<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Business documents in a service oriented context</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Philipp Liegl</string-name>
          <email>liegl@big.tuwien.ac.at</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems Business Informatics Group Favoritenstrasse 9-11/188 Vienna</institution>
          ,
          <country country="AT">Austria</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>In a SOA based inter-organizational business process di erent business documents are exchanged in an agreed order between business partners. Although several standards for the de nition of a process choreography exist nowadays, the precise and unambiguous de nition of the exchanged business documents is still an open research task. However, if the business partners do not commonly agree on a business document format, interoperability is unlikely to be achieved. A solution can be provided by de ning a UML pro le, integrating concepts from UN/CEFACT's Core Components standard and industry speci c requirements and best practices. The UML pro le allows to de ne business document models on a conceptual level. These conceptual level models can be used to exchange business document information between software developers and more important to automatically derive logical level models e.g. XML schema. These logical level artifacts can be automatically deployed in IT systems of a service oriented architecture.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. MOTIVATION</title>
      <p>
        With the introduction of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
initiatives the need for a standardization of the exchanged
information became apparent. One of the best known EDI
standardization initiatives is the UN/EDIFACT [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ] [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]
standard. Typical EDI agreements involved a well de ned set of
business partners collaborating with a prede ned set of
business documents over a longer time-frame. Thus adaptations
of the exchanged business documents were rather rare and if
they occurred the changes were mostly minor ones. An early
and interesting survey on the determinants of EDI di usion
has been published in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ]. Since the rst EDI initiatives in
the early sixties which were reserved for large companies and
industries, the IT landscape has changed signi cantly.
Today service oriented technologies enable small and medium
sized enterprises to participate in electronic collaborations
as well. The before rather hard-wired processes between
en2nd year PhD student at Vienna University of Technology
terprises have been replaced by loosely-coupled and service
oriented ones. Service orientation allows for faster changes
in B2B processes and thus also in the exchanged business
documents. The hard wired EDI approach is too in
exible for these new ad-hoc business processes. Several
initiatives, mostly industry speci c ones, have been found in
recent years - some with notable, others with almost no
success. Since almost all of these initiatives were focused on
a certain domain or industry, a broad cross-industry
acceptance could not be reached. As part of the UN/CEFACT
(United Nations Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic
Business) initiative for document standardization the core
component [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ] standard has been developed, consisting of
reusable building blocks for the de nition of business
documents. However, core components are a theoretical concept
and no integration into a modeling tool exists until today.
In order to allow for a better understanding of the
industryspeci c business document modeling requirements a precise
survey of the various business document standardization
efforts is necessary. Thereby the speci c advantages and
disadvantages in regard to a use in a service oriented context
have to be examined. Using the results of the survey and the
concepts of the core component standardization, a common
solution allowing for the integration into a UML modeling
tool has to be found. Eventually the business document
modeler should be able to construct business documents on
a conceptual level with a UML modeling tool of choice.
Finally another important question remains - how to uniquely
derive deployment artifacts from conceptual data models
which may then be employed in a service oriented context
e.g. XML schema. Furthermore it must be examined how
conceptual business document models can be integrated into
business process models.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. PROBLEM</title>
      <p>
        If two businesses engage in an automated business process
two major agreements are necessary. First, the order of the
exchange of business documents has to be agreed upon
the so called business choreography. Using the global
business document exchange choreography each business
partner can con gure his own IT system. Second, the business
documents and their precise semantics have to be settled.
In gure 1 an example business process order from quote
between a buyer and a seller is shown. First the buyer
requests a quote from the seller and submits a purchase
order to the seller. The seller either replies with an order
acceptance or with an order rejection. In a service
oriented context the interfaces (WSDL) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">26</xref>
        ] and the messaging
(SOAP) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>
        ] are well de ned. However little or nothing is
said about the actual workload being exchanged between the
two companies.
      </p>
      <p>Buyer WSDL
&lt;types/&gt;
&lt;message/&gt;
&lt;portType&gt;
&lt;operation&gt;
&lt;input/&gt;
&lt;output/&gt;
&lt;fault/&gt;
&lt;/operation&gt;
&lt;operation&gt;</p>
      <p>...
&lt;/operation&gt;
&lt;/portType&gt;</p>
      <p>Quote Request</p>
      <p>Quote
Purchase Order
Order Acceptance</p>
      <p>Order Rejection
SOAP‐Message
Header
Body
&lt;orderRejection&gt;
....
&lt;/orderRejection&gt;</p>
      <p>XOR</p>
      <p>Seller WSDL
&lt;types/&gt;
&lt;message/&gt;
&lt;portType&gt;
&lt;operation&gt;
&lt;input/&gt;
&lt;output/&gt;
&lt;fault/&gt;
&lt;/operation&gt;
&lt;operation&gt;</p>
      <p>...
&lt;/operation&gt;
&lt;/portType&gt;
On the lower side of gure 1 an example SOAP message
is shown. Whereas header and body of a SOAP message
are well de ned, the actual document format carried in the
body remains unde ned. However, in order to allow the two
WSDL interfaces to be compliant the message types have to
be de ned as well. Standardization e orts in recent years
have brought up a multitude of di erent standards and
approaches for the de nition of business data. Unfortunately
the di erent standards have a set of shortcomings.
First, the multiple initiatives being based on XML are mostly
incompatible to each other. Since the di erent standards are
not based on a common semantic base di cult mappings
between di erent standards are necessary. However, data
mappers are expensive to implement and in exible to changes of
the structure of the exchanged business documents.
Second, a lot of the di erent standards aim at the inclusion
of every possible element in a business document. This
results in a strong overhead of a standard. Furthermore, such
an overhead makes a standard di cult to implement - in
particular for small and medium sized enterprises. Whereas for
instance a regular invoice just requires a small set of elements
and attributes an invoice standardized by UN/EDIFACT
contains a multitude of possible elements not needed in a
regular business transaction.</p>
      <p>Third, most of the standards are transfer syntax speci c.
Standards such as UN/EDIFACT are tightly bound to the
implementation syntax. Instead of de ning a business
document on a conceptual level most of the standards are based
on a logical level e.g. XML schema. Changes in the transfer
syntax therefore require a complicated reengineering of the
entire standard. Thus future adaptations of the standard
are di cult and time consuming to implement.</p>
      <p>Finally the exchange of a logical level business document
de nition between two business partners is complicated and
error prone during the development phase of the B2B
process. Instead of exchanging e.g. XML schema de nitions, a
conceptual business document model is easier to understand
for the developers on each business partner's side.
To sum up, a new methodology for the de nition of
business documents is needed in particular to meet the needs of
a service oriented context. A SOA context requires regular
changes in the exchanged document structure and the
automatic derivation of deployment artifacts in order to quickly
meet the changed business document requirements.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. HYPOTHESIS</title>
      <p>
        In order to allow two companies to agree upon a common
document semantic a methodology for de ning business
documents is needed. UN/CEFACT's Core Components [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ] is
a methodology to uniquely de ne business documents. The
current core component version is 2.01 with the
development of 3.0 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>
        ] currently going on. The development of
core components is backed up by the United Nations and can
therefore be seen as the most promising global approach for
business document standardization. However, several other
industry initiatives and standardization bodies have
developed business document standards as well. Nevertheless, the
di erent standards are largely incompatible to each other,
thus hampering a broad proliferation of business document
standardization.
      </p>
      <p>
        Hypothesis 1. It is necessary to nd a common base
between di erent industry speci c requirements and the global
core components initiative. Since core components are a
generic concept the di erent industry requirements can be
re ected. However core components are a theoretical
concept and therefore no real integration into a modeling tool
is possible. Recent years have shown, that the Uni ed
Modeling Language (UML) is becoming a very promising
technology for the modeling of structural and dynamic behavior.
If the core components technology together with the
identied industry requirements could be integrated into a UML
modeling tool, the proliferation of the technology would be
accelerated, thus leading to a broader acceptance. A UML
tool of choice could be used to model conceptual business
document models. Therefore a solution for the integration
of the core component concept into a UML modeling tool
must be found [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Hypothesis 2. If core components are modeled using a UML
tool of choice, the result would be conceptual business
document models based on UML. These models can be used to
exchange structural business document information between
business analysts, software developers and other
stakeholders. Although a conceptual model is appropriate for the
exchange of structural information, it cannot be used in a
real-world IT system. In order to allow for the integration
of a business document in a SOA context it must rst be
represented on a logical level e.g. XML schema. Therefore
a solution for the derivation of logical level business
documents (e.g. XML schema) from their conceptual level core
component representation must be found. However, not only
the forward engineering (UML to XML) must be addressed,
but also the reverse engineering (XML to UML).
Hypothesis 3. As already outlined in section 2 business
process modeling and business document modeling are strongly
interlinked. First, a business process model indentifying the
exact exchange order of business document is constructed.
Second, a business document model de ning the exact
outline of the exchanged business documents is created. In
recent years UN/CEFACT's Modeling Methodology (UMM)
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
        ] has established itself as a very promising approach for
the de nition of inter-organizational business process model.
In order to allow for a seamless integration into business
process models, an integration approach for the core
components technology into the UMM has to be found. A UMM
model de ning the process perspective together with a core
components model de ning the document perspective
provides a holistic B2B methodology for the de nition of SOA
requirements.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. METHODOLOGY</title>
      <p>In order to provide a solution to the current problems
dened above a speci c methodology will be employed which
consists of ve distinctive steps. Figure 2 gives an overview
about the used approach.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Business  document vs. data  modeling</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Integration into </title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>BPM approaches</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-4">
        <title>From conceputal  models to  deployment</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-5">
        <title>Business  document  modeling survey</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-6">
        <title>UPCC</title>
        <p>
          Business document modeling vs. regular data modeling. In
the rst step the speci c di erences between regular data
modeling techniques such as the ER-model [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ] from the
relational database management systems (RDBMS) design and
business document model requirements will be examined.
In particular the speci c requirements necessary for
business document modeling are going to be revealed. Since
the overall goal is to develop a holistic business document
methodology a profound knowledge of the di erent
modeling techniques is necessary. Furthermore it provides a good
introduction into the domain of document modeling per se.
Business document modeling survey. The second step will
comprise a survey of current business document modeling
approaches, their advantages, disadvantages and application
scenarios. Using the survey a precise overview about
current industry approaches and best practices will be given.
Furthermore a classi cation of the business document
approaches in regard to their applicability in a service oriented
context will be de ned. The speci c requirements of the
different industry solutions will be re ected to the maximum
extend possible in the overall core component methodology.
Since core components provide a generic concept, the
integration of domain and industry speci c requirements is
easily feasible.
        </p>
        <p>
          UPCC - A UML Pro le for Core Components. As outlined
before, core components are reusable building blocks for the
de nition of business documents. However, core components
are a theoretical concept and no integration into a UML
modeling tool is possible. In order to merge the industry
speci c requirements identi ed in the step before and the core
component technology a common solution based on UML
must be found. However, UML is a very generic concept
allowing the construction of a multitude of di erent
structural and behavioral models. In order to restrict the UML
meta model to the speci c needs of business document
modeling, a UML model will be de ned. A UML pro le tailors
the UML meta model using stereotypes, tagged values and
OCL constraints. The pro le can be imported into any UML
modeling tool of choice and provides the business modeler
with the necessary artifacts to de ne business documents. If
both modelers use the same pro le, the conceptual business
document models are compatible to each other, overcoming
the interoperability limitations of the di erent
standardization initiatives. We have already started to address this
issue in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ] and also co-authored the rst experimental UML
pro le for the core components standard 2.01 [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>
          ]. With the
advent of the new core components standard 3.0 [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>
          ] the old
pro le is obsolete and a new pro le has to be constructed.
The de nition of a new pro le, re ecting industry spec c
requirements will be an integral part of this dissertation.
From conceptual models to deployment artifacts. A UML
pro le for core components allows the de nition of
conceptual business document models. Since the core components
standard is employed, the di erent business document
models share the same semantic base, thus guaranteeing
interoperability. However, a conceptual model cannot be deployed
in a real world IT system. Thus a derivation mechanism
will be developed, allowing the generation of deployment
artifacts such as XML schema from conceptual business
document models. The logical level XML artifacts can be
deployed in a IT system of choice. However, the generation
of deployment artifacts must not necessarily be restricted to
XML schema - the generation of UBL [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ], Relax NG [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]
or any other appropriate artifacts is also possible since the
conceptual core component model does not mandate any
speci c implementation technology. As a proof-of-concept
a generation of deployment XML schema artifacts will be
developed on top of the UML modeling tool Enterprise
Architect [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>Integration into BPM approaches. Since business documents
in a SOA context are exchanged in a collaborative process,
the exemplary integration of a conceptual business
document model into inter-organizational business process
technologies will be subject to the last step of the thesis. As
a process methodology of choice UN/CEFACT's Modeling
Methodology (UMM), which we have co-authored, will be
chosen. UMM itself is also de ned as a UML pro le on top
of UML 2.0. Since the core component pro le will also be
de ned on top of UML 2.0, a seamless integration is
feasible. Of particular interest will be the derivation of artifacts
from both methodologies - UMM on the process side and
core components on the business document side. Given this
holistic approach, the easy con guration of a SOA system
will be possible.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. GOAL</title>
      <p>In gure 3 the overall goal of the dissertation is shown. First
two business partners have to agree upon a common process
choreography. The process choreography de nes in which
order the di erent business documents are exchanged between
the two business partners. In the context of the thesis the
global choreography will be de ned using UN/CEFACT's
Modeling Methodology. After having found a common
agreement on the business document exchange order, the business
documents per se have to be de ned. Using the UML
Prole for core components, which will be developed in this
dissertation, the two business partners uniquely de ne the
document semantic. In the next step the common business
document model is used in order to derive XML schema
deployment artifacts. The XML schema is then fed into the IT
systems of the two business partners. Since both IT systems
are con gured on the same basis, a common agreement on
the interface de nitions of the respective WSDL is found.</p>
      <p>(1) Agree on Process Choreography
Business Partner A
(2) Agree on Business Documents Business Partner B</p>
      <p>(3) results in
Core Component Model</p>
      <p>(4) automatically derive
&lt;xs:schema&gt;
&lt;xs:element name="OrderRequest"
...</p>
      <p>&lt;/xs:schema&gt;
(5)deploy
(5) deploy
Partner A's IT‐</p>
      <p>System
Partner B's IT‐</p>
      <p>System
By setting the business document semantic on a conceptual
level using the core components semantic, a quick agreement
between the two business partners is possible. Since the
derivation of the XML artifacts is done automatically, a fast
deployment is possible after the requirements of the business
documents have changed.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>
        For the interested reader a general introduction into the
eld of business document engineering is given in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. In the
eld of business document standardization several initiatives
have been found in recent years. Mostly the e orts are
industry speci c and bound to the XML standard. The most
important standards include CIDX [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ], SWIFT [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ], HL7
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], and PapiNet [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] just to name a few. A lot of research
has been conducted in the eld of XML artifact generation
out of UML artifacts. Generally a distinction is made
between forward engineering (XML artifact generation from
UML models) and reverse engineering (UML model
generation from XML artifacts). Whereas the rst approach is
often straight-forward the second one contains some obstacles.
E.g. a derivation by restriction cannot be modeled with the
Uni ed Modeling Language. A profound overview on the
reverse engineering of XML schema to conceptual models is
given in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">27</xref>
        ]. Thereby the authors examine several reverse
engineering techniques and assess their applicability. In the
eld of forward engineering several research e orts can be
named e.g. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ] and [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Several research e orts have also
been conducted in the eld of business process and business
document modeling alignment e.g. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ] [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. As outlined
before core components de ne the semantics on a conceptual
level and the semantics are transformed to the logical level
XML schema by derivation. Several other research e orts
have already addressed the de nition of semantics in XML
schema e.g. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] and [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Most of these approaches
however are missing a holistic approach for the speci c needs in
regard to a use within a SOA context.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>7. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>Common modeling approaches for B2B scenarios often only
re ect a particular part of a business collaboration e.g. only
the process perspective or only the data perspective. In
order to allow for a holistic view on a B2B collaboration a
solution embracing all necessary views and technologies is
necessary. We have already actively developed the UN/CEFACT's
Modeling Methodology, re ecting the process perspective of
a business collaboration. This thesis will close the gap to
a holistic B2B methodology by incorporating the business
document modeling perspective as well. Thereby di erent
business document modeling standards will be evaluated and
their advantages and disadvantages will be assessed.
Based on these results and using UN/CEFACT's core
components technology, a UML pro le will be developed. The
UML pro le will allow to easily assemble business documents
on a common semantic basis. The conceptual business
document models will then serve as the basis for the derivation
of logical document models e.g. XML schema artifacts. The
XML schema artifacts can be fed into IT systems of
participating business partners and guarantee, that all partners
have the same understanding of the exchanged information.
Finally the integration into the process modeling
methodology UMM will be examined. After the nalization of the
thesis a business modeler will be given a holistic
methodology for the modeling of B2B scenarios.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Berge</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>The EDIFACT Standards. Blackwell Publishers</source>
          , Cambridge, MA, USA,
          <volume>2</volume>
          <fpage>edition</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1994</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Bernauer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G. Kappel, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Kramler</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Approaches to implementing active semantics with XML schema</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications</source>
          , pages
          <volume>559</volume>
          {
          <fpage>565</fpage>
          .
          <year>2003</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P. P.-S.</given-names>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>The Entity Relationship Model: Towards a uni ed view of data. 1:</source>
          <volume>9</volume>
          {
          <fpage>36</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1976</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>CIDX. Chemical</given-names>
            <surname>Industry Data Exchange Standard</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Combi</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Oliboni</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Conceptual modeling of XML data</article-title>
          .
          <source>In SAC '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing</source>
          , pages
          <volume>467</volume>
          {
          <fpage>473</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACM</surname>
          </string-name>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Glushko</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T. McGrath. Document</given-names>
            <surname>Engineering</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
          <source>United States, 2nd edition</source>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Hevner</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. T.</given-names>
            <surname>March</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J. Park, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Ram</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Design Science in Information Systems Research</source>
          .
          <volume>28</volume>
          :
          <issue>75</issue>
          {
          <fpage>105</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <fpage>HL7</fpage>
          . Health Level Seven,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Huemer</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Liegl</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A UML Pro le for Core Components and their Transformation to XSD</article-title>
          .
          <source>In ICDE Workshops</source>
          , pages
          <volume>298</volume>
          {
          <fpage>306</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Janiesch</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Dreiling</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Greiner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Lippe</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Con guring processes and business documents - an integrated approach to enterprise systems collaboration</article-title>
          .
          <source>In ICEBE</source>
          , pages
          <volume>516</volume>
          {
          <fpage>521</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Janiesch</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Dreiling</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Greiner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Lippe</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Integrated con guration of enterprise systems for interoperability { towards process model and business document speci cation alignment</article-title>
          .
          <source>In EDOC</source>
          , pages
          <volume>445</volume>
          {
          <fpage>448</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. B.</given-names>
            <surname>Li</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Testing the semantics of W3C XML schema</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference</source>
          , pages
          <volume>443</volume>
          {
          <fpage>448</fpage>
          .
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>OASIS. RELAX NG</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Speci cation</article-title>
          . OASIS,
          <year>December 2001</year>
          .
          <article-title>Committee Speci cation</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[14] OASIS. Universal Business Language v2.0. OASIS</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15] papiNet. papiNet,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Ramamurthy</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Premkumar</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Determinants and Outcomes of Electronic Data Interchange Di usion</article-title>
          .
          <volume>42</volume>
          :
          <issue>332</issue>
          {
          <fpage>351</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1995</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Skogan</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>UML a Schema Language for XML based Data Interchange</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Uni ed Modeling Language</source>
          , volume
          <volume>2</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>211</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>220</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Proceedings</surname>
          </string-name>
          , United States,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Sparx</given-names>
            <surname>Systems</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Enterprise Architect</source>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[19] SWIFT. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication</source>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          [20] UN/CEFACT. UN/EDIFACT D.
          <year>07B</year>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          [21] UN/CEFACT TMG.
          <source>Core Components Technical Speci cation - Part 8 of the ebXML Framework</source>
          ,
          <year>2003</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          [22]
          <article-title>UN/CEFACT TMG</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>UN/CEFACT's Modeling Methodology (UMM)</article-title>
          ,
          <source>UMM Meta Model - Foundation Module</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          [23]
          <article-title>UN/CEFACT TMG</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>UPCC - UML Pro le for Core Components based on CCTS 2.01. United Nations Center For Trade Facilitation</article-title>
          and Electronic Business,
          <year>October 2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>Candidate for version 1</article-title>
          .0.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          [24] UN/CEFACT TMG.
          <source>Core Components Technical Speci cation 3</source>
          .0 - draft,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <mixed-citation>
          [25]
          <string-name>
            <surname>W3C. Simple Object Access Protocol</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref26">
        <mixed-citation>
          [26]
          <string-name>
            <surname>W3C. Web Services Description Language</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref27">
        <mixed-citation>
          [27]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Steele</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>An overview of research on reverse engineering XML schemas into UML diagrams</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications ICITA</source>
          <year>2005</year>
          , volume
          <volume>2</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>772</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>777</fpage>
          . ICITA Proceedings, Australia,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>