Semantic Interpretation of UN/EDIFACT Messages for Evaluating Inter-organizational Relationships

  • Worarat Krathu
  • Christian Pichler
  • Robert Engel
  • Marco Zapletal
  • Hannes Werthner
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 344)


Electronic information exchange between business partners based on UN/EDIFACT messages directly reflects inter-organizational business performance, which is typically evaluated by management people. However, querying such messages results in an ambiguous task for management people due to the complex structure of EDIFACT formats. For this reason, we provide an ontology-based extraction framework for EDIFACT messages. The framework provides (i) business information concepts reflecting business performance, and enables (ii) the automated extraction of business data from EDIFACT messages by applying reasoning techniques. Having the framework at hand allows querying business information from EDIFACT messages based on business information concepts resulting in three distinct advantages: (i) the reduction of the complexity of querying tasks and the accessibility of business information, (ii) the querying of super- and sub-concepts, and (iii) the reduction of the search scope.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beneventano, D., Haoum, S.E., Montanari, D.: Mapping of heterogeneous schemata, business structures, and terminologies. In: Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2007), pp. 412–418. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berge, J.: The EDIFACT Standards. Blackwell Publishers, Inc. (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choudhary, K., Pandey, U., Nayak, M., Mishra, D.: Electronic Data Interchange: A Review. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Computational Intelligence, Communication Systems and Networks (CICSyN 2011), pp. 323–327 (July 2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson, J., Wainwright, J.: Processing EDI Code Pairs. In: Pro Mapping in BizTalk Server 2009, pp. 317–333. Apress (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engel, R., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Zapletal, M., Pichler, C., Werthner, H.: Mining Inter-organizational Business Process Models from EDI Messages: A Case Study from the Automotive Sector. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 222–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engel, R., Krathu, W., Zapletal, M., Pichler, C., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Werthner, H.: Process Mining for Electronic Data Interchange. In: Huemer, C., Setzer, T. (eds.) EC-Web 2011. LNBIP, vol. 85, pp. 77–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engel, R., Pichler, C., Zapletal, M., Krathu, W., Werthner, H.: From Encoded EDIFACT Messages to Business Concepts Using Semantic Annotations. In: 14th IEEE Int. Conf. on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC 2012). IEEE (to appear in 2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foxvog, D., Bussler, C.: Ontologizing EDI: First Steps and Initial Experience. In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Data Engineering Issues in E-Commerce (DEEC 2005), pp. 49–58 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foxvog, D., Bussler, C.: Ontologizing EDI Semantics. In: Roddick, J., Benjamins, V.R., Si-said Cherfi, S., Chiang, R., Claramunt, C., Elmasri, R.A., Grandi, F., Han, H., Hepp, M., Lytras, M.D., Mišić, V.B., Poels, G., Song, I.-Y., Trujillo, J., Vangenot, C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4231, pp. 301–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horridge, M., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Manchester Syntax (October 2009),
  12. 12.
    Janssens, G.K.: Electronic Data Interchange: From Its Birth To Its New Role In Logistics Information Systems. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Information Technologies, InfoTech 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kabak, Y., Dogac, A.: A survey and analysis of electronic business document standards. ACM Comput. Surv. 42(3), 11:1–11:31 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krathu, W., Pichler, C., Zapletal, M., Werthner, H.: Semantic inter-organizational performance analysis using the balanced scorecard methodology. In: Proc. 35th Int. Conv. on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO 2012), pp. 1589–1594 (May 2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moon, H.C., Shim, S.R., Kim, D.Y.: Issues in the International Standards of Electronic Documents for Global e-Trade. Int. Journal of Social Science, Economics and Art 1(2), 164–168 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nurmilaakso, J.M.: EDI, XML and e-business frameworks: A survey. Computers in Industry 59(4), 370–379 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Provan, K., Sydow, J.: Evaluating inter-organizational relationships. In: The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations, pp. 691–718 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. J. Web Sem. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sonntagbauer, P.: E-Business, Emerging Trends in the European Union. In: Gusev, M., Mitrevski, P. (eds.) ICT Innovations 2010. CCIS, vol. 83, pp. 40–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., O’Keefe, R., Paul, R.: ERP Problems and Application Integration Issues: An Empirical Survey. In: Proc. 34th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (HICSS 2001), vol. 9, p. 9045. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vollmer, K., Gilpin, M., Stone, J.: B2B Integration Trends: Message Formats. Forrester Research (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Worarat Krathu
    • 1
  • Christian Pichler
    • 1
  • Robert Engel
    • 1
  • Marco Zapletal
    • 1
  • Hannes Werthner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software Technology and Interactive SystemsVienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations