Advertisement

An Ontology Framework for Multisided Platform Interoperability

  • Quan DengEmail author
  • Suat Gönül
  • Yildiray Kabak
  • Nicola Gessa
  • Dietmar Glachs
  • Fernando Gigante-Valencia
  • Violeta Damjanovic-Behrendt
  • Karl Hribernik
  • Klaus-Dieter Thoben
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 9)

Abstract

A successful B2B marketplace must ensure that suppliers and producers in a supply chain can find each other, communicate and negotiate in an effective way, while performing business processes. To this, we present an approach that involves two core ontology modules, e.g., the Catalogue Ontology and the Business Process Ontology, which can be extended by adding specific domain ontologies. For the representation of certain business aspects, the Catalogue Ontology exploits the Universal Business Language (UBL), while for the description of product characteristics related to different domains, this ontology makes use of the relevant industrial standards (e.g., the furniture ontology is based on the FunStep ISO 10303-236 standard and the eClass ontology is based on eCl@ss standard). The Business Process Ontology encompasses machine readable vocabularies for the semantic description of business processes and could be extended by adding new ontologies or data schemas. Finally, we validated the design and functionality of the ontology framework by defining and performing a set of queries related to product and services retrieval.

Keywords

Interoperability Multisided platforms Ontologies Taxonomies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the European Commission within the H2020 project NIMBLE (Collaborative Network for Industry, Manufacturing, Business and Logistics in Europe), No. 723810, for the period between October 2016 andSeptember 2019.

References

  1. 1.
    Boudreau, K., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform rules: Multi-sided platforms as regulators. In Annabelle Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gessa, N., De Sabbata, P., Marzocchi, M., Vitali, F. (2004). Moda-ML: Building a collaborative sectoral framework based on ebXML. In Proceedings of CAISE’04—INTEROP 2004 Workshop on “Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies for Interoperability” EMOI, Riga, Latvia. Retrieved from June 7–11, 2004, edited by Grundspenkis/Kirikova, 2004, ISBN-9984-9767-3-4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NIMBLE D2.2 (2017). Semantic modelling of manufacturing collaboration assets.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Axenath, B., Kindler, E., and Rubin, V. (2005). The aspects of business processes: An open and formalism independent ontology. TR-RE-05-256, University of Paderborn. http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/cs/kindler/Publikationen/copies/AKR05.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Hepp, M. (2005). eClassOWL: A fully-fledged products and services ontology in OWL. In Poster Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2005), Retrieved from November 7–11, 2005. Galway, Ireland.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hepp, M. (2008). GoodRelations: An ontology for describing products and services offers on the web. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Acitrezza, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC 19845:2015 (2015). https://www.iso.org/standard/66370.html. Last visited September 20, 2017.
  8. 8.
    Forsberg, M. (2011). Svekatalog UBL Catalogue 2.1. http://www.sftiverifiering.se/svekatalog/XSD/1_1.htm. Last visited September 20, 2017.
  9. 9.
    Yarimagan, Y., & Dogac, A. (2009). A semantic-based solution for UBL schema interoperability. IEEE Internet Computing, 13(3), 64–71.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2009.50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    White, S. A., Miers, D. (2008). BPMN modeling and reference guide: understanding and using BPMN, future strategies Inc.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reisig, W. (1985). Petri nets: An introduction. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hepp, M., & Roman, D. (2007). An ontology framework for semantic business process management. In Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik 2007, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., & Serafini, L. (2014). An ontology for the business process modelling notation. In 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Von Rosing, M., Laurier, W. & Polovina, S. (2015). The BPM ontology. In The complete business process handbook (pp. 101–121). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gessa, N., Busanelli, M., De Sabbata, P., & Vitali, F. (2006). Extracting a semantic view from an ebusiness vocabulary. In Proceedings of IEEE CEC 2006. San Francisco, 2006, Published by IEEE Computer Society, ISBN 0-7695-2511-3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Universal Business Language Version 2.1. 04 November 2013. OASIS Standard. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html.
  17. 17.
    BFO (Basic Formal Ontology). Online http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/. Last visited September 20, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quan Deng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Suat Gönül
    • 3
  • Yildiray Kabak
    • 3
  • Nicola Gessa
    • 4
  • Dietmar Glachs
    • 5
  • Fernando Gigante-Valencia
    • 6
  • Violeta Damjanovic-Behrendt
    • 5
  • Karl Hribernik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Klaus-Dieter Thoben
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.BIBA—Bremer Institut für Produktion und Logistik GmbHBremenGermany
  2. 2.University of BremenBremenGermany
  3. 3.SRDC Yazilim Arastirma, Gelistirme ve Danismanlik Anon. StiAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.ENEABolognaItaly
  5. 5.Salzburg ResearchSalzburgAustria
  6. 6.AIDIMMEPaterna, ValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations