|Date:||Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:35:34 EDT|
I am working on a first draft of an invoice ontology in
protege as an extension of (or connecting to) SUMO.
This quickly gets us into the nature of an "invoice" and
the questions we want our ontology to answer about
My current high-level definition would be:
"An invoice is a document which is part of a financial transaction
between two or more parties and is a response to an order."
Comments/refinements on the definition welcome. It is not meant
to be exhaustive ... just accurate enough to correctly position the
initial "bootstrap classes".
In regards to SUMO, I have downloaded the protege version and
included it in my protege project. While clearly an invoice follows
the "physical" branch of the class hierarchy. I did not see anything
in SUMO equal to or close to a Document. I probably missed it.
Adam, is the concept of "Document" represented in SUMO?
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Next Conference Call - Ontology Work Session - Is 2003-07-24 OK?, Peter P. Yim|
|Next by Date:||RE: [ontolog-forum] Invoice ontology and SUMO, Greg Olsen|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Next Conference Call - Ontology Work Session - Is 2003-07-24 OK?, Peter P. Yim|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Invoice ontology and SUMO, Duane Nickull|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|