GS1 EPCIS Modeling

[nissimsan]

Moving what I started in https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/552 to an issue. General positive feedback on that direction, only lacking time to progress it further right now.

[VladimirAlexiev]

@nissimsan in addition to what @mgh128 wrote in #552:

• event URLs (eventID in the JSON schema) must use a specific URL ni://<hash>
• https://tools.openepcis.io/openepcis-ui/ has useful tools:
  • https://tools.openepcis.io/openepcis-ui/EventHash to generate the above hash
  • It also had JSON schema validation: @domguinard or Mark, do you know where's this gone?
• You'll find the attached EPCIS-Ontology-20210907-VA-comments-20210921.pdf useful to see the data layout (Mark, is there a better version inside the standard?)

[nissimsan]

Thanks @VladimirAlexiev. On the last point, @mgh128 already pointed me to that exact diagram. :) Very useful indeed! (I would encourage publishing it more prominently and higher resolution)

[mgh128]

The published EPCIS 2.0 standard ( https://ref.gs1.org/standards/epcis/ ) does include UML class diagrams in section 7.2.1 Sadly, although I provided those as vector graphic PDFs within the Word document, at the time of publication, they have been downgraded to fuzzy bitmaps that are almost unusable. I'll alert our publications team - please cross your fingers, press your thumbs etc.! In the meantime, I have attached my PDF of the version that should appear as Figure 7.2.1.1.

EPCIS-Ontology-2022-03-29-withEPCISQueryDocument.pdf

[VladimirAlexiev]

@mgh128 thanks! So sad that we share EPCIS stuff in a third party git project ;-)

@nissimsan @OR13 If you compare the ontology diagram to the JSON schema (we also have a JSON diagram that could make the comparison easier), you could see some useful lessons for this effort as well.

Eg the URI of Event and BizTransation in JSON should be eventID, bizTransaction respectively, instead of the usual @id. These are expressed in the JSONLD context, but also in the ontology as follows

#################### Meta-properties

epcis:jsonldLabel a owl:DatatypeProperty , rdf:Property ;
      rdfs:comment      """JSONLD term (alias) used for this property.
The default is the property local name, which is captured in rdfs:label."""@en ;
      rdfs:domain       rdf:Property;
      schema:domainIncludes rdf:Property ;
      rdfs:isDefinedBy  epcis: ;
      rdfs:label        "jsonldLabel" ;
      rdfs:range        xsd:string ;
      schema:rangeIncludes xsd:string ;
      sw:term_status    "stable" .

rdf:type epcis:jsonldLabel "type".
epcis:bizTransactionType epcis:jsonldLabel "type".

epcis:jsonldUriLabel a owl:DatatypeProperty , rdf:Property ;
      rdfs:comment      """JSONLD term (alias) used for the URI of nodes of this class.
There is no default: many EPCIS classes use blank nodes instead of the standard @id JSONLD term."""@en ;
      rdfs:domain       rdf:Property;
      schema:domainIncludes rdf:Property ;
      rdfs:isDefinedBy  epcis: ;
      rdfs:label        "jsonldUriLabel" ;
      rdfs:range        xsd:string ;
      schema:rangeIncludes xsd:string ;
      sw:term_status    "stable" .

epcis:AggregationEvent epcis:jsonldUriLabel "eventID".
epcis:BizTransaction epcis:jsonldUriLabel "bizTransaction".
epcis:EPCISDocument epcis:jsonldUriLabel "id".
# etc

[mgh128]

@VladimirAlexiev - I've alerted @CraigRe - and he'll discuss with the GS1 publications team to try to get the PDF vector version published. I've tried previously (without much success) on a similar issue for the UML class diagram in the GS1 GLN Data Model Solution Standard - and they so far only replaced one completely unreadable bitmap with a high-resolution bitmap that was still 50% larger file size than the vector PDF I gave them (which even had searchable text, unlike their high-resolution PNG bitmap)!

@nissimsan - I've also attached to this reply the alternative version you just mentioned, from the syntax perspective.

Fig7.1.1.2-EPCIS-Ontology-alternativeVersion-2022-03-29.pdf

[nissimsan]

Looking for volunteers to pick this up.

[nissimsan]

Let's continue this on https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/385

[mkhraisha]

duplicate discussion of #385