Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
88 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION • if the property targetRole (ar ′ ) of a g is related to an Actor-role (ar) involved in av: ∃(ar ′ )targeRole(g, ar ′ ) ∧ ar ′ = ar ⊃ hasActor − role(av, ar) (d) • if the targetConstraint (c ′ ) expressed in a g is involved in (involvedIn) pre- Condition (pre), postCondition (post) or Exception (e) of av: ∃(c ′ , pre, post, e)targetConstraint(g, c ′ ) ∧ (involvedIn(c ′ , pre) ⊃ hasPrecondition(av, pre) ∨ involvedIn(c ′ , post) ⊃ hasPostcondition(av, post) ∨ involvedIn(c ′ , e) ⊃ hasException(av, e)) (e) Therefore, (a) ≡ (b) ∨ (c) ∨ (d) ∨ (e) Those definitions denote how an activity might be associated with a goal by specifying the facts of an activity that might affect a goal. Checking above cases through matching algorithms can automatically provide a list of possible goal annotations. The decisions of the desired goal annotations are left to the annotators. We hereby call such a mechanism semi-automatic goal annotation. Definition 11. A goal ontology (G) comprises a set of hard goals G h and a set of soft goals G s . G = {G h , G s } The relations are further specified based on the context of the process models and the goal ontology. We define the relations as follows: Definition 12. Hard goals can be achieved by an activity or activities. I.e. the relation between an activity (av) and a hard goal (g h ) is achieves(av, g h ). Definition 13. Soft goals can be positively or negatively satisfied by an activity or activities. I.e. the relation between an activity (av) and a soft goal (g s ) is positively_satisfies(av, g s ) or negatively_satisfies(av, g s ). Since the activities in the process models are decomposable, the relation between goals and a composite activity could be inferred based on the relations between goals and component activities. Definition 14. If an activity (av) is a component of another activity (av ∆ ) in a process model/model fragment, av is the subactivity of av ∆ , i.e. subActivityOf(av, av ∆ ). av ∆ is a Composite Activity in that model. Usually the effects of hard goals achieved by a subActivity can contribute to its composite activity. That is, Definition 15. If av is the subactivity of av ∆ and av achieves g h , av ∆ achieves g h : (∀(av, g h )∃av ∆ )subActivityO f(av, av ∆ ) ∧ achieves(av, g h ) −→ achieves(av ∆ , g h )
5.4. PSAM WITH GOAL ANNOTATION 89 However, the effects of soft goals can not be simply passed in the same way as hard goals. To a composite activity, the contribution of a soft goal from a subactivity might be enhanced or reduced by other subactivities which positively or negatively satisfy the same soft goal. The contribution could be calculated if the effects of soft goals are quantified. This issue is only simply considered in our current work by simple contribution calculation rules. All effects of soft goals are regarded as the same. The contribution of a soft goal to a composite activity is determined by comparing the numbers of subactivities which positively satisfy and negatively satisfy the same soft goal. That is, Definition 16. Let a g s is positively satisfied by N subactivities, and is negatively satisfied by M subactivities in a composite activity av ′ . Consequently, • positively_satisfies (av ′ , g s ), if N > M • the effect of g s is counteracted for av ′ , if N = M • negatively_satisfies (av ′ , g s ), if N < M The relations between goals and activities defined in this section will be applied to build annotation links between the goal ontology and process models in the goal annotation. That is to say, the metadata schema of the goal annotation for process models is: ActivityID achieves|positively satisfies|negatively satisfies GoalID 5.4 PSAM with Goal Annotation With goal annotation in the semantic annotation framework, the PSAM includes the references of the goal ontology. PSAM = (AV, AR, AF, WP, I, O, Θ pre , Θ pos E, PD, PG), where PG is a subset of goal ontology (G). The annotated activity is also updated as follows and the complete PSAM can be represented in OWL (see Appendix G.1). Definition 17. AV i = (id, model_f ragment, name, alternative_name, has_Actor − role, has_Arti f act, has_Input, has_Output, is_in_Work f lowPattern_o f , has_Precondition, has_Postcondition, has_Exception, has_subActivity, same_as, di f f erent_f rom, kind_o f , superConcept_o f , phase_o f , compositionConcept_o f , instance_o f , achieves|positively_satis f ies|negatively_satis f ies)
- Page 57 and 58: Table 3.1: Modeling constructs of d
- Page 59 and 60: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- Page 61 and 62: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- Page 63 and 64: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- Page 65 and 66: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- Page 67 and 68: Representation primitives Process P
- Page 69 and 70: 3.3. GOAL MODELING 49 From the surv
- Page 71 and 72: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 73 and 74: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 75 and 76: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 77 and 78: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 79 and 80: 3.6. SUMMARY 59 In the goal modelin
- Page 81: Part II Design and Application 61
- Page 84 and 85: 64 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 86 and 87: 66 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 88 and 89: 68 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 90 and 91: 70 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 92 and 93: 72 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 94 and 95: 74 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 96 and 97: 76 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 98 and 99: 78 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 100 and 101: 80 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 102 and 103: 82 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 104 and 105: 84 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION proce
- Page 106 and 107: 86 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION in a
- Page 110 and 111: 90 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION 5.5 G
- Page 112 and 113: 92 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION
- Page 114 and 115: 94 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SEM
- Page 116 and 117: 96 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SEM
- Page 118 and 119: 98 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SEM
- Page 120 and 121: 100 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SE
- Page 122 and 123: 102 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SE
- Page 124 and 125: 104 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 126 and 127: 106 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 128 and 129: 108 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 130 and 131: 110 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 132 and 133: 112 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 134 and 135: 114 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 136 and 137: 116 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 138 and 139: 118 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 140 and 141: 120 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 142 and 143: 122 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 144 and 145: 124 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 146 and 147: 126 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 149 and 150: Chapter 8 Quality Evaluation of the
- Page 151 and 152: 8.2. SETTING FOR THE QUALITY EVALUA
- Page 153 and 154: 8.2. SETTING FOR THE QUALITY EVALUA
- Page 155 and 156: 8.3. QUALITY ANALYSIS 135 to those
- Page 157 and 158: 8.3. QUALITY ANALYSIS 137 annotatio
5.4. PSAM WITH GOAL ANNOTATION 89<br />
However, the effects <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t goals can not be simply passed in the same way as hard<br />
goals. To a composite activity, the contribution <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>of</strong>t goal from a subactivity might<br />
be enhanced or reduced by other subactivities which positively or negatively satisfy<br />
the same s<strong>of</strong>t goal. The contribution could be calculated if the effects <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t goals<br />
are quantified. This issue is only simply considered in our current work by simple<br />
contribution calculation rules. All effects <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t goals are regarded as the same.<br />
The contribution <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>of</strong>t goal to a composite activity is determined by comparing the<br />
numbers <strong>of</strong> subactivities which positively satisfy and negatively satisfy the same s<strong>of</strong>t<br />
goal. That is,<br />
Definition 16. Let a g s is positively satisfied by N subactivities, and is negatively<br />
satisfied by M subactivities in a composite activity av ′ . Consequently,<br />
• positively_satisfies (av ′ , g s ), if N > M<br />
• the effect <strong>of</strong> g s is counteracted <strong>for</strong> av ′ , if N = M<br />
• negatively_satisfies (av ′ , g s ), if N < M<br />
The relations between goals and activities defined in this section will be applied to<br />
build annotation links between the goal ontology and process models in the goal annotation.<br />
That is to say, the metadata schema <strong>of</strong> the goal annotation <strong>for</strong> process models is:<br />
ActivityID<br />
achieves|positively satisfies|negatively satisfies<br />
GoalID<br />
5.4 PSAM with Goal <strong>Annotation</strong><br />
With goal annotation in the semantic annotation framework, the PSAM includes the<br />
references <strong>of</strong> the goal ontology.<br />
PSAM = (AV, AR, AF, WP, I, O, Θ pre , Θ pos E, PD, PG), where PG is a subset <strong>of</strong> goal<br />
ontology (G).<br />
The annotated activity is also updated as follows and the complete PSAM can be<br />
represented in OWL (see Appendix G.1).<br />
Definition 17. AV i = (id, model_f ragment, name, alternative_name, has_Actor − role,<br />
has_Arti f act, has_Input, has_Output, is_in_Work f lowPattern_o f ,<br />
has_Precondition, has_Postcondition, has_Exception, has_subActivity, same_as,<br />
di f f erent_f rom, kind_o f , superConcept_o f , phase_o f , compositionConcept_o f ,<br />
instance_o f , achieves|positively_satis f ies|negatively_satis f ies)
Change language