Registry support for core component-based business document models

  • Philipp Liegl
  • Christian Huemer
  • Christian Pichler
Original Research Paper


Electronic data interchange is the domain of exchanging business documents in a structured format. Nowadays, these systems take more and more advantage of service-oriented solutions. Nevertheless, a rigorous approach to customize the input and output messages of these services to the context of a business partnership is required. In this paper, we suggest a model-driven approach to develop the XML Schemas of input and output messages of web services. Since classical data modeling approaches like regular UML class diagrams are not sufficient for modeling business documents, we base our approach on the UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS), which does not come with a presentation syntax. Thus, we deliver a UML profile extending class diagrams by CCTS concepts, called UML Profile for Core Components (UPCC). UPCC models are transferred to equivalent XML Schemas following well-defined naming and design rules. In order to allow for an easy search and retrieval of core component business document definitions, a registry is needed. The registry has to handle UPCC models—that are exchanged and stored in XMI—as well as their XML Schema equivalences. In this paper, we extend the ebRIM registry meta-model for the special purpose of registering core component artifacts and defining their interdependencies.


UN/CEFACT’s core components UML profile for UN/CEFACT’s core components Core component registry 


  1. 1.
    Bartelt C, Molter G, Schumann T (2009) A model repository for collaborative modeling with the jazz development platform. In: 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2009 (HICSS ’09), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belaid N, Ait-Ameur Y, Rainaud J-F (2009) A semantic repository for geological modeling workflows. In: IEEE international conference on web services, pp 1030–1031Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein PA, Dayal U (1994) An overview of repository technology. In: 20th International conference on very large data bases, pp 705–713Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casanave C (2007) Designing a semantic repository: integrating Architectures for reuse and integration. In: W3C workshop on eGovernment and the web, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen PP-S (1976) The entity relationship model: towards a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1): 9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Combi C, Oliboni B (2006) Conceptual modeling of XML data. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC06), Dijon, 23–27 April. ACM, pp 467–473Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dogac A, Kabak Y, Laleci GB (2004) Enriching ebXML Registries with OWL Ontologies for Efficient Service Discovery. In: Proceedings of the 14th international workshop on research issues on data engineering, Boston, 28–29 March. ACM, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fettke P, Loos P (2003) Classification of reference models: a methodology and its application. Inf Syst E-Bus Manag 1(1): 35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    France RB, Bieman JM, Cheng BHC (2006) Repository for model driven development (ReMoDD). In: Models in software engineering, workshops and symposia at MoDELS 2006. Springer LNCS, pp 311–317Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill NC, Ferguson DM (1989) Electronic data interchange: a definition and perspecitve. EDI Forum: J Electr Data Interchang 1(1): 5–12Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Zapletal M (2006) A business collaboration registry model on top of ebRIM. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on e-business engineering, Shanghai, 24–26 October. IEEE, pp 392–400Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holeman K (2006, Jan) Contracts—simplifying the next version of UBL, A mail to the UBL developers list, available at
  13. 13.
    Huemer C, Liegl P (2007) A UML Profile for Core Components and their transformation to XSD. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on services engineering, Istanbul, 16 April. IEEE, pp 298–306Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huemer C, Liegl P, Motal T, Schuster R, Zapletal M (2008) The development process of the UN/CEFACT modeling methodology. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on electronic commerce (ICEC08), Innsbruck, 19–22 August. ACM, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huemer C, Liegl P, Schuster R, Zapletal M (2008) A 3-level e-business registry meta-model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on services computing, Honolulu, 8–11 July. IEEE, pp 441–450Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC (2009) ISO/IEC 11179 information technology—meta-data registries,
  17. 17.
    Lee Y (2009) Quality-context based SOA registry classification for quality of services. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on advanced communication technology, Gangwon-Do, 15–18 Feburary, pp 2251–2255Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liegl P (2009) Conceptual Business document modeling using UN/CEFACT’s core components. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modeling, Wellington, 20–23 January. Australian Computer Society, pp 59–69Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liegl P (2010) Business documents for interorganizational business processes. PhD thesis, Vienna University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liegl P, Huemer C, Zapletal (2009) Toward a global business document reference ontology. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international conference on semantic computing, Berkeley, 14–16 September. IEEE, pp 355–360Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liegl P, Mayrhofer D (2009) A domain-specific language for UN/CEFACT’s core components. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on service computing for B2B, Bangalore, 21–25 September. IEEE, pp 123–131Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liegl P, Zapletal M, Pichler C, Strommer M (2010) State-of-the-art in business document standards. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN2010), Osaka, 14–16 July (to appear)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu W, He K, Liu W (2005) Design and realization of ebXML registry classification model based on ontology. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information technology: coding and computing, Las Vegas, 4–5 April. ACM, pp 809–814Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu W, He L, Liu J, He K (2005) A semantic interoperability extension model to the ebXML registry. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information technology: coding and computing, Las Vegas, 4–6 April, pp 414–419Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lucrédio D, Fortes RPM, Whittle J (2008) MOOGLE: a model search engine. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on model-driven engineering languages and systems (MoDELS ’08). Springer LNCS, pp 296–310Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ma Z, Wetzstein B, Anicic D, Heymans S, Leymann F (2007) Semantic business process repository. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on semantic business process management (SBPM 2007), CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 92–100Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malik A (2003) XML Schemas in an object-oriented framework.
  28. 28.
    Mayr C, Zdun U, Dustdar S (2009) Reusable architectural decision model for model and meta-data repositories. In: 7th International symposium formal methods for components and objects (FMCO 2008), revised lectures. Springer LNCS, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milanovic N, Kutsche R, Baum T, Cartsburg M, Elmasgünes H, Pohl M, Widiker J (2008) Model & meta-model, meta-data and document repository for software and data integration. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on model-driven engineering languages and systems (MoDELS ’08). Springer LNCS, pp 416–430Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mintchev A (2008) Interoperability among service registry implementations: is UDDI standard enough?. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on web services, Beijing, 23–26 September, pp 724–731Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nawaz F, Qadir K, Ahmad H (2008) SEMREG-Pro: a semantic-based registry for proactive web service discovery using publish/subscribe model. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on semantics, knowledge and grid, Beijing, 3–5 December, pp 301–308Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nečaský M (2006) Conceptual modeling for XML: a survey. In: Proceedings of the annual international workshop on databases, texts, specifications, and objects, Desna, 26–28 April, pp 40–53Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    OASIS (2004) Universal description, discovery, and integration (UDDI),
  34. 34.
    OASIS (2005) ebXML registry technical specification 3.0,
  35. 35.
    OASIS, UN/CEFACT (2001) ebXML—technical architecture specification 1.4,
  36. 36.
    Pichler C, Langer P, Wimmer M, Huemer C, Hofreiter B (2010) Registry support for core component evolution. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (SOCA’10), Perth, 13–15 December. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roh Y, Kim H, Kim HS, HoKim M, Son JH (2007) Semantic business registry information model. In: Proceedings of international conference on convergence information technology (ICCIT07), Gyeongju, 21–23 November. ACM, pp 2142–2145Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salim FD, Price R, Krishnaswamy S, Indrawan M (2004) UML documentation support for XML schema. In: Proceedings of the Australian software engineering conference (ASWEC2004), Melbourne, April 13–16. IEEE, pp 211–220Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ShaikhAli A, Rana OF, Al-Ali R, Walker DW (2003) UDDIe: an extended registry for web services. In: Proceedings of the symposium on applications and the internet, Orlando, 27–31 January. IEEE, pp 85–89Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Song D, Liu W, He Y, He K (2005) Ontology application in software component registry to achieve semantic interoperability. In: International conference on information technology: coding and computing, Las Vegas, 4–6 April, pp 181–186Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Uhl A (2008) Model-driven development in the enterprise. IEEE Softw 25(1): 46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    UMM Development Team (2009) UMM development site
  43. 43.
    UN/CEFACT (2003) Core Components Technical Specification 2.01 (CCTS),
  44. 44.
    UN/CEFACT (2009) Core components data type catalogue 3.0,
  45. 45.
    UN/CEFACT (2009) Core Components Technical Specification 3.0 (CCTS),
  46. 46.
    UN/CEFACT (2009) Naming and desing rules 3.0,
  47. 47.
    UN/CEFACT (2009) UML Profile for Core Components Technical Specification 3.0 (UPCC),
  48. 48.
    UN/CEFACT (2009) UN/CEFACT’s core component library (UN/CCL),
  49. 49.
    VIENNA Add-In Development Team (2009) The VIENNA Add-In,
  50. 50.
    World Wide Web Consortium (2006) Extensible markup language (XML),
  51. 51.
    Yu A, Steele R (2005) An overview of research on reverse engineering XML Schemas into UML diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on information technology and applications (ICITA 2005), Sydney, 4–7 July. IEEE, pp 772–777Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zeng C, He K, Yu Z, Wan C (2008) Toward improving web service registry and repository model through ontology-based semantic interoperability. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on grid and cooperative computing, 24–26 October, Shenzhen. IEEE, pp 747–752Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Liegl
    • 1
  • Christian Huemer
    • 1
  • Christian Pichler
    • 2
  1. 1.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Research Studio Inter-Organisational SystemsResearch Studios AustriaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations