Hi Selcuk, (01)
A few ideas:
SInce the starting point is the Bank a good start is to begin with what a Bank
may know, i.e. their side of the transaction. (02)
A Transaction is an Exchange of Money and as such it has two sides, a Give/Out
and one Take/In side. Actually there are more parties.
Buyer instructs Bank to transfer money to Sellers Bank. Actually-2 yet more
parties may be involved such as between Bank to Bank, See SEPA project and ISO
20222 for more info. (03)
Secondly since its has to with anomalies its a good idea to add the reasons for
money exchanged, such a payment for deliveries. So it may be beneficial to as
transfer Reason such as payment for reciprocal Delivery. See REA ontology for
more info. (04)
Thirdly money laundry involves more exchanges (information, money, paper,
messages etc) than a Bank may have knowledge about and Evidence to support it.
So it may be beneficial to add models of other kinds of Exchanges (assumed,
actual, hypothetical ,...) . This is separate from the accounting semantics
(money in , money out). (05)
/anders (06)
On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Selcuk Bozdag wrote: (07)
> Hi ontologs,
>
> I would like to get your ideas about modeling a financial
> organization's (e.g. a bank) money transaction ontology using OWL
> (1). Suppose that a bank wants to track the accounts of the customers
> in order to determine anomalies, fraud issues or just to ensure that
> everything is OK at the end of the day. I have come up with a solution
> which caused a discussion among my colleagues mostly ended with a
> disagreement. Right below I am giving only a clipped portion of the
> draft ontology at a glance.
>
> The absolute classes(i.e. concepts) are Bank, Money, Customer and
> Account. When it comes to represent a money transfer between two
> accounts, I suggested to create another class named "MoneyTransfer" on
> which one can create object properties such as transferDate, amount
> etc. On the flip side, others put the MoneyTransfer class aside and
> preferred to create an object property named "transfersMoney" which
> has a domain and range of Account. However it is obvious that
> transfersMoney property is just a relation between to individuals
> representing none of the date and amount information.
>
> I would greatly appreciate if you could explain your point of view and
> show me what the alternatives could possibly be. I also would be
> thankful if you refer any other ontology regarding that issue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Selcuk
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|