1 / 43

Reference Model Special Interest Group

Reference Model Special Interest Group. Wolfram Höpken. Workshop Objectives. present and discuss the basic methodology of the reference model the process of the RMSIG reach first consensus about methodology and process of the RMSIG overview of future activities of the RMSIG and schedule.

zlhna
Télécharger la présentation

Reference Model Special Interest Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reference ModelSpecial Interest Group Wolfram Höpken

  2. Workshop Objectives • present and discuss • the basic methodology of the reference model • the process of the RMSIG • reach first consensus about methodology and process of the RMSIG • overview of future activities of the RMSIG and schedule

  3. Agenda • basic methodology • process • domain analysis • TourTags • discussion • outlook

  4. EM Intermediary Supplier Supplier Supplier Tour operator Tour operator Customer Customer Customer EM EM EM EM Motivation • coexistence of heterogeneous markets • standardization only on a proprietary level (within one market) • no interoperability between different markets or systems • no ability to search across different markets • service offerings must be replicated across different markets

  5. Electronic market Supplier Supplier Intermediary Tour operator Customer Customer Motivation (2) • one open electronic tourism market • global interoperability • direct communication between all participants • easy access and low entrance barriers • maximal customer reachability

  6. Motivation (3) • drawbacks of complete standardization • fixed standards cannot cover complete heterogeneity • not flexible enough to be adapted to occurring changes • suppliers have no possibility to differentiate their offer • more open, flexible approaches for harmonizing electronic tourism markets • flexible descriptions of tourism markets based on a unified language and common vocabulary • e.g. XML-based initiatives like OTA and XML/EDI

  7. RMSIG Objective • open and flexible harmonization of electronic tourism markets • framework for modeling electronic tourism markets • provides open specification based on a uniform language and common vocabulary • enables expressive modeling considering semantic aspects • enables uniform description of heterogeneous electronic markets

  8. The Reference Model • abstract, conceptual modeling of the tourism domain • modeling library of standardized building blocks as vocabulary for describing electronic tourism markets • modeling based on the Unified Modeling Language (UML) • sufficiently expressive modeling • consideration of semantic aspects • interoperability on different communication levels (e.g. XML, distributed objects)

  9. UML model Distributed object model XML model Modeling Levels

  10. Building Blocks • the reference model provides building blocks on different levels of granularity • elementary building blocks (date, location,...) • tourism services (flight, hotel,...) • process building blocks (searching, booking,...) • concrete models are constructed by • derivation (customization of building blocks) • composition

  11. Process layer Searching Booking Criteria Service Customer Customer ResultList Date Entity layer Hotel Flight Customer Name Time Name Category Route Address Room Class Age Base layer Room Name Route Date RoomType StartLocation Address Time Facilities EndLocation Location Facilities Location Building Blocks (2)

  12. Reference model Hotel Flight Name Time Time Name Category Route Class Category Room Class Room Route compose derive derive Specific model CureHotel XYFlight Name Time MoonFlight Category Category Route Room Room Class Time CureServices MealPlan Building Concrete Models

  13. Reference model Hotel Name Category 5 2 1 4 3 Room Hotel Hotel Name Name Category Category Hotel Room Room Name Hotel Category Room lookup CureHotel derive Name Supplier Customer Category CureHotel Room CureService Name Category Room CureServices Interoperability

  14. Homogeneous Electronic Market S S S S S EM EM S S S S S S S S S S Reference Model EM S S Implications Heterogeneous Electronic Markets

  15. Advantages • flexibility and adaptability for suppliers • flexibility for change • low entrance barriers to electronic markets for suppliers (SMEs) • easy access of customers to a wide range of services • separation of semantic aspects and technical aspects • interoperability is supported on all possible communication levels

  16. Process of the RMSIG • workshops and email discussion • discuss and commit methodology and process • discuss and commit specification of electronic tourism markets • domain analysis - questionnaire • review activities • TourTags

  17. Development of Methodology • first workshop: discuss basic methodology and process of the RMSIG • prepare and discuss white paper and project plan • second workshop: discuss and commit • methodology of the reference model • basic approach (modeling language) • architecture (modeling levels) • process of the RMSIG • activities • project plan

  18. Specification of Electronic Tourism Markets • domain analysis (questionnaire) • third workshop • identification of market services • identification of building blocks • forth workshop • specification of services and building blocks • final workshop • summarization of results • committing reference model

  19. Review process

  20. Project Plan

  21. Domain Analysis Anton Dunzendorfer

  22. Domain Analysis a) analysis of existing tourism information systems (TIS) b) survey of TIS providers c) survey of tourism decision makers (expert survey) d) create the model based on existing tourism standards e) survey of different tourism parties (hoteliers, providers, tourists, event-organizers, ...) ? How to get information to create the reference model for tourism ? / Anton Dunzendorfer

  23. a) Analysing Existing TIS • for example systems of “www.100hot.com” • analyse the structure (no structure, regional, directory, ...) • tourism areas (accommodations, sight seeing, infrastructure, ...) • selling (no functions, direct booking, request, ...) to take care of: • very high effort • analysing only the view of the system providers (implementers) and not of the information carriers / Anton Dunzendorfer

  24. b) Survey of TIS Providers • questionnaire (e-mail, ...) • questions about the system (structure, tourism areas, selling possibilities, ...) to take care of: • information not directly from the information carriers • only view of system providers • maybe not the right person reached by the questionnaire • system providers probably would not give away too much information of their systems / Anton Dunzendorfer

  25. c) Survey of Tourism Experts • experts from all areas of tourism • nearly the level of information carriers • not so many people  also discussion possible to take care of: • high effort • difficult to create communication between the experts of different tourism domains • difficult to reach the experts / Anton Dunzendorfer

  26. d) Creating the Model Based on standards • analyse existing tourism standards • know-how of many peoples presented through a standard to take care of: • high effort • personal interpretation of analysing person • mostly ”big players” building standards too less care for SME’s interests • actually less standards out of less tourism areas are existing / Anton Dunzendorfer

  27. e) Survey of People of different tourism parties • information directly of the information carriers • without assistance of such organisations like EU not possible to take care of: • very high effort • difficult to reach persons of the different tourism areas and countries • quality of questionnaire may not be secured / Anton Dunzendorfer

  28. Domain Analysis - Conclusion • The best possibility seems to be: • c) survey of tourism experts  participants of the RMSIG • the results could partly be completed with: • a) analysing existing tis • d) filtering model out of existing standards advantages: • results in useful time • RMSIG exists of experts of different tourism domains and countries • Leaded group  infrastructure for a good communication • discussion is possible if needed • the work and know-how of existing standardisation initiatives and tis will be considered / Anton Dunzendorfer

  29. CRS Technology Corp. Sandro Pasquali Interactive Strategist / Sandro Pasquali

  30. Standardization Initiatives / Sandro Pasquali

  31. Virtual Community • Real-Time Chat • Threaded Message Boards • Discussion Scheduler • Online Surveys & Questionnaires • Document Repository Consensus Building For Open Standards Development / Sandro Pasquali

  32. Real-Time Chat • Expert Moderators • Scheduled Discussions • Guest Speakers / Sandro Pasquali

  33. Threaded Message Boards • Administrator-Lead Topics : • Accommodations • Places of Interest • Activities • Shopping • Events • Tours & Packages • Food & Drink • Transportation • Side Bar: • Free-Form Discussions / Sandro Pasquali

  34. Discussion Scheduler • Mailing List-Driven • Privacy Policy • Push Notification • Chat Topics & Discussions • Guest Interviews & Contributors • New Surveys & Questionnaires / Sandro Pasquali

  35. Surveys & Questionnaires • Tourism-Specific • Final Consensus on Tag Specification • Industry Processes • E-Commerce • Partnerships • Packages • Last-Minute Specials, etc. / Sandro Pasquali

  36. Document Repository • White Papers • Communiqués • Current Specification • Contributions • Current News & Events / Sandro Pasquali

  37. Participant Benefits • Product Exposure • Tutorials & Practice • Versions • Simplified Networking / Sandro Pasquali

  38. Discussion One open electronic tourism market • How will the future tourism market looklike?Will one open electronic tourismmarket evolve? • What are the intended implications?Which negative implications have to beavoided?

  39. Discussion (2) Past standardization initiatives • What are the basic drawbacks of paststandardization initiatives?For which reasons did past initiatives failthe objective of global interoperability? • Will openness and flexibility solve the problems of the past?

  40. Discussion (3) Methodology for harmonizing electronictourism markets • Will a common language and standardized building blocks enable participants to describe specific systems or services in a form understandable by other market participants?Is this approach likely to facilitate global interoperability? • Is the UML the right choice as language for modeling electronic tourism markets?Will the UML be accepted as modeling language by participants of the tourism domain?

  41. Discussion (4) Communication levels • Which communication mechanisms are relevant for the communication between participants of an electronic tourism market (XML, distributed objects,…)? • A communication based on distributed objects (e.g. CORBA) leads to a tighter coupling than the exchange of XML documents. Is the level of distributed objects necessary and meaningful within electronic tourism markets?

  42. Discussion (5) Process of harmonizing electronic tourism markets • Beside workshops and an accompanying email discussion, which activities would you expect to be done?What review activities would you suggest? • What techniques of domain analysis would you consider as meaningful and necessary? • analysis of existing tourism information systems • survey of tis providers • survey of tourism decision makers • create the model based on existing tourism standards • survey of different tourism parties (hoteliers, providers,tourists, event-organizers, ...)

  43. Outlook • second workshop • objective: discuss and commit methodology and process of the RMSIG • date: 05/06/2000 • location: Frankfurt (?) • next activities • discuss methodology • discuss project plan • prepare white paper

More Related