Advertisement

Electronic Document Interoperability in Transactions Executions

  • Gerard WawrzyniakEmail author
  • Imed El Fray
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 889)

Abstract

Transaction as a general human activity is always associated with the flow and processing of information. The electronic document is the form of legally binding information which is being exchanged between the transaction parties. Both humans and information systems take part in transaction executions especially in the area of information transfer and processing. Therefore the ease of implementation of services processing electronic forms using standard programming tools is extremely important for electronic support of transactions execution. Also, the meaning of data (information) stored in the electronic form must be unambiguously and uniformly understood by processing parties (humans and systems). Moreover, services supporting electronic documents transfer and processing must be standardised to make them accessible for a large number of transactions and participants. All considered problems are related to the concept of interoperability.

Keywords

Electronic document Electronic form Digital signature Transaction Interoperability 

References

  1. 1.
    Online Etymology Dictionary. https://www.etymonline.com/word/transaction
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Gray, J.: The transaction concept: virtues and limitations. In: Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Very Large Databases, September 1981. Published by Tandem Computers Incorporated (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Wawrzyniak, G., El Fray, I.: An electronic document for distributed electronic services. In: Saeed, K., Homenda, W. (eds.) CISIM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9842, pp. 617–630. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45378-1_54
  7. 7.
    Wawrzyniak, G., El Fray, I.: An electronic document for distributed electronic services. In: Saeed, K., Homenda, W. (eds.) CISIM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10244, pp. 697–708. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45378-1
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Scholl, H.J., Kubicek, H., Cimander, R.: Interoperability, enterprise architectures, and IT governance in government. In: Janssen, M., Scholl, H.J., Wimmer, M.A., Tan, Y. (eds.) Electronic Government, EGOV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6846. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22878-0_29
  10. 10.
    Council directive 91/250/EC, 14.5.1991 on the legal protection of computer programmes. Official Journal of the European Communities. No L 122, 17.05.91Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Institute of electrical and electronics engineers, standard computer dictionary. IEEE Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European public administration network, e-government working group: key principles of an interoperability architecture, Brussels (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Telecommunications Standards Institute: achieving technical interoperability– the ETSI approach. ETSI white paper No. 3. By Hans van der Veer (Lucent Technologies) and Anthony Wiles (ETSI), October 2006. http://www.etsi.org/website/document/whitepapers/wp3_iop_final.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2018
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC 2382–1:1993 Information Technology – Vocabulary – Part 1: Fundamental Terms, International Organization for Standardization (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Commission of the European Communities: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2003) 567 final – The Role of eGovernment for Europe’s Future, Brussels (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bugajski, J.M., Grossman, R.L., Vejcik, S.: A service oriented architecture supporting data interoperability for payments card processing systems. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) Service-Oriented Computing – ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guédria, W., Chen, D., Naudet, Y.: A maturity model for enterprise interoperability. In: Meersman, R., Herrero, P., Dillon, T. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2009 Workshops, OTM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5872. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Method Integrated Team: Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI), Version 1.1: Method Definition Document Members of the Assessment (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nešić, S.: Semantic document model to enhance data and knowledge interoperability. In: Devedžić, V., Gaševic, D. (eds.) Web 2.0 & Semantic Web. Annals of Information Systems, vol. 6. Springer, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/. Accessed 5 June 2018
  21. 21.
    W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures. https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/. Accessed 5 June 2018
  22. 22.
    W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes. https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/. Accessed 5 June 2018
  23. 23.
    Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition), W3C Recommendation 8 December 2009. https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/
  24. 24.
    XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core2/
  25. 25.
    XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (XAdES). https://www.w3.org/TR/XAdES/
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    RFC 5280, Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate revocation List (CRL), IETF 2008, Profite (2008). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280
  28. 28.
    RFC 6960, X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol – OCSP,, IETF 2013. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6960
  29. 29.
    SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 27 April 2007. https://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part0-20070427/
  30. 30.
    SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 27 April 2007. https://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part1-20070427/
  31. 31.
    SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 27 April 2007. https://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-part2-20070427/
  32. 32.
    SOAP Version 1.2 Specification Assertions and Test Collection (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 27 April 2007. https://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12-testcollection-20070427/
  33. 33.
    RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, IETF (2008). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321
  34. 34.
    PKCS #11: Cryptographic Token Interface Standard. RSA LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    PKCS #12: Personal Information Exchange Syntax Standard. RSA LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    RFC 4648, The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings, IETF 2006Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    RFC 7230, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing, IETF (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    XML Path Language (XPath) 3.1, W3C Recommendation 21 March 2017. https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-xpath-31-20170321/
  39. 39.
    RFC 959, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), IETF (1985)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hyla, T., Pejaś, J.: A practical certificate and identity based encryption scheme and related security architecture. In: Saeed, K., Chaki, R., Cortesi, A., Wierzchoń, S. (eds.) CISIM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8104, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyWest Pomeranian University of Technology, SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Applied Informatics and MathematicsWarsaw University of Life Sciences, WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations