TOOP: A Common Semantic Model for the Once-Only Principle Jack Verhoosel, TNO June 14, 2018

Transcription

1 TOOP: A Common Semantic Model for the Once-Only Principle Jack Verhoosel, TNO June 14, 2018

2 2

3 Why a TOOP Common Semantic Model? 28 member states with different terms So, let s speak in TOOP terms and use a TOOP Common Semantic Model for that! 3

4 The TOOP Platform 4

5 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector Central TOOP Services TOOP Connector 5

6 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector Central BASIC ASSUMPTION: TOOP Messages Services in terms of TOOP concepts! TOOP Connector 6

7 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector Central THUS TOOP ALSO: Messages Services in terms of TOOP concepts here TOOP Connector 7

8 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector Central THUS TOOP ALSO: Messages Services in terms of TOOP concepts here TOOP Connector 8

9 The TOOP platform Data Consumer TOOP Connector Data requests: either in terms of TOOP concepts OR in terms of DC MS concepts Central TOOP Services Data Provider TOOP Connector 9

10 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector If in terms of DC MS concepts, they must Central be mapped to TOOP TOOP concepts in the data Services request TOOP Connector 10

11 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider If DP does not accept TOOP concepts, they must Central TOOP Connector be mapped to DP TOOP MS concepts to retrieve Services data TOOP Connector 11

12 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector Central Thus: TOOP Mapped DP TOOP MS Connector Services concepts must be those that are accepted by the DP MS System 12

13 The TOOP platform Data Consumer Data Provider TOOP Connector Central TOOP Services A Semantic Mapping TOOP Service Connector (SMS) is part of the central TOOP services that contains the CSM and the mappings 13

14 What to include in the CSM? Pilot data superset (snapshot) 143 data elements A lot of duplicates Bad semantics Information systems, registries, and databases Data objects (MACHINE READABLE) >>Basic Company Identification data<< Company Identifier Legal Company name Trade Names previous company names Secondary names Company names in translation Legal Form type of organisation NACE classification full date of start/end of commercial activity company registration/incorporation date date of cancellation Alternate company Identifiers COUNTRY Commercial Court Register number register of associations number Trade Register number Extract from the Commercial Register (Register of Companies at the Commercial Court) record of chamber of commerce registration Extract from the Trade Register/Trade Licence - OBRTNO (CRAFT) date of suspension, resumption, removal, etc. (PL) >>Company Address & Contact info<< Contact person or persons address data telephone number - fixed & mobile fax number -address web address, issuing authority/ body, precise reference of the documentation >>statutory << Date of articles of association Articles of association object/aim/end/purpose of company >>Legal representative<< --> see >>representatives<< and >>powers<<, below surname, first name comments and/or descriptions TOTALS registration number or code full or legal name of entity commercial or short names?? What are these!! Transliteration might be more important!! Semantic/legal categorisation and mapping is needed?? Is this the same as Legal Form --> add description;?? Why is demand so low?? Ambiguous --> see registration date?? Ambiguous, needs splitting?? Ambiguous Is there some "common list" of company identifier types? covered by "Alternate company identifiers"? covered by "Alternate company identifiers"? covered by "Alternate company identifiers"??? Ambiguous!! choose appropriate standard split into separate fields --> needs further study in Mandates Scenario of Pilot 1 (is "legal Rep" different from "Rep"? 14

15 What to include in the CSM? Pilot data superset (snapshot) previous company names 143 data elements Secondary names Company names in translation Legal Form A lot of duplicates type of organisation NACE classification Bad semantics full date of start/end of commercial activity company registration/incorporation date date of cancellation Information systems, registries, and databases Data objects (MACHINE READABLE) >>Basic Company Identification data<< Company Identifier?? What are these Legal Company name Trade Names previous company names Secondary names Company names in translation Legal Form type of organisation NACE classification full date of start/end of commercial activity company registration/incorporation date date of cancellation Alternate company Identifiers COUNTRY Commercial Court Register number register of associations number Trade?? Register Ambiguous number Extract from the Commercial Register (Register of Companies at the Commercial Court) record of chamber of commerce registration Extract from the Trade Register/Trade Licence - OBRTNO (CRAFT) date of suspension, resumption, removal, etc. (PL) >>Company Address & Contact info<< Contact person or persons address data telephone number - fixed & mobile fax number -address web address, issuing authority/ body, precise reference of the documentation >>statutory << Date of articles of association Articles of association object/aim/end/purpose of company >>Legal representative<< --> see >>representatives<< and >>powers<<, below surname, first name comments and/or descriptions TOTALS registration number or code full or legal name of entity commercial or short names!! Transliteration might be more important!! Semantic/legal categorisation and mapping is needed?? Is this the same as Legal Form --> add description;?? Why is demand so low?? Ambiguous --> see registration date?? Ambiguous, needs splitting?? What are these!! Transliteration might be more important!! Semantic/legal categorisation and mapping is needed?? Is this the same as Legal Form --> add description;?? Why is demand so low?? Ambiguous --> see registration date?? Ambiguous, needs splitting?? Ambiguous Is there some "common list" of company identifier types? covered by "Alternate company identifiers"? covered by "Alternate company identifiers"? covered by "Alternate company identifiers"??? Ambiguous!! choose appropriate standard split into separate fields --> needs further study in Mandates Scenario of Pilot 1 (is "legal Rep" different from "Rep"? 15

16 What to include in the CSM? Pilot data superset (snapshot) 143 data elements A lot of duplicates Bad semantics Initial dataset for Registered Organization subdomain Support pilots and TOOP playground EBR attributes CompanyCode CompanyName RegistrationAuthority CompanyType LegalStatus LegalStatus EffectiveDate FoundationDate RegistrationDate RegistrationNumber Capital Address FaxNumber TelephoneNumber ActivityDeclaration CompanyNaceCode SSNumber VatNumber LegalRepresentative 16

17 What did we reuse? EBR terms and definitions for company profile field names All terms in our selected initial dataset were present in the EBR list However, no ontology exists for EBR or BRIS! SO we started to make it ourselves! 17

18 What did we reuse? Domain specific existing ontologies: Rov: formally ISA2 Registered Organization Core Vocabulary Org: Prov: Vcard: Generic existing ontologies: Adms: Dublin core: Foaf: Skos: Skosxl: 18

19 Some snapshots Overview Example of ROV reuse Example of ADMS reuse 19

20 Reuse of rov, org, skos, adms, dcterms 20

21 Mappings: only when needed Preferably: use TOOP concepts at the interface with the TOOP Connector! If MS want to use MS concepts, they should make a mapping with the TOOP concepts in the CSM. There is a semantic mapping guideline to support you: pping+guideline To start with, fill in your mapping in the table at: a+models 21

22 Some example mappings 22

23 Namespaces scheme used URI Namespace scheme: generic TOOP namespace for subdomain about registered organization for subdomain about financial company data for member state XX and subdomain YY for the Dutch business register (Nationaal Handels Register) for the German business register (Unternehmensregister) for the Italian business register (Registro Imprese) Etc 23

24 1-to-1 mapping constructs OWL equivalence and RDFS sub constructs: owl:equivalentclass, owl:equivalentproperty rdfs:subclassof, rdfs:subpropertyof 24

25 1-to-N mapping constructs Specific TOOP properties toop:mapstoconcept, toop:mapstovalue 25

26 TOOP Semantic Mapping Service Get mapping between MS and TOOP SELECT DISTINCT?s?o WHERE {?s?p?o. FILTER ((?p = rdfs:subclassof) (?p = rdfs:subpropertyof)). FILTER ((STRSTARTS(str(?s), "nhr#") && STRSTARTS(str(?o), "toop#")) (STRSTARTS(str(?s), "toop#") && STRSTARTS(str(?o), "nhr#"))). } 26

27 Next steps MS make the mapping from national MS concepts to the TOOP CSM Build a simple tool to support the MS in making the mapping: querying currently mapped concepts adding/deleting mappings Extend the TOOP CSM with more concepts and subdomains. Start discussing governance of the TOOP CSM and the SMS ISA2, CEF? 27

28 Jack Verhoosel, TNO

29 29

30 Visit us at TOOP s BOOTH Exhibition: 7th floor, Hall 3 30