Submissions:PharmaInnova
From Odp
| If you are a member of quality committee please visit the
If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can: specify if this revision takes in account any of the review(s) In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal Current revision ID: 9111 |
Graphical representation
Diagram
General description
| Name: | PharmaInnova |
|---|---|
| Submitted by: | Sandra Kohler |
| Also Known As: | |
| Intent: | To describe invoices with the PharmaInnova Model. This schema can be applied to other invoice models. |
| Domains: | |
| Competency Questions: | |
| Solution description: | -- |
| Reusable OWL Building Block: | http://www.isoco.com/ontologies/neon/PharmaInnovaODP.owl (934) |
| Consequences: | Especific models for invoices can be aligned to this pattern, which then acts as a semantic facade to different invoice management applications. This pattern is concreter and simplier, but less flexible than the invoice ODP. |
| Scenarios: | |
| Known Uses: | |
| Web References: | |
| Other References: | |
| Examples (OWL files): | |
| Extracted From: | |
| Reengineered From: | |
| Has Components: | |
| Specialization Of: | |
| Related CPs: |
Elements
The PharmaInnova Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:
Header (owl:Class) The header usually contains important information to identify the invoice like for example the complete address and the company-identification-code.
Header page Body (owl:Class) The body contains all relevant invoice information like the amount of products, their net price etc.
Body page Summary (owl:Class) Contains a summary of the most relevant invoice information like the payment terms and the total amount.
Summary page
Additional information
(type): http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology
(imports): http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/schemas/cpannotationschema.owl
Scenarios
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
Reviews
There is no review about this proposal. This revision (revision ID 9111) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
Modeling issues
There is no Modeling issue related to this proposal.
References
