Managing Variants of USDL

  • Gunther Stuhec
  • Daniel Oberle
  • Christian Baumann
  • Christian Janiesch
  • Michael Dietrich
  • Jens Lemcke
  • J&rg Rech
  • Wolfgang Karl Rainer Schwach


Different variants of USDL are required for different contexts. This is already shown by the Legal Module which requires different contents depending on the jurisdiction of a country. The issue aggravates if more and more parameters are relevant to determine the correct variant. The chapter presents one possible solution for variant management consisting of a canonical data model, a context driver mechanism, governance processes, and appropriate tooling. Although the solution for variant management is targeted at existing business documents, such as a purchase order, it provides a powerful and adequate means for dealing with USDL variants as well.


Dictionary Entry Variant Management Business Context Governance Process Governance Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (SBVR). Available specification, OMG.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Becker, L. Algermissen, D. Pfeiffer, and M. Rackers. Bausteinbasierte Modellierung von Prozesslandschaften mit der PICTURE-Methode am Beispiel der Universitatsverwaltung Miinster. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 49(4):267-279, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Becker, P. Delfmann, and R. Knackstedt. Adaptive reference modeling: Integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In Proceedings of the Reference Mod eling Conference (RejMod2006), Passau, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Becker, C. Laniesch, and S. Kramer. Modellierung und Konfiguration elektronischer Geschaftsdokumente mit dem H2-Toolset. Arbeitsberichte des Instituts fiir Wirtschaftsinformatik 116, University of Munster, Germany, 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Berge. The ED/FACT Standards. Blackwell Publishers, 2nd edition, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y -F. Chen, X. Sun, and C.-C. J. Kuo. XML schema harmonization: design methodology and examples. In Proc. SPIE, volume 5241 of Multimedia Systems and Applications VI,pages 221-232, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Correndo and H. Alani. Survey of tools for collaborative knowledge construction and sharing. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conf erence on Web Intelligence and International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technalogy - Workshops, 2-5 November 2007, Silicon Valley, CA, USA,pages 7- 10. IEEE, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Crawford. Core Components Technical Specification - Part 8 of the ebXML Framework. Technical report, UN/CEFACT, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Damodaran. B2B integration over the Internet with XML: RosettaNet s uccesses and challenges. In Proceedings of the I 3th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters, WWW Alt. '04, pages 188-195, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Delen, N. P Dalal, and P C. Benjamin. Integrated modeling: the key to holistic under­standing of the enterprise. Commun. ACM, 48(4):107-112, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.-H. Do. Schema Matching and Mapping-based Data Integration: Architecture, Approaches and Evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig, Germany, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Dreiling, M. Rosemann, W. M. P van der Aalst, L. Heuser, and K. Schulz. Model-based software configuration: patterns and languages. EllS, 15(6):583-600, 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Flebowitz. OAGIS 8.0: Practical Integration meets XML Schema. XML Journal, 3(9), 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U. Frank and C. Lange. E-MEMO: a method to support the developmen t of customized electronic commerce systems. Inf Syst. £-Business Management, 5(2):93-116, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Gessner. CCTS modeler concept and development: Semantic-driven optimization and harmonization of data models. Master's thesis, University of Applied Sciences Wiirzburg, Germany, 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Hinkelmann. UN/CEFACT U nified Context Methodology (UCM) Direction And Concepts. presentation slides, Mar 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Laniesch. Implementing views on business semantics. In 15th European Conference on Information S ystems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Janiesch. Enhancing the accessibility of enterprise system documentation with domain ontologies. AIS Transaction on Enterprise Systems, pages 27-35, 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Janiesch, A. Dreiling, U. Greiner, and S. Lippe. Configuring processes and business documents - an integrated approach to enterprise systems collaboration. In 2006 IEEE International Conference one-Business Engineering (ICEBE 2006), 24-26 October 2006, Shanghai, China, pages 516-521. IEEE Computer Society, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Janiesch and S. M. Thomas. Business document taxonomy - comparison of the state-of­the-art and recommendations for future applications. IBIS, 2(2):59-78, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P O’Connor, A. Coates, and M. Crawford. Unified context methodology technical specification. Technical report, UNICEFACT, Apr 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. Peukert, J. Eberius, and E. Rahm. AMC - a framework for modelling and comparing matching systems as matching processes. In S. Abiteboul, K. Böhm, C. Koch, and K.-L. Tan, editors, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2011, April11-16, 2011, Hannover, Germany, pages 1304-1307, 2011.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Proper and T. Halpin. Conceptual schema optimisation-database optimisation before sliding down the waterfall. Technical Report 341, Department of Computer Science, University of Queensland, Jull995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Quantz and T. Wichmann. E-Business-Standards in Deutschland Bestandsaufnahme, Probleme, Perspektiven. Technical report, Berlecom Research, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Rech, W. Schwach, M. Dietrich, and G. Stuhec. Intelligent assistance for collaborative schema governance in the german agricultural ebusiness sector. In G. Kotsis, D. Taniar, E. Pardede, I. Saleh, and I. Khalil, editors, iiWAS'2010 - The 12th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services, 8-10 November 2010, Paris, France, pages 867-870. ACM, 2010.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Rosemann and W. M. P. van der Aalst. A configurable reference modelling language. Inf Syst., 32(1):1-23, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A.-W. Scheer. ARIS: Business Process Modeling. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 3rd edition, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    P Soffer, B. Golany, and D. Dori. ERP modeling: a comprehensive approach. Inf. Syst., 28(6):673-690, 2003.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Stuhec. Using CCTS modeler Warp 10 to customize business information interfaces. Technical report, SAP Developer Network (SDN), Nov 2007.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Stuhec and M. Crawford. How to solve the business standards dilemma - the CCTS standards stack. Technical report, SAP Developer Network (SDN), Nov 2007.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Surowiecki. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. Abacus, 2005.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. Tuncer, A. Dogac, S. Postaci, S. Gonul, and E. Alpay. iSURF edocreator.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. A. Zachman. A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3):276-292, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunther Stuhec
    • 1
  • Daniel Oberle
    • 2
  • Christian Baumann
    • 3
  • Christian Janiesch
    • 4
  • Michael Dietrich
    • 2
  • Jens Lemcke
    • 2
  • J&rg Rech
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Karl Rainer Schwach
    • 2
  1. 1.SAP Global Partner & Ecosystems GroupWalldorfGermany
  2. 2.SAP Research KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Berkeley Center for Law & TechnologyUniversity of California, Berkeley, School of LawCAUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Applied Informatics and Formal Description Methods (AIFB)Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations