Browse Prior Art Database

Personalized search of B2B Repository based on minimal effort to reuse

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000249571D
Publication Date: 2017-Mar-03

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

Generally, the systems (cognitive and non-cognitive) developed to search repositories for artifacts that can be referenced or reused for creating new set of deliverables rank the artifacts based on certain parameters including but not limited to business/domain requirements, trading partner data and user requirements. These are either programmed, captured via a custom Graphical User Interface (GUI) and/or cognitive approach which further refines the ranking using some of the methods like clustering algorithm, user feedback etc. These systems throw up results which do not completely take into consideration the skill, experience, and historical contribution of the searcher in that context. The search results need to be “tempered” with these individual traits so that more reasonable suggestions can be made to the end user based on his/her need of artifacts which are in-line with their experience or the lack of it. This document intends to lay down the series of implementation steps which would not only describe the process based steps to narrow down the search based on the implementation skills of the user but also use the cognitive approach to traverse the last mile before the best possible matches can be ranked out in a way that is suitable to the needs of the human expert. The system provides recommendations in terms of an approach that can be taken by the humans to accomplish the job by helping the end user to pick up search results which provide artifacts that have implementation details which the user is lacking or looking for.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 37% of the total text.

1

Personalized search of B2B Repository based on minimal effort to reuse

Devices and Components - How it works

Figure 1 depicts the high-level flow diagram for the proposed approach. It shows the broad steps (generic approach) that need to be implemented to retrieve the required artifacts from the repository.

Figure 1

Figure 2 below depicts the steps specific to B2B mapping repository

2

Figure 2

Below is an example for implementation in B2B/EDI context

Repository A containig tags and Repository B containing buckets of tickets with respect to domain, standards and transactions

3

Ticket log for each implementor also containing feedback comments in reverse chronological order

Employ ee

Ticke t#

Date(YY/ MM/DD)

Comments

John Doe

1220 567

16/09/16 It was very quick turnaround. Thanks for your advice regarding SDQ usage which will help us to use multiple ship to locations in the same order.

2847 482

15/07/16 Thanks a ton !! We missed that PO number should only be numeric as agreed during specification building. All is fine now…

2049 493

12/01/15 Thanks for doing this real value change before time. You support regarding this x12 analysis is helpful

Marrie Konn

1209 484

16/12/16 Hey Marrie , thanks a lot. This explains very clearly the difference between CONTRL and APERAK. We can now easily decide.. Looks Great !!

4

2084 822

16/04/16 This was helpful. And it also explained how 997 works. Thanks for XML layout related feedback.

2030 333

15/04/16 This took a lot of time. It would have been great if we could get this correct soon. Marrie, please ensure that such requests do not take more time for implementation next time. Service not satisfactory. Map change delayed

2020 202

12/03/15 Thanks for pointing out the reason for this miss. You gap analysis was correct and inputs based on XML layout was spot on

Categorize tickets for predefined tasks, annotate each ticket for predefined skills. For each annotation, retrieve the numeric value of its importance

Tick et#

Type Seve rity

Problem Description Task Tag( s)

Skill Tag (value)

1220 567

New Message

2-Hig h

Need to create new map for 850. MRS provided

MD EDS(1), X12(2), MAP(3)

2847 482

Defect support

3-Crit ical

850 failed. PO number rejected by system. Please correct and resend as soon as possible

MC EDS(1), X12(2), MAP(3) ,BA(4)

2049 493

Defect support

1-Re gular

Many edifact orders have real values in 5 decimal places. We need to change them to 3 decimal places

MC EDS(1), X12(2), MAP(3) ,

1209 484

EDI guideline support

3-Crit ical

Does CONTRL message also throw up errors of business applications? If not, then how do we capture and send business application errors

SB EDS(1), EDF(2), BA(4)

2084 822

Data missing

3-Crit ical

Critical segment data missing for 997. Please analyze and respond fast as TP waiting for

EA EDS(1), X12(2), MAP(3)

5

acknowledgements ,GA(4),

2030 333

Defect support

3-Crit ical

PO date missing in order. Difficult to correlate invoices with orders sent.

EA EDS(1), X12(2), MAP(3) ,GA(4), ...