GoodRelations: An Ontology for Describing Products and Services Offers on the Web

  • Martin Hepp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5268)


A promising application domain for Semantic Web technology is the annotation of products and services offerings on the Web so that consumers and enterprises can search for suitable suppliers using products and services ontologies. While there has been substantial progress in developing ontologies for types of products and services, namely eClassOWL, this alone does not provide the representational means required for e-commerce on the Semantic Web. Particularly missing is an ontology that allows describing the relationships between (1) Web resources, (2) offerings made by means of those Web resources, (3) legal entities, (4) prices, (5) terms and conditions, and the aforementioned ontologies for products and services (6). For example, we must be able to say that a particular Web site describes an offer to sell cell phones of a certain make and model at a certain price, that a piano house offers maintenance for pianos that weigh less than 150 kg, or that a car rental company leases out cars of a certain make and model from a set of branches across the country. In this paper, we analyze the complexity of product description on the Semantic Web and define the GoodRelations ontology that covers the representational needs of typical business scenarios for commodity products and services.


Semantic Web E-Commerce E-Procurement eClassOWL UNSPSC eCl@ss 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fensel, D., McGuinness, D.L., Schulten, E., Ng, W.K., Lim, E.-P., Yan, G.: Ontologies and Electronic Commerce. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 8–14 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Obrst, L., Wray, R.E., Liu, H.: Ontological Engineering for B2B E-Commerce. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2001), Ogunquit, Maine, USA, October 17-19 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corcho, O., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Solving Integration Problems of E-commerce Standards and Initiatives through Ontological Mappings. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on E-Business and Intelligent Web at the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), Seattle, USA, August 5 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, T., Chun, J., Shim, J., Lee, S.-g.: An Ontology-Based Product Recommender System for B2B Market places. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 11, 125–154 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, H., Shim, J.: Conceptual Modeling of Product Information in e-Commerce. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007), Melbourne, Australia, July 11-13 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, T., Lee, I.-h., Lee, S., Lee, S.-g., Kim, D., Chun, J., Lee, H., Shim, J.: Building an operational product ontology system. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 5, 16–28 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hepp, M.: eClassOWL. The Products and Services Ontology (retrieved May 20, 2008),
  8. 8.
    Uschold, M., Grüninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, Methods, and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11, 93–155 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    United Nations Development Programme, Business Function Identifiers (BFI), (now offline)
  10. 10.
    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/CEFACT), Recommendation No. 20: Codes for Units of Measure Used in International Trade, CEFACT/ICG/2006/IC001 ed: UN/CEFACT Information Content Management Group (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milgate, M.: Goods and Commodities. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (eds.) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. 2, pp. 546–548. Macmillan and Stockton, London, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: Evaluating Ontological Decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45, 61–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: An Overview of OntoClean. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) The Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 151–172. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelkar, O., Leukel, J., Schmitz, V.: Price Modeling in Standards for Electronic Product Catalogs Based on XML. In: Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 7-11 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO, ISO 4217:2001: Codes for the representation of currencies and funds (2001) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Reasoning Web 2006 Summer School, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL Flight: Conceptual Modeling and Reasoning for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 14th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2005), Chiba, Japan, May 10-14 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polleres, A., Scharffe, F., Schindlauer, R.: SPARQL++ for Mapping between RDF Vocabularies. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 878–896. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noy, N., Rector, A., Hayes, P., Welty, C.: Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web. W3C Working Group Note (April 12, 2006) (retrieved December 13, 2007),
  20. 20.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: OWL-Eu: Adding Customised Datatypes into OWL. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 153–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Booth, D.: Four Uses of a URL: Name, Concept, Web Location and Document Instance (retrieved January 15, 2007),
  22. 22.
    Sauermann, L., Cyganiak, R., Völkel, M.: Cool URIs for the Semantic Web, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence TM-07-01 (February 2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W3C, RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004) (retrieved December 10, 2007),
  24. 24.
    Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R., Heath, T.: How to Publish Linked Data on the Web (retrieved July 25, 2007),
  25. 25.
    Miles, A., Baker, T., Swick, R.: Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies (retrieved July 25, 2007),
  26. 26.
    Lewis, R.: Dereferencing HTTP URIs. Draft Tag Finding (May 31, 2007 (retrieved July 25, 2007),
  27. 27.
    Gupta, T., Qasem, A.: Reduction of price dispersion through Semantic E-commerce: A Position Paper. In: Proceedings of the Semantic Web Workshop 2002, Hawaii, USA, May 7 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fensel, D., Ding, Y., Omelayenko, B., Schulten, E., Botquin, G., Brown, M., Flett, A.: Product Data Integration in B2B E-Commerce. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 54–59 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGuinness, D.L.: UNSPSC Ontology in DAML+OIL (retrieved June 30, 2008),
  30. 30.
    Klein, M.: DAML+OIL and RDF Schema representation of UNSPSC (retrieved June 30, 2008),
  31. 31.
    Bizer, C., Wolk, J.: RDF Version of the eClass 4.1 Product Classification Schema (retrieved June 30, 2008),
  32. 32.
    Hepp, M.: Products and Services Ontologies: A Methodology for Deriving OWL Ontologies from Industrial Categorization Standards. Int’l Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 2, 72–99 (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tolksdorf, R., Bizer, C., Eckstein, R., Heese, R.: Business to Consumer Markets on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the On The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems OTM 2003 Workshops, Catania, Sicily, Italy, November 3-7 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhao, Y., Sandahl, K.: Potential Advantages of Semantic Web for Internet Commerce. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Angers, France, April 23-26 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao, Y.: Develop the Ontology for Internet Commerce by Reusing Existing Standards. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Web Foundations and Application Technologies (SWFAT), Nara, Japan, March 12 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao, Y., Lövdahl, J.: A Reuse-Based Method of Developing the Ontology for E-Procurement. In: Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Web Services (NCWS), Växjö, Sweden, November 20-21 (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M., Mongiello, M.: A System for Principled Matchmaking in an Electronic Marketplace. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24 (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beneventano, D., Guerra, F., Magnani, S., Vincini, M.: A Web Service based framework for the semantic mapping amongst product classification. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 5, 114–127 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fasli, M.: Shopbots: A Syntactic Present, A Semantic Future. IEEE Internet Computing 10, 69–75 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    SEKT Consortium, PROTON Ontology (retrieved January 15, 2007),
  41. 41.
    Schmitz, V., Kelkar, O., Pastoors, T., Renner, T., Hümpel, C.: Specification BMEcat Version 1.2, Stuttgart/Essen (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schmitz, V., Leukel, J., Kelkar, O.: Specification BMEcat 2005, Stuttgart/Essen (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Hepp
    • 1
  1. 1.E-Business and Web Science Research GroupBundeswehr University MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations