A survey and analysis of electronic business document standards

Abstract

No document standard is sufficient for all purposes because the requirements significantly differ among businesses, industries, and geopolitical regions. On the other hand, the ultimate aim of business document interoperability is to exchange business data among partners without any prior agreements related to the document syntax and semantics. Therefore, an important characteristic of a document standard is its ability to adapt to different contexts, its extensibility, and its customization. The UN/CEFACT Core Component Technical Specification (CCTS) is an important landmark in this direction. In this article, we present a survey and an analysis of some of the prominent UN/CEFACT CCTS-based electronic document standards. We describe their document design principles and discuss how they handle customization and extensibility. We address their industry relevance and the recent efforts for their harmonization and convergence. We conclude by mentioning some emerging efforts for the semantic interoperability of different document standards.

A characteristics framework for Semantic Information Systems Standards

“…The Object Management Group (OMG) in its Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) defines ''computation-independent'', ''platform-independent'', and ''platform-dependent'' as abstraction levels (OMG ORMS 2001). From a data modeling point of view, instantiations of the level of abstraction are ''conceptual '', ''logical'', and ''physical'' (Hoberman 2005;Jardine 1977). A conceptual model is typically directed at business users, since it clarifies the meaning of the most relevant objects, their attributes, and the relations of the business stakeholders given, such as department, organization, or industry (Hoberman et al 2009).…”

“…In particular, the Reference Model Analysis Grid by Pawlowski and Kozlov is a methodology for assessing standards, with the broader Little research has been done so far on actually comparing different Semantic IS Standards. One of the few contributions is proposed by Kabak and Dogac (2010) who analyzed a number of Semantic IS Standards, among which are UN/EDIFACT, UBL 2.0, 5 and OAGIS BOD 9.0. 6 Overall, existing literature comprises valuable work regarding Semantic IS Standards.…”

Quality of semantic standards

“…The latter has specifically initiated the concept of core components, elements that can be used as the core and starting point of vertical semantic standards that make use of these core components (Folmer, Hinderer, & Otto, 2003;Van Blommestein, 2007 A horizontal case study dealing with collaborative planning, forecasting, and replenishment (CPFR) based on a standards point of view (amongst others) is present in current literature (Markus & Gelinas Jr., 2008). The survey and analysis of horizontal standards (Kabak & Dogac, 2010) included EDI, UN/CEFACT CCL, UBL 2.0, OAGIS BOD 9.0 and GS1 XML and with the exception of EDI, they all use the CCTS in some (different) way. Other differences between these standards include the document artifacts, the use of code lists, the use of name spaces, and the naming and design rules used (Kabak & Dogac, 2010).…”

“…The survey and analysis of horizontal standards (Kabak & Dogac, 2010) included EDI, UN/CEFACT CCL, UBL 2.0, OAGIS BOD 9.0 and GS1 XML and with the exception of EDI, they all use the CCTS in some (different) way. Other differences between these standards include the document artifacts, the use of code lists, the use of name spaces, and the naming and design rules used (Kabak & Dogac, 2010). Also important is the fact that there are major differences in how these standards do accommodate customization and extensibility.…”

“…Also important is the fact that there are major differences in how these standards do accommodate customization and extensibility. The horizontal OAGIS BODS are used in many vertical semantic standards, among others AiAG, ODETTE, STAR, AAIA (all automotive), but also in the human resources (HR-XML), chemical and aerospace industries (Kabak & Dogac, 2010).…”