Thanks for bringing this up, Mike. (01)
1. May I suggest that we make reference to the "UBL Definition" as a
starting point. I am sure, in some cases, changes will be justified. (02)
2. On the UBL Definition (column 17 on the spreadsheets), it is
remarked that: (03)
"UBL Definition: (04)
If this is blank, then use the xCBL definition from the
Structure Reference. (05)
Refer to Core Component Definition if a Component Definition
if available." (06)
3. Kindly refer to the pertinent references which I have posted on the
wiki at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/wiki.pl?UblRelease0p70#nid010 (07)
4. Of course, in a case like "Invoice", (08)
4.(a) where the UBL Definitions simply states "complete information of
the invoice," and (09)
4.(b) xCBL 3.0 describes it as " The Invoice comprises the creation of
an invoice that is sent from a seller to a buyer for payment for the
goods or services detailed in the invoice supplied under conditions
agreed between buyer and seller. An invoice may refer to goods, items
or services related to one or more orders. An invoice may contain
references to payment terms and transport information." (010)
4.(c) Something along the line of what Mike had suggested, or a re-use
of another pertinent standard definition (suggestions?), should be
considered. (011)
5. By the way, we are still working on the UblRelease0p70 material ...
Can someone point us to 0p80 material (since we are barely resuming
activities here)? (012)
Regards,
PPY
-- (013)
MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:35:34 EDT:
> Hi All,
>
> 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
> invoices.
>
> 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?
>
> - Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael C. Daconta
> Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
> www.daconta.net (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|