MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote: (01)
> Hi Everyone,
> In order to rectify the various models and definitions of "Invoice", we
> need to settle upon a single use case that we will fully specify and
> refine in order to judge each aspect of a model against its support
> for that use case. This is one way we could rectify the various
> models and come to a single Invoice ontology.
> At the last conference call, the attendees agreed that the first
> use case proposed (validating an invoice for both internal consistency/
> correctness and against an order if one is referenced) is the best one
> to start with.
> I have created a placeholder page for discussion/refinement of the
> use case at:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UseCasesInvoiceValidation (02)
mm1: Have we considered looking at the UBL scope document that talks
about their assumptions around their initial focus up through 0.8? This
may give us some insight into the scope of the invoice we pursue?
> If you do not like the above use case, feel free to suggest a better
> one. Remember, silence means consent (St. Thomas Moore).
> Hopefully this can be resolved by the next phone conference so
> that we can move on...
> Talk to you soon,
> - Mike
> Michael C. Daconta
> Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
> www.daconta.net (04)
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 (05)