Developing a Logistics Ontology for Natural Language Processing
NIKOLETTA SAMARIDI1, EVANGELOS C. PAPAKITSOS2,*, MICHAIL PAPOUTSIDAKIS2,
MELINA MOUZALA3, NIKITAS N. KARANIKOLAS1
1Department of Informatics and Computer Engineering,
University of West Attica,
Egaleo, Athens 12243,
GREECE
2 Department of Industrial Design & Production Engineering,
University of West Attica,
Egaleo, Athens 12241,
GREECE
3 Department of Philosophy,
University of Patras,
Rio 26504,
GREECE
*Corresponding Author
Abstract: - The business area requires the presence of Supply Chain services, to respond to the constantly
evolving requirements. Supply chains are dynamic networks that include a continuous flow of processes,
starting with the supplier and ending with the customer. For effective supply chain management, a conceptual
understanding of the knowledge underlying this field is of utmost importance. On the other hand, ontologies are
considered one of the most appropriate ways of representing knowledge and valuable tools for decision-making
situations. The purpose of this paper is to present an ontology created to identify the common concepts of
supply chain management systems, with the ultimate goal of supporting and promoting Natural Language
Processing technologies through the representation of terminological knowledge for this specific field.
Key-Words: - Ontology, logistics, knowledge management, knowledge representation, Natural Language
Processing, computational lexicography.
Received: August 14, 2023. Revised: May 24, 2024. Accepted: July 11, 2024. Published: September 3, 2024.
1 Introduction
From the 1960s onwards, business activity has been
inextricably linked to the concept of Logistics [1],
whose role and importance have been expanded and
upgraded considering the development of business
research, the leapfrog development of technology,
and ever-increasing competition. In fact, in recent
decades, it has become increasingly clear that the
business area can no longer meet the ever-evolving
requirements without the presence of Supply Chain
(SC) services. As the role and the importance of
Logistics expands and upgrades and as the demands
for rapid movement of goods to serve consumers are
constantly increasing, the existence of a knowledge
system is also required, [2], [3], which will help
companies to conceptually understand the basic
structural elements of their supply chain, to achieve
the necessary efficiency and sustainability, the
market promotion, the profit growth and the
satisfaction of all the stakeholders.
On the other hand, in the last decades, research
in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Natural
Language Processing has focused on the
implementation of conceptually structured
Knowledge-Based Systems (KBS) that use
ontologies as a basis for the semantic integration of
information, due to the scientific certified usability
of the ontological structuring of data in the Semantic
Web, [4], [5]. Ontology, as a formal, explicit
specification of a shared conceptualization, that can
be exchanged between humans and application
systems [6], is considered one of the most
appropriate ways of representing linguistic
knowledge, as it allows it to be expressed in a
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
385
Volume 21, 2024
systematic way a wide range of semantic relations,
the safe use of which can lead to drawing inferences
[7]. Consequently, both the semantic and the
morpho-syntactic information contained within each
word can be encoded with great precision with the
help of ontologies, and, as a result, this method of
representing terminological knowledge can
contribute to meeting the modern requirements for
services of intelligent modeling, analysis and use of
online information [8], especially in the area of the
SC, where there is an absence of conceptual
schemes.
2 Description of the Problem
In [8], the authors, attempt to implement an
“intelligent” electronic conceptual dictionary of the
Modern Greek Language, which will be able to
constitute an expandable repository of knowledge
and information with possible applications in
various fields (linguistic and cross-linguistic
research, educational applications, interconnection
with other dictionaries and their enrichment, use for
improving search engines, etc.) and choose as its
basic domain the description of concepts related to
the field of industry, where, while the development
of ontological schemas was almost non-existent
during the previous decade [9], the last years (2022-
2023) have seen significant efforts to solve the
problem due to the ever-increasing demands. At the
same time, it is observed that the area of the SC is
characterized by insufficient engagement and a
complete absence of conceptual descriptions and
ontological representation of the concepts. The
search in the Hellenic Academic Libraries for
taxonomies and ontologies in the Greek language
related to this field did not return any results, in
contrast to the English language, for which thirty-six
(36) results were returned for taxonomies and one
hundred forty-one (141) results were returned for
ontologies. Regarding search terms, the terms:
“Εφοδιαστική”, “Εφοδιαστική Αλυσίδα”,
“Ταξινομία” and “Οντολογία” were used as
keywords for the Greek language and the terms
“Logistics”, “Supply Chain”, “Taxonomy and
“Ontology respectively were used for the English
language. Also, on the website of ELETO (Hellenic
Terminology Society) no glossary related to the
Supply Chain sector was found, although some
terms related to information technology and mainly
to the telecommunications standards of the SC are
found in the terminological bases INFORTERM and
TELETERM, respectively.
Supply Chain Management has become
increasingly difficult due to the development of
technology and the increase in the complexity of
interactions and flow mechanisms within its
structures, they deemed it necessary to specialize
their research and turn to conceptual models and
ontologies to identify the concepts and the semantic
relationships of supply chain networks. Thus, in this
paper, they present their attempt to design a new
ontology for the conceptual understanding of Supply
Chain Management, from which benefits will arise
in two scientific fields:
Supply Chain;
Computational Lexicography.
In other words, the new ontology will cover the
gap that exists in both of these areas, in conceptual
and mainly ontological forms of knowledge
representation, especially for the Greek language.
Therefore, it will contribute:
to occupy a key position for the lexical base
of the Greek Ontology Lexicon developed
by the authors in [8], which aims - through
the connection with hierarchical-ontological
relationships of the morphological,
syntactic, and semantic information of the
words and under the light of a standard and
standardized organization and coding of
data coming from structured and semi-
structured information sources - at the
extraction and production of sound
knowledge;
in the optimization of the operations circle
of the SC, to which the knowledge system
under development will lead through the
achievement of sound strategy and decision-
making that the semantic integration will
offer.
3 Modelling Supply Chain
As the authors in [10] point out, although there are
many definitions for the term “Supply Chain” in the
international literature, depending on the perspective
and the purpose of the research, all of them
converge in that the SC is a process that runs
through a flow of materials and a reverse flow of
information. In [11] it is argued that the SC is a
linked series of activities, a system whose
constituent parts include material suppliers,
production facilities, distribution services, and
customers linked together by the “forward” flow of
materials and the “backward” flow of information.
In particular, SC is an integrated process of
planning, applying, and controlling essential
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
386
Volume 21, 2024
processes [12], a network of connected entities [13]
that produces and adds value in the form of products
or services in the hands of the end consumer, [14],
[15], supporting him even after the sale of the
products to preserve them [16] (see: Green
Logistics, Reverse Logistics, Closed-loop Supply
Chain). Given the above, the goal of all companies
is sound and sustainable Supply Chain
Management, a subset of which is Logistics (various
opinions have been expressed regarding the
relationship between Supply Chain and Logistics;
for these opinions, [17], [18], which plans,
implements, and controls the efficient and effective
normal and reverse flow and storage of products,
services, and related information from point of
origin to point of consumption to meet requirements
of customers [19], who can create “value”
themselves, turning the Supply Chain into a
Demand Chain.
Since SC is an area that includes procurement
and purchasing management, materials and
production management, transportation
management, inventory and storage management,
distribution, and customer service, including in
recent years additional aspects of business activity
such as recycling, product life cycle, environmental
protection, and sustainability (in extended supply
chain networks), it is clear that it constitutes a
“value chain”, [20], that has been extended during
its completion into a “value network (value
network or value web), representing a new active
type of business model. According to [21], Supply
Chains are networks that consist of connected and
interdependent organizations that work together in a
collaborative climate to control, direct, and improve
the flow of materials and information from suppliers
to end users. Therefore, in the context of the
creation of a scheme of interpretation, modeling,
and simulation of this network called SC, which
way of representing and modeling it would be more
effective for analyzing its concepts and especially
the way they interact than an ontology, since the
latter is in essence, a semantic network that can
capture through nodes the relationships that exist
between the interdependent entities (processes,
activities, operations, etc.) of the Supply Chain.
Even though the choice of ontology as a
knowledge representation and modeling method is
obvious and justified due to its usefulness in the
wider field of knowledge representation, the
concerns raised at this stage of the research are
diverse and concern both the structure and the
content of the ontology. The first consideration
concerns whether existing ontologies that have been
developed in the field of SC should be extended or
whether a new ontology should be created from
scratch. The second consideration concerns the
decisions that need to be made, for example, about
which SC concepts should be approached for a
complete analysis of the field, which SC
components should be considered primary or
secondary, how these elements should be structured,
so that there is a more complete structure of the SC,
from which point of view the SC should be
approached as a unified whole, etc.
Certainly, the review of the relevant literature
contributed to the resolution of the above concerns.
The authors of this paper, starting the research for
the design of the new ontology, studied sixty-seven
(67) pre-existing ontologies (all in the English
language, in the absence of ontologies in Greek),
aiming at the unification of elements and the
integration of systems to optimize each field in
which the ontology will be used. In [10], they
concluded that the models that have been developed
for the SC are certainly an intersection in the effort
to model business operations and delineate a good
basis for businesses to engage in Logistics
processes, but they lack an adequate formulation of
appropriate semantics and terminology to describe
all the different functions of the SC. All work
related to SC ontology focuses on the organization
and structure of human knowledge about the supply
chain and not on understanding the reality of supply
chains, with the result that all the methodological
approaches adopted are far removed from the reality
of SC itself. The existing ontologies partially focus
on Logistics concepts (e.g., process, delivery, and
return), without any comprehensive view of the
entire field. Consequently, a static and limited
perspective on the supply chain field prevails, while
detailed analysis is found only at the strategic level,
[22]. The ontology’s content is reduced to simple
terminological problems [22], while at the same
time inconsistent and confusing terminology of the
ontology structures, as well as a lack of ontological
clarity, is observed. Finally, there is a lack of
integration of the existing ontologies, with the result
that each ontology describes the concepts
differently. This lack inevitably leads to
incompatible interpretations and uses of the
knowledge resulting from inter-company
transactions. Thus, the creation of a new ontology in
the field of SC, and in particular in internal logistics
where there is no completeness, responds to the
absence of a classified comprehensive presentation
of the basic concepts of the SC, while the necessity
of unifying and integrating all knowledge requires
the creating the ontology from scratch.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
387
Volume 21, 2024
4 A New Ontology
The ontology proposed in this paper is a supply
chain simulation ontology, the design of which was
a very demanding task, as intensive efforts,
thorough research, appropriate manipulations, and
various considerations were needed to make
decisions about the choice of modeling technique, in
order to render the exact image of the field. The
decisions made were shaped by the available
modeling techniques, which in turn required many
efforts to develop accurate models that would
achieve the intended use and its benefits. Precisely
because its use concerns a variety of domains and
functions, it bears the name Multi Solution
Ontology (MSO).
Based on the conclusions obtained from the
literature review, the authors of this paper modeled
the flow of materials and information within the
supply chain, capturing all its driving forces and
documenting their dynamic behavior. In particular,
they attempted to classify basic concepts from
various perspectives and investigated their scope
within the SC, trying to unify previous knowledge
and integrate most efficiently all the data of
previous ontologies. The presented ontology is
essentially an application ontology, because -
according to the division of ontologies based on [23]
- it provides the vocabulary for a domain, which is
none other than the SC, as well as a specific task
which is none other than logistics operations
covering a wide range of tasks.
4.1 Implementation Language and Tool
Regarding the language and its implementation tool,
both the literature review and the ontology
requirements drive the choice of the Protégé
platform and the ontology language OWL (Web
Ontology Language). As emphasized by the authors
in [8], Protégé is a widespread open-source tool that
has expressiveness, provides the ability to import-
export data in several languages (Flogic, Jess, OIL,
XML, RDF, PROLOG, OWL, etc.) as well as to
change the coding language, has an inference engine
and an interface for the SWRL (Semantic Web Rule
Language), which is a language that combines OWL
with RuleML [24], works with Description Logic
Reasoners to draw inferences, supports the
visualization of ontologies (via OntoViz and
OntoGraph), contains ontology libraries, and offers
capabilities to import, transfer, store and merge
ontologies (via Anchor-Prompt plugin) as well as
validity check (via FACT and PA1 plugins). It is a
tool with an easy-to-use and interactive graphical
environment that stands out for its scalability and
extensibility, it is constantly evolving and has new
software versions. Regarding the OWL language
[25], it is an easy-to-use language that has
expressiveness, supports semantic definitions and
logical inference mechanisms that allow the
production of knowledge that has not been explicitly
stated (implicit knowledge), as it offers a more
powerful syntax than RDF(S) and more powerful
logic-based semantics, and enables a range of
descriptive applications. Also, W3C (World Wide
Web Consortium) proposes OWL as an official
ontology language. Therefore, both the Protégé
platform and the OWL language are the most
appropriate means for implementing the ontology,
especially given that most of the ontology creators
reviewed for this task are the supporters of these
means, [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33],
[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].
4.2 Structure and Organization
Regarding the methodology for the design of the
ontology, the seven (7) steps proposed in [40] were
followed in the first phase, namely:
(1) The scope and the application domain of
the ontology are defined, as described
below in this paper.
(2) The SCOR model (Supply Chain
Operations Reference model) is one of the
most well-known business reference
models [41], [42], which provides
terminology and standardized procedures.
The SCOR model at the level of strategy is
based on five basic entities: (i) plan, (ii)
make, (iii) deliver, (iv) return, and (v)
source [10]. The possibility of reusing
already existing ontologies, especially
those based on the SCOR model and
having common points, was considered, but
without following such a solution, mainly
because the terms in the ontology will not
only be in English but also in Greek, which
adds one more reason to create a new
ontology from scratch.
(3) A list of the most important, common, and
widely used terms in the supply chain field
(simple and complex, Greek and English)
was created to be used in the ontology
(about 3,000). We derived these terms from
Greek and foreign literature but also from
Open Data in the Supply Chain area.
Regarding the terms that come from the
Greek literature, most of them come from
[43], while most open data terms come
from [44].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
388
Volume 21, 2024
(4) The classes and the hierarchy of the
classes, that is the entities, the objects, and
their hierarchy were defined with a
combination of bottom-up and top-down
approaches. Classes represent the concepts
related to a field or some tasks, which are
usually organized in some taxonomic
system. An entity is a thing that exists
either physically or logically. It can be a
physical object, such as a factory or a truck
(they exist physically), an event, such as a
sale of a product or a car service, or an
idea, such as a transaction or a customer
order (they exist logically - as a concept).
Entities of the physical world can in turn be
deconstructed into objects. Object is a
separate entity, which tries to model and
approach as best as possible the physical
world, [45].
(5) The relations between the objects, i.e., the
object’s properties, were defined.
(6) The characteristics of the object properties,
and the data properties (facets of slots),
were defined.
(7) Individual instances of classes in the
hierarchy were created and object property
assertions were added. Object or
relationship instances represent specific
elements with specific values. For example,
the object "company" can have as its
instances: “CompanyA”, “CompanyB”,
“CompanyC” etc.
At the same time, considerations were recorded
for (i) defining the rules and (ii) setting the defined
classes, which will be completed in the next phase
with the completion of the ontology.
In the first (1st) step, aiming to identify the
entities, the authors of this paper were inspired by
the questions raised by J. Zachman about the
enterprise architecture in the Zachman Framework,
[46]: “What?”, “How?”, “Who?”, “Where?”,
“When?”, and “Why?” and they tried to answer the
following indicative questions:
“What?”: What are the concepts
involved in the Supply Chain?
“How?”: How does the flow of
materials and information in the Supply
Chain take place? How are processes
carried out in the Supply Chain? How
will the business make money?
“Who?”: Who is involved in Supply
Chain activities? Who are the human
resources in the Supply Chain?
“Where?”: Where do the various
activities of the Supply Chain take
place?
“When?”: When (start and end time) do
the various activities of the Supply Chain
take place?
“Why?”: Why (with what motivation
and for what objective) has the Supply
Chain been created? Why is the
consumer willing to give money?
One of the ways to define the domain of
ontology is to outline a list of questions, which an
ontology-based knowledge base should be able to
answer. These questions are called Competency
Questions, [47]. Thus, based on the above questions,
they initially formulated the following indicative
“competency questions”:
(1) What is the domain that the ontology will
cover?
(2) Why will we use the ontology?
(3) What does the concept of “Supply Chain”
include?
(4) What is the concept of “Value” in the
Supply Chain?
(5) What does the concept of “Extended
Supply Chain” (Green Supply Chain,
Reverse Supply Chain, Closed Loop
Supply Chain) include?
(6) What is the importance of “Time” in the
Supply Chain?
(7) What types of “flows” do we distinguish in
the Supply Chain?
(8) What is the position of the “Product” in the
Supply Chain?
(9) What is the importance of Inventory” for
the Supply Chain?
(10) What is the importance of the “Order” for
the Supply Chain?
(11) What processes (activities, procedures,
operations) of the Supply Chain are related
to its flows?
(12) Which resources (natural, human,
financial, and technological) are required to
implement these processes?
(13) Who are the stakeholders involved in the
Supply Chain?
(14) How (means of transport, distribution
networks, etc.) will the goods be
transported from one location in the chain
to another?
(15) Which means of transport is best to use
and when? What will be the route and with
what load?
(16) How is the information used and what
systems are required? How much data
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
389
Volume 21, 2024
should be collected and how much should
be shared on-chain?
(17) Which management strategy for each type
of supply chain flow should be followed
depending on the prevailing circumstances?
(18) How should decisions be made at a
strategic, operational, and tactical level to
plan and execute processes at the various
stages of logistics (e.g., procurement,
production, transport, warehousing,
delivery, customer service)?
(19) Based on which indicators should the
control and the evaluation of the Supply
Chain be done?
(20) How will the environment be protected by
Supply Chain activities?
(21) What problems does the Supply Chain
face?
(22) What are the objectives of the Supply
Chain?
(23) Is it possible to integrate the Supply
Chain?
Of course, an ontologically defined knowledge
base cannot be described only by a list of questions
it can answer, but also by the questions it cannot
answer, and more precisely by the questions it has
difficulty answering (especially in supply chain
integration issues), the research will shed light on
them when it is completed and its results will be
evaluated in practice.
In continuation, considering that the above
questions should be answered, a new ontology was
designed focusing deeper and more detailed:
on the structural elements of SC, such as
the individual stages (procurement,
production, transport, warehousing,
delivery, customer service), the
processes, activities, operations,
procedures, and flows implemented
throughout its network, information
technologies, telecommunications, and
telematics, its actors, the strategy
followed at each stage, etc.;
in the way all these are connected to
each other.
Thus, in the fourth (4th) step, the basic classes
and the hierarchy of the classes, that is, the entities,
the objects, and their hierarchy, were defined with a
combination of bottom-up and top-down
approaches. More specifically, the basic classes of
the presented ontology are six (6): Supply Chain,
Flow, Product, Process, Stakeholders, and Purpose.
Their meaning and relationships are described
below, while the main entities and their
relationships are schematically shown in Figure 1
and Figure 2 in Appendix.
The “Supply Chain” entity is conceptually
linked to the “Supply Chain Management” entity,
which has as its sub-class the “Logistics” entity. The
latter has as its sub-classes the entities
“Warehousing” and “Transfer”. In addition, the
“Supply Chain” is associated with the “Process”
entity, as it is by definition a process, it is associated
with the “Flow” entity, as it implements the flow
within the SC network and, of course, it is
associated with the “Planning” entity, as it requires
proper design for its proper functioning. It is also
associated with the “Product” entity since the
product is a prerequisite for the existence of the SC
itself, as well as with the “Stakeholders” entity since
those involved in the various stages of the chain
carry out the processes that constitute it. Finally, the
“Supply Chain” entity is associated with the
“Purpose” entity, since the flow of the entire SC
satisfies a specific purpose.
The “Flow” entity is implemented by the
“Supply Chain” and, consequently, by the "Process"
that is performed, based on the “Product” (flow of
materials), directed by the “Stakeholders” in the SC
(through human resource flow) and its “Integration
of Flow Management” is a core “Purpose” of
Logistics. The “Flow” entity includes eight (8) sub-
classes: resource flow, time flow, material flow,
service flow, value flow, human resource flow,
information flow, and financial flow. Of course,
these flows are interdependent for the entire supply
chain system to function successfully.
The “Process” entity refers to the methodical
series of actions that lead to a certain result and are
performed in various stages by each involved
company. This entity that implements the “Flow”
entity is identified with the entity of “Value-added
Processes” (Figure 2 in Appendix) and has as its
sub-classes the “Activities” (i.e., the set of actions
of a group of people related to a specific field at a
time) and the “Procedures” (i.e., the process of
performing the set of operations) carried out for the
implementation of the movement of products from
the supplier to the consumer. It is also directly
related to the “Product” entity since this is its main
object, it is related to the “Stakeholders” entity since
they execute the processes, and it is the entity
through which the “Purpose” entity is implemented.
The “Product” entity refers to all the
information related to the design of the product, its
structure (each product has its parts and its special
characteristics), its cost, material information,
inspection data, durability (especially for perishable
products), technical support and maintenance
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
390
Volume 21, 2024
information and, more generally, the physical and
functional characteristics of the product. The
“Product” is the basic subject of the “Process” entity
and the “Supply Chain” entity is based on it, as
without it none of the other entities could exist.
The “Stakeholders” entity includes as a concept
all those involved in the SC. Thus, it has as its sub-
classes the entities: “supplier”, “manufacturer”,
“transporter”, “service provider/3PL”, “distributor”,
“trader”, and “customer”. All these entities, except
the “customer” entity, are sub-classes of the
“Partners” entity. The “Stakeholders entity is
conceptually linked to the “Process” entity, as
human resources carry out the processes.
Furthermore, this entity implements the “Human
Resource Flow”, manages the “Product” at each
stage, and leads to the achievement of the “Purpose”
of the SC.
The “Purpose” entity refers to the ultimate
purpose of the SC which is the upgrading of the
consumer's quality of life, which is achieved by
satisfying the customer, increasing profit, and
reducing costs. This entity is a sub-class of the
“Planning” entity, as they are the “Strategy”,
“Control” and Measures” entities. The “Purpose”
entity is linked to the “Integration of Flow
Management” entity, as through it - which is a
process - it can be achieved more easily. After all,
all processes lead to the fulfillment of the purpose of
Logistics.
It is worth noting that the main axis of data
modeling is the flows of the Supply Chain, which
are often treated in the literature as the fundamental
characteristics of its various stages. Based on the
flows, many researchers have tried to interpret,
model, or even simulate the operation of supply
chains in general. Thus, the upper entity in the
ontology is the “Flow” entity, which interacts with
all other entities. The complexity and variety of
relationships of the Flow entity with other entities
are captured in the Protégé platform graph in Figure
3 (Appendix). This minimal sample of the complex
relationships in Figure 3 (Appendix) demonstrates
that ontology as a knowledge representation model
is essentially a logically organized system, a set of
things, concepts or processes that are logically
interdependent, so that any change in one of them to
affect one or all of the others, and which form a
logically structured whole.
In other words, the set of entities (classes and
subclasses) that are linked based on specific rules to
their objects and to the instances of their objects,
which in turn are linked to their properties and the
characteristics of the object’s properties, i.e., the
data properties, is a system. However, the Supply
Chain is also a system, since suppliers,
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and customers
cooperate and are interdependent, while materials
flow from suppliers to customers and information
flows both ways. Therefore, it becomes clear that
one of the goals of the research is achieved, i.e., to
prove that Supply Chain as a system could not be
described and represented better than only through
an ontology.
4.3 Utility and Applications
The ontology described in this paper was created on
the occasion of the implementation of an electronic
Greek Ontology Dictionary (GOD). It is, that is, one
of the basic domains of a broader ontological
organization of concepts in the context of creating a
lexical database using the Protégé platform and the
OWL, [8]. However, it can be used as a tool for a
variety of functions in both Natural Language
Processing and Business. A guideline in its design
was the aim of the authors to create an ontology that
will be able to fulfill various purposes, hence the
name “Multi Solution Ontology”. Initially, it will
form the lexical database of GOD. At the same time,
as a core ontology, it can be used as a basis for
promoting communication (communication
purpose), and facilitating interoperability between
individuals and organizations that use different
standards. Individuals and organizations will benefit
from an integrated environment (integration
purpose) that will facilitate supply chain/logistics
services. Another one of its goals is to highlight the
role of ontology in creating value and competitive
advantage for businesses and, by extension, for the
overall SC system. With its use, optimization
mechanisms of SC and information flows will be
created with the presentation, classification, and
investigation of the established, but also the most
modern concepts. For example, in Figure 4
(Appendix), it is shown how the user of the
ontology is guided through a flow diagram to
perform the task of “refill picking area”. This means
that all supply chain processes are captured and
interpreted in such a way that the user is able not
only to understand them in natural language but also
to execute them properly, should he/she be called
upon to do so. In this context, it is also possible to
be some interactions between the ontology and SAP
(Systems, Applications, and Products) software,
which provides solutions for business accounting,
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Supply Chain
Management (SCM), human resources, and other
business processes and it is widespread worldwide,
especially in Jordan, where it is used by 21
enterprises out of 56, [48]. The results of these
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
391
Volume 21, 2024
interactions would be very useful since the ontology
can be used to understand and describe the data
structure used in applications such as SAP.
In addition, given that this ontology has
considered the three main factors that currently form
the structure of the Supply Chain:
the customer-centric philosophy of
businesses;
the IT and telecommunications technology;
the protection of the consumer and the
environment, can contribute to the building
and efficient operation of a value-added
“integrated supply chain”, which is the key
to obtaining a strategic sustainable
competitive advantage.
It can also be used as a basis for engineering
purposes, providing support for the development of
software solutions such as WMS or TMS used in
logistics to manage the storage or transportation
activities that characterize chain supply.
5 Conclusion Future approaches
The authors of this paper, aiming to capture and
represent key concepts of the Supply Chain,
implemented an ontology from scratch, intending to
be effective and efficient as well as having clarity
and objectivity, completeness and coherence
(coherence). The effectiveness of the ontology in
representing SCM concepts will be evaluated in the
future. This also entails comparing the ontology
against existing frameworks and conducting
experiments that will include testing the ontology in
simulated supply chain scenarios or real-world
applications to assess its effectiveness in modeling
and simulating supply chain processes. Furthermore,
the main concern of the authors from now on will be
to make this ontology a valuable tool for decision-
making situations in the Supply Chain. Business
intelligence methods and processes will become
objects of research to design systematic decision-
making processes (decision trees) for the supply
chain as if they were control rules for dynamic
systems. During the operation phase of the system
as a Decision Support System, the problem elements
can be entered by the user, and then the answer can
be given through a mechanism of logical questions
(Description Logic Query), which will be supported
by the presented ontology. To complete such a
system, a tool/method will be created that will
derive terminology and inference rules from open
data or big data in the SC area, to ensure
completeness in terms and inference rules. This tool,
of course, can be generalized for other ontologies as
well as used for other forms of Natural Language
Processing, always in relation to the requirements
and results of the research. Undoubtedly, this
ontology can be a valuable tool for professionals,
researchers, and educators, as it will be able to be
extended, modified, and even replaced. Also,
research will continue to improve the ontology and
explore additional applications, such as machine
learning or predictive analytics. The new Supply
Chain ontology can be used to improve the
performance and coherence of systems in the field
of Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural
Language Generation (NLG,) and Large Language
Models (LLM), enhancing understanding and
production of natural language through structured
representation of terms and relationships between
them, categorization and classification of data or
feature extraction. Consequently, this ontology can
make these models more efficient and applicable in
practical situations. In any case, it is certain that the
aim of the authors is for the “Multi Solution
Ontology” to be a good initial basis for research,
study, and practice in every field of Natural
Language Processing and always with the
perspective of further investigation of possible
parameters that will contribute to its improvement.
References:
[1] A. Rushton, and J. Oxley, Handbook of
Logistics and Distribution Management.
London: Kogan Page, 1998.
[2] Marra M, Ho W, Edwards JS (2012) Supply
chain knowledge management: A literature
review. Expert Systems with Applications,
vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6103-6110. DOI:
10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.035.
[3] Samuel KE, Goury M-L, Gunasekaranand A,
Spalanzani A (2011) Knowledge
management in supply chain: An empirical
study from France. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 283-
306. doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.11.001.
[4] G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, A.
Poggi, and R. Rosati, “Using Ontologies for
Semantic Data Integration,” in A
Comprehensive Guide Through the Italian
Database Research Over the Last 25 Years.
Studies in Big Data, S. Flesca, S. Greco, E.
Masciari and D. Saccà, Eds. Cham: Springer,
2018, vol. 31, pp. 187-202, DOI:
10.1007/978-3-319-61893-7_11.
[5] Sheraz Anjum M, Munir K (2018) The use of
ontologies for effective knowledge
modelling and information retrieval. Applied
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
392
Volume 21, 2024
Computing and Informatics, vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 116-126.
doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2017.07.003.
[6] T.R. Gruber, “A Translation Approach to
Portable Ontology Specification,”
Knowledge Acquisition, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
199-220, 1993, DOI:
10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
[7] N. Samaridi, N. Karanikolas, and E.
Papakitsos, “Lexicographic Environments in
Natural Language Processing (NLP),” in PCI
2020: Proceedings of the 24th Pan-Hellenic
Conference on Informatics, New York,
Association for Computing Machinery, 2020,
pp. 219–222. DOI:
10.1145/3437120.3437310.
[8] N. Samaridi, N. Karanikolas, and E.
Papakitsos, “Designing a Greek Electronic
Dictionary based on Ontology,” in PCI 2020:
Proceedings of the 24th Pan-Hellenic
Conference on Informatics, New York,
Association for Computing Machinery, 2020,
pp. 223–225. DOI:
10.1145/3437120.3437311.
[9] G. Stavroulas, “Object-Oriented
Methodology and Tools for the Integration of
Structured and Semi-Structured Information
Using Ontologies” (Αντικειµενοστραφής
Μεθοδολογία και Εργαλεία για την
Ολοκλήρωση ∆οµηµένης και Ηµι-
∆οµηµένης Πληροφορίας µε Χρήση
Οντολογιών), PhD thesis, National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2016
(in Greek).
[10] N.E. Samaridi, N.N. Karanikolas, M.
Papoutsidakis, E.C. Papakitsos, and C.E.
Papakitsos, “A survey on supply chain
ontologies,” International Journal of
Production Management and Engineering,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 89-101, 2023, DOI:
10.4995/ijpme.2023.18702.
[11] G.C. Stevens, “Integrating the Supply
Chain,” International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Materials Management, vol.
19, pp. 3-8, 1989, DOI:
10.1108/EUM0000000000329.
[12] D.M. Lambert, “The Eight Essential Supply
Chain Management Processes,” Supply
Chain Management Review, vol. 8, no. 6, pp.
18-26, 2004.
[13] C. M. Harland, R. C. Lamming, J. Zheng,
and T. E. Johnsen, “A Taxonomy of Supply
Networks,” Journal of Supply Chain
Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 21-27, 2001,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2001.tb00109.x.
[14] M. Christopher, Logistics and Supply Chain
Management. London: Pitman Publishing,
1992.
[15] J. T. Mentzer, W. DeWitt, J. S. Keebler, S.
Min, N. W. Nix, C. D. Smith, and Z. G.
Zacharia, “Defining Supply Chain
Management,” Journal of Business Logistics,
vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1-25, 2001, DOI:
10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x.
[16] V. A. Marbert, and M. A. Venkataramanan,
“Special Research Focus on Supply Chain
Linkages: Challenges for Design and
Management in the 21st Century,” Decision
Sciences, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 537-551, 1998,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01353.x.
[17] P.D. Larson, and A. Halldorsson, “Logistics
versus supply chain management: An
international survey,” International Journal
of Logistics Research and Applications, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2004, DOI:
10.1080/13675560310001619240.
[18] Hellenic Logistics Society, [Online].
http://logistics.org.gr (Accessed Date: April
1, 2023).
[19] Council of Logistics Management, [Online].
http://www.clm1.org (Accessed Date: April
1, 2023).
[20] M.E. Porter, Competitive Advantage:
Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. New York: Collier Macmillan,
1985.
[21] J. Aitken, “Supplier associations, a
methodological opportunity in supply chain
research,” in Proceedings of the 8th
International Purchasing and Supply
Education and Research
Association (IPSERA) Conference, Belfast
and Dublin, United Kingdom and Ireland,
1999, pp. 13-21.
[22] Τ. Grubic, and I.-S. Fan, “Supply chain
ontology: Review, analysis and synthesis,”
Computers in Industry, vol. 61, no. 8, pp.
776-786, 2010, DOI:
10.1016/j.compind.2010.05.006.
[23] N. Guarino, “Formal Ontology in
Information Systems,” in FOIS’98:
Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Formal Ontology in
Information Systems, Amsterdam, IOS Press,
1998, pp. 3-15.
[24] I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley,
S. Tabet, B. Grosof, and M. Dean. “SWRL:
A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining
OWL and RuleM”, [Online].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
393
Volume 21, 2024
http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
(Accessed Date: April 1, 2023).
[25] N. McGuinness, and F. Van Harmelen.
“OWL Web Ontology Language Overview”,
[Online]. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-
features/ (Accessed Date: April 1, 2023).
[26] N. Anand, M. Yang, J. H. R. Van Duin, and
L. Tavasszy, “Genclon: An ontology for city
logistics,” Expert Systems with Applications:
An International Journal, vol. 39, no. 15, pp.
11944–11960, 2012, DOI:
10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.068.
[27] M. Fayez, L. Rabelo, and M. Mollaghasemi,
“Ontologies for Supply Chain Simulation
Modeling,” in 37th Winter Simulation
Conference, Orlando, FL, IEEE Computer
Society, 2005, pp. 2364-70. DOI:
10.1109/WSC.2005.1574527.
[28] M. Glöckner, and A. Ludwig, “Ontological
structuring of logistics services,” in WI '17:
Proceedings of the International Conference
on Web Intelligence, New York, Association
for Computing Machinery, 2017, pp. 146-53.
DOI: 10.1145/3106426.3106538.
[29] H. Kumar, and P. Park, “Know-ont: a
knowledge ontology for an enterprise in an
industrial domain,” International Journal of
Database Theory and Application, vol. 3, no.
1, pp. 23-32, 2010.
[30] S. Lemaignan, A. Siadat, J.-Y. Dantan, and
A. Semenenko, “MASON: A proposal for an
ontology of manufacturing domain,” in IEEE
Workshop on Distributed Intelligent Systems:
Collective Intelligence and Its Applications
(DIS'06), 2006, pp. 195-200. DOI:
10.1109/DIS.2006.48.
[31] J. Leukel, and S. Kirn, “A supply chain
management approach to logistics ontologies
in information systems,” in Business
Information Systems, Lecture Notes in
Business Information Processing, W.
Abramowicz and D. Fensel, Eds. Berlin:
Springer, 2008, vol. 7, pp. 95–105, DOI:
10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_9.
[32] Y. Lu, H. Panetto, Y. Ni, and X. Gu,
“Ontology alignment for networked
enterprise information system
interoperability in supply chain
environment,” International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 26,
no. 1-2, pp. 1-12, 2012, DOI:
10.1080/0951192X.2012.681917.
[33] O. Sakka, P-A. Millet, and V. Botta-
Genoulaz, “An OWL Based Ontology of
SCOR Model: A Prerequisite for Strategic
Alignment,” in 8th International Conference
of Modeling and Simulation (MOSIM’10),
Hammamet, Tunisia, 2010.
[34] O. Sakka, P-A. Millet, and V. Botta-
Genoulaz, “An ontological approach for
strategic alignment: A supply chain
operations reference case study,”
International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 24, no. 11,
pp. 1022-1037, 2011, DOI:
10.1080/0951192X.2011.575798.
[35] A. Scheuermann, and J. Hoxha, “Ontologies
for intelligent provision of logistics
services,” in ICIW'12: Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Internet and
Web Applications and Services, Stuttgart,
2012, pp. 106-111.
[36] S. Sivamani, K. Kwak, and Y. Cho, “A
Study on Intelligent User-Centric Logistics
Service Model Using Ontology,” Journal of
Applied Mathematics, vol. 2014, no. 1, pp. 1-
10, 2014, DOI: 10.1155/2014/162838.
[37] S. Ureten, and H. K. Ilter, “Supply Chain
Management Ontology: Towards an
Ontology-Based SCM Model,” in
Proceedings of the 3rd International
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Congress, Dzmir, Turkey, 2007, pp. 741-
749. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2319.6169.
[38] L. Yiqing, L. Lu, and L. Chen, “Decision-
making for supplier selection based on
ontology and rules,” in ICICTA 2009:
Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Intelligent Computing
Technology and Automation, Changsha,
China, IEEE Publisher, 2009, pp. 176-179.
DOI: 10.1109/ICICTA.2009.759.
[39] M. Zdravković, H. Panetto, and M.
Trajanović, “Towards an Approach for
Formalizing the Supply Chain Operations,”
in I-SEMANTICS '10: Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Semantic
Systems, New York, Association for
Computing Machinery, 2010, pp. 1–5. DOI:
10.1145/1839707.1839732.
[40] N. Noy, and D. L. McGuinness. Knowledge
Systems Laboratory Stanford University, and
SMI-2001-0880, Stanford Medical
Informatics. “Ontology Development 101: A
Guide to Creating Your First Ontology,
KSL-01-05”, [Online].
https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/onto
logy_development/ontology101.pdf
(Accessed Date: April 1, 2023).
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
394
Volume 21, 2024
[41] S. H. Huang, S. K. Sheoran, and H. Keskar,
“Computer-assisted supply chain
configuration based on supply chain
operations reference (SCOR) model,”
Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol.
48, no. 2, pp. 377-394, 2005, DOI:
10.1016/j.cie.2005.01.001.
[42] A. Roder, and B. Tibken, “A methodology
for modeling inter-company supply chains
and for evaluating a method of integrated
product and process documentation,
European Journal of Operational Research,
vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 1010–1029, 2006, DOI:
10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.006.
[43] G. Malindretos, Supply chain, logistics and
customer service [Εφοδιαστική αλυσίδα,
logistics και εξυπηρέτηση πελατών]. Athens:
Kallipos, Association of Greek Academic
Libraries, 2015 (in Greek).
[44] Supply Chain Companies. “Logistics
Dictionary”, [Online]. https://supplychain.gr/
(Accessed Date: July 19, 2024).
[45] G. P. Copeland, and S. N. Khoshafian,
“Identity and Versions for Complex
Objects,” in OODS '86: Proceedings on the
1986 international workshop on Object-
oriented database systems, Washington, DC,
IEEE Computer Society Press, 1986. DOI:
10.1145/315891.315913.
[46] J. A. Zachman, “A framework for
information systems architecture,” IBM
System Journal, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 276–292,
1987, DOI: 10.1147/sj.263.0276.
[47] M. Grϋninger, and M. S. Fox,
“Methodology for the Design and Evaluation
of Ontologies,” in IJCAI-95: Proceedings of
the Fourteenth International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in
Knowledge Sharing, Montreal, San
Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers, 1995.
[48] Ahmad Y. A., Bani Ahmad, Firm
Determinants that Influences Implementation
of Accounting Technologies in Business
Organizations, WSEAS Transactions on
Business and Economics, vol. 21, pp. 1-11,
2024,
https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2024.21.1.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed to the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
395
Volume 21, 2024
APPENDIX
Fig. 1: Snapshot from the SC ontology described in this paper: The main entities (enclosed within elliptical
shapes) and the relationships between them (shown by arrows). The different color of the arrows indicates the
variety of relationships
Fig. 2: The relationships of the “Process” entity (at the center of the graph) with the rest of the basic entities
(Product, Supply_Chain, Purpose, Flow, Stakeholders), as they are captured in the Protégé (Ontograf) platform
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
396
Volume 21, 2024
Fig. 3: Screenshot from the Protégé platform showing a sample of the multitude of relationships developed
between the six basic entities of the ontology, with the “Flow” entity at the center
Fig. 4: Diagrammatic representation and interpretation of the "refill picking area" concept in the new ontology
of the Supply Chain
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on INFORMATION SCIENCE and APPLICATIONS
DOI: 10.37394/23209.2024.21.36
Nikoletta Samaridi, Evangelos C. Papakitsos,
Michail Papoutsidakis,
Melina Mouzala, Nikitas N. Karanikolas
E-ISSN: 2224-3402
397
Volume 21, 2024