revisited • UN/CEFACT CCTS (Core Component Technical Specification) defines the semantics of document artifacts • However, currently this semantics is available only through text-based search mechanisms • SET TC aim is to explicate the semantics of CCTS based business document standards by defining their semantic properties through a formal, machine processable language as an ontology • In this way, it becomes possible to compute a harmonized ontology which gives • The similarities among document schema ontology classes of different document standards through both • The semantic properties they share and • The semantic equivalences established through reasoning
The Upper Ontologies • The semantics is explicated at two levels: At the first level, an upper ontology describing the CCTS document content model is specified • Furthermore,at this level, the upper ontologies of the prominent CCTS based standards,namely, GS1 XML, OAGIS 9.1 and UBL are also developed • The various equivalence relationships between the classes of the CCTS upper ontology and theCCTS based document standard ontologies are defined • These relationships arelater used to find the similarities among the document artifacts from differentdocument schemas
Example: Core Component Data Type semantics • CCTS provides a fixed set of reusable “Core Component Data Types" (CCTs) such as Amount, Identier, or Measure • The Core Component Type semanticsis explicated through the “owl: CoreComponentType" class • For each of the14 CCTs, a corresponding OWL class is created and inserted as the subclassof “owl:CoreComponentType" class
Core Component Data Type semantics <owl:Class rdf:ID="CoreComponentType" /> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Amount.Type"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CoreComponentType"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:ID="BinaryObject.Type"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CoreComponentType"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Code.Type"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CoreComponentType"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Date.Type"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CoreComponentType"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:ID="DateTime.Type"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#CoreComponentType"/> </owl:Class> …
Other Semantic Properties of CCTS Core Components • Context (the “context” semantics is defined at an absolute minimum since UN/CEFACT UCM is working on this subject) • The structure of the core components(BCCs and ASCCs making up ACCs) • The semantics implied by the naming convention used(“Object Class Term” and “Representation Term”) • The semantics implied by the Business Information Entities (based on a Core Component and used in a context) • The semantics implied by the code lists
The Upper Ontologies • The semantics is explicated at two levels: At the first level, an upper ontology describing the CCTS document content model is specied • Furthermore,at this level, the upper ontologies for the prominent CCTS based standards,namely, GS1 XML, OAGIS 9.1 and UBL are also developed • The various equivalence relationships between the classes of the CCTS upper ontology and theCCTS based document standard ontologies are defined • These relationships arelater used to find the similarities among the document artifacts from differentdocument schemas
Document Schema Ontologies • At the next level, the semantics of the document schemas in each standard are described based on its upper ontology • The difference between the document schema specific ontology and the upper ontology is that • The upper ontology describes the generic entities in a document content model • Whereas document schema ontologies describe the actual document artifacts as the subclasses of the classes in the upper ontology • The SET XSD-OWL tool converts a CCTS based document schema into OASIS SET TC OWL Definition and is publicly available from http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/iSURF/OASIS-SET-TC/tools/OASISSET.zip
SET Harmonized Ontology • When these ontologies are harmonized using a DL reasoner, the computed inferred ontologies reveal the implicit equivalences and subsumtion relationships between the document artifacts • In other words, • The shared semantic properties of the CCTS based document artifacts together with • The implicit relationships inferred, help to identify their similarities
Next step… • Further explanations related with the Deliverable? • How to use SET Specifications in real life applications? • In the iSURF Project to map supply chain planning documents conforming to different standards to each other • TC Members proposals…