Within the transport and logistics sector there are many stakeholders that take different roles in the informational value chain[1]. The so-called Common Framework^[2], aiming to support interoperability between ICT systems in logistics, provides a basis for discussion ICT applications and related semantic (i.e., content-related) standards in the transport and logistics sector. The Common Framework divides the sector into four domains, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Transport and Logistis Domains

This division in domains provides the basis for discussing needed improvements.

ICT Interoperability issues are well known and various standardisation organisations promote standards for information exchange in the transport sector: UN/CEFACT, OASIS/UBL, GS1, ISO etc. The initiative taken by GS1 to develop new standards is an indication that the industry is not satisfied with current state of affairs. Key elements of the Common Framework are part of the UBL version 2.1. A link is being established between the Common Framework and the GS1 Logistics Interoperability.

The current standards are conventional from the fact that they are providing specifications and implementation guidelines. The recent specifications motivate the use of XML. No semantic technologies are referred to in the current standardisation activities.

Overall, there is a need to push further the current standardisation initiatives. All the key elements in the Common Framework are becoming part of the UBL 2.1 standard. However, for the Common Framework to become a truly global standard, it needs to be accepted and adopted also by CEN, UN/CEFACT, ISO and Asia Pacific initiatives (under APEC[1]).

On the logistics demand side, the Transport Service definition in the Common Framework facilitates that each service provider will be given the responsibility for publishing information about services. Hence, the default will be that there is no “common platform” where all services are available. For example, the Amadeus system is such a common platform for air transport. To enable automatic composition of logistic chains, the level of precision needed to describe the end points of logistics services needs to be investigated properly. This is important to ensure that the resulting chain is smooth and continuous.

Breaking down the domain Logistics Supply in Figure 1, the result is as shown in Figure 2. Vehicle manufacturers have vehicle specific information, cargo owners have cargo specific information, freight operators have route and operation information, and traffic managers have traffic and infrastructure condition information related to the different transport modes. In each of these domains a lot of valuable information is collected and managed. However, it is when information from different domains are combined that real value is generated for inter-modal freight transport. The underlying challenge is here to align semantic standards across domains, namely both ensure inter- and intra-domain openness for mutual information exchange and benefit. In this area, short- and medium-term actions should be aimed at improving transport operations management through better integration of transport service data with:

• on the one side, information collected for vehicle control and support by vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure platforms that are currently available in the Cooperative Systems domain,

• and, on the other side, transport handling unit information, made available through Intelligent Cargo platforms as introduced by the EURIDICE integrated project.

             Figure 2 - Logitics Supply Details          Figure 3 - Transportation Network Management

One way of breaking down the domain Transportation Network management is shown in Figure 3. In this field mode-oriented initiatives prevail. With reference to Figure 1, initiatives in the area of “Transport Network Management” have been taken some time back, and there are now Directives guiding:

• ITS (road and interfaces to other modes),
• TAF/TSI (rail),
• RIS (River Information Services for Inland Waterway Transport).

eMaritime has been defined as an initiative, and it is about to be developed (in the wake of the EU funded projects MarNIS and SKEMA). Even in this area, actions should be aimed at bridging information across the different mode-specific domains, to support management of entire co-modal freight corridors.

In the table below, actions related to semantic standards for cross-domain information exchange in transport logistics are outlined. Standards in the individual domain areas are considered to be quite mature. Therefore, limited R&D work should be required, with a target of having by 2013 harmonised common-denominator definitions across the different domains, so as to ensure that core information e.g., on cargo, vehicle and transport service can be easily exchanged between one domain and another. In parallel, and with a target horizon up to 2015, convincing pilots should be realised building on the know-how and technologies developed in the last decade to support interoperability of logistics ICT systems. In parallel, substantial effort should be devoted to marketing and lobbying activities aimed at standards formalisation and market take-up, involving major users and technology provider companies.

[2] Pedersen JT, Paganelli P, Knoors F (2010): One common framework for information and communication systems in transport and logistics.

[3] Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation