Re: [ontolog-forum] Invoice ontology and SUMO

[MDaconta@xxxxxxx]

Hi Duane,

I believe you are referring to the "abstract" concept of a document as 
an organization scheme for one or more information items.  I agree that
there is an abstract component to a physical invoice (whether that 
be electronic or paper) but I need to think about how to model that in
the ontology.  In essence, your definition equates it to a container.  
In Sumo, we could put an AbstractDocument class under Set (need
to look at this more ... suggestions welcome).  Or is that implicit in
the fact that Invoice exists in the metamodel as a Class??  I believe
the final determination for this is whether we have unique characterstics
of an "AbstractDocument" where it needs to be modeled separately.
The fact that it is an information container alone is probably not sufficient.

 - Mike

In a message dated 7/10/2003 1:11:36 PM US Mountain Standard Time, duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> To me,  the definition depends ont eh context.  If the invoice can be 
> eletronically linked to other transactions via a smart business process, 
> it should not be necessary to include line items for each item, only a 
> reference to the original PO.  If it cannot be linked, then it will have 
> to include these.
>
> Likewise, almost every piece of information or definition depends on the 
> surrounding context.  Geo-political factors definately affect it as well 
> as legal ramifications.  What does an "Invoice" (or "Facture" in Quebec) 
> mean in Canada?  Is that the same semantics as in Bengal or Nairobi?
>
> "An invoice is a container data element that includes other data 
> elements to convey a request for payment.  The nature and number of the 
> secondary data elements depends on the context in which it is being used"



---------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
www.daconta.net