Abstract
-
1.
EDI is held back by inflexibility and complexity for users. This is partly due to the antiquated X12 and EDIFACT standards.
-
2.
Truly automatic translation between two disparate databases, or between EDI and a database not set up just for EDI, requires machine representation of the concepts and meaning of the data schema, not just the schema.
-
3.
The database world has reluctantly begun to recognize this, and that common ontologies are needed for true automated integration. The EDI community, due to its particular culture, may never realize it.
-
4.
The real-world “common ontology” is actually the most valuable thing about EDIFACT and X12, but it is informal, in English, and unavailable for any computational use.
-
5.
The current major Artificial Intelligence efforts to build large generic ontologies should be applied to automate EDI translations and do useful inference; also, AI ontologists can exploit thousands of practical real-world concept-categories from EDI standards EDIFACT and X12. These provide good target concepts for us to define.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lėhmann, F. (1996). Machine-negotiated, ontology-based EDI (Electronic Data Interchange). In: Adam, N.R., Yesha, Y. (eds) Electronic Commerce. EC 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1028. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60738-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60738-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60738-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49355-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive