[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Proceedings of 2003.03.20 Conference Call

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Adam Pease <apease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:42:03 -0800
Message-id: <>
   Thanks for pointing that out.  It's a good suggestion.  What would be 
the scope of validating an invoice or order?  Would one validate the 
content of the order, or just some generic parameters of the order that 
would be independent of the product or service purchased?  A concrete use 
case would help clarify this.  I'll suggest the following    (01)

order date
ship date
customer name
billing address
shipping address (may be an email)
shipping method
order cost
shipping and handling cost
total cost    (02)

Is this the sort of content you would be expecting?    (03)

Adam    (04)

At 10:31 AM 3/21/2003 -0500, MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote:
>In a message dated 3/20/2003 5:33:08 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
>apease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>   Sorry my participation has been limited recently.  I noticed one item on
>>the meeting notes was "Create an ontology so that software agents can carry
>>out a UBL transaction in an automated fashion."  I should mention that the
>>DAML-Services effort has been trying to do just that.  One problem is that
>>DAML doesn't have rules (yet) so the degree of semantic detail is
>>limited.  We also felt that the effort would benefit from having the
>>support of a more general ontology.  We've published a version that covers
>>the content of DAML-S but in KIF, and consistent with our Suggested Upper
>>Merged Ontology.  You can find it at
>><http://reliant.teknowledge.com/DAML/ServiceOntology.kif>.  The SUMO,
>>Financial Ontology and Quality of Service ontologies that it depends on are
>>available at <http://ontology.teknowledge.com>. I hope folks will consider
>>reusing this content.
>Hi Adam,
>I fully agree that we should look to reuse previous work in this area.
>In regards to the difficulties of an ontology to support automated 
>you may have noticed the second suggestion before attempting that was
>a more modest proposal to create an ontology that would assist an
>agent in validating the correctness of an Invoice/order combination.  I
>believe that is a more achievable initial goal.
>Best wishes,
>- Mike
>Michael C. Daconta
>Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
>www.daconta.net    (05)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/  To Post: 
mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>