Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
150 CHAPTER 9. VALIDATION OF APPLICABILITY RE3. For RE4, we have to run the SWRL rules of RE1, RE2 and RE3 on different models respectively and analyze all query results manually. For example, implementing RE4.1 (Find out semantic relationships between the Activities of different process models) needs the SWRL rules QRule-Activity-sameas, QRule-Activity-kindof and QRule-Activity-phaseof for RE2.1 (Find the model fragments of process models that reference to SCOR Management Process). In this application, those rules are run on all the three models, and SCOR Management Processes in the domain ontology are used as the common references (which are specified in the variables in the SWRL rule formulations) to analyze the relationships between the query results of three models. The relationships usually applied in the analysis are ontological relations such as OWL Class subsumption, OWL Class equivalent, ObjectProperty part-whole relationship and etc. To implement RE4.5 (Find out possible integration points among different process models), we consider the following integration cases by running related SWRL queries and rules for the above requirements. • Case 1. Output and input. If the outputs in one model can be mapped to the inputs in another model, then it is possible to integrate the two models through the outputs and the inputs. QRule-Activity-Output-mappedto and QRule- Activity-Input-mappedto are run on three models respectively. The variable of ontology concept ?z can be replaced by a specific domain concept. • Case 2. Sequence of activities. If the Activities from the three annotation models that have references of the SCOR process elements, then a possible integration of those Activities from different models can be checked according to the sequence definition in SCOR ontology. SWRL queries for RE2.1 (Find the model fragments of process models that reference to SCOR Management Process) can be run in this case, and the variable ?y is specified with a SCOR process element in each query. • Case 3. Semantic relationship of activities. If two Activities from different models have certain semantic relationships with each other according to the domain annotation, then there is a possibility for two Activities to be integrated through the relationships. The SWRL queries for RE2.1 (Find the model fragments of process models that reference to SCOR Management Process) can also be used in this case, and the annotation relationships such as same_as, kind_of and phase_of should be concerned in the integration analysis. • Case 4. Ontological relationship of goals. If two Activities from different models are annotated with the goals and the goals are same or have certain ontological relationships, the possible integration of two models can be analyzed based on the goal annotation. Goal concept is specified to replace the ontology concept variable ?y in the queries QRule- Activity-achievesHardGoal, QRule-Activity-positivelysatisfiesSoftGoal and QRule-Activity-negativelysatisfiesSoftGoal. Through the ontological relationship has_parts or rdfs:subClassOf, the parts or the sub-class of this goal are also specified to replace ?y respectively in the queries. The SWRL queries and rules above are edited in Protégé-OWL SWRLTab (see Figure 9.1). They are attached to all the OWL files of the annotation models and will
9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN INTEGRATION APPLICATION 151 be executed on those OWL instances for the evaluation. Section G.2 of Appendix G presents a SWRL file of above queries and rules . Figure 9.1: The SWRL rules in Protege-OWL SWRLTab 9.3 Applicability Validation in an Integration Application The SWRL formulations for requirements are applied in the exemplar studies to validate the applicability of the proposed annotation approach. The validation is described by an application for integrating delivery process from enterprise A and B. The procedure of the implementation of this application is also the procedure of the validation. The following steps have been undertaken for the integration application. In each step, some query questions are described by the application user, and the query questions are then inferred and answered by executing corresponding SWRL rules of the formalized requirements. Results are then analyzed and adjusted based on the semantic relationships of ontologies and models: • Step 1. Set application goals and get goal-relevant model fragments. Running QRule-Activity-achievesHardGoal for RE2.4 (Find the model fragments of process models that reference to SCOR Goal) to find process model fragments achieving the integration goals. Query Question: Find model fragments from the PM A , PM B1 and PM B2 which have impact on the goals "Delivery_is_Processed" and "Invoice_to_Customer_is_Processed". Query Inference: Sub-goals of "Delivery_is_Processed" and "Invoice_to_Customer_is_Processed" are inferred to expand the query, such as "Delivery_is_Scheduled", "Delivery_Terms_are_Generated",
- 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
- Page 159 and 160: 8.3. QUALITY ANALYSIS 139 • G1 -
- Page 161 and 162: 8.5. SUMMARY 141 3. Semantic annota
- Page 163 and 164: Chapter 9 Validation of Applicabili
- Page 165 and 166: 9.1. VALIDATION DESIGN 145 - RE3.3
- Page 167 and 168: 9.2. SWRL FORMULATION 147 Table 9.1
- Page 169: 9.2. SWRL FORMULATION 149 RE3.2 RE3
- Page 173 and 174: 9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN
- Page 175 and 176: 9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN
- Page 177 and 178: 9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN
- Page 179 and 180: 9.4. DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF THE V
- Page 181 and 182: 9.4. DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF THE V
- Page 183: Part IV Synopsis 163
- Page 186 and 187: 166 CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUT
- Page 188 and 189: 168 CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUT
- Page 190 and 191: 170 CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUT
- Page 193 and 194: Appendix A BPMN This chapter presen
- Page 195 and 196: A.3. CONNECTING OBJECTS 175 Figure
- Page 197 and 198: A.6. BPMN META-MODEL TREE IN METIS
- Page 199 and 200: Appendix B EEML 2005 The language v
- Page 201 and 202: B.2. RECOURSES MODELING DOMAIN 181
- Page 203 and 204: Appendix C SCOR SCOR — Supply Cha
- Page 205 and 206: C.2. LEVEL 2 TOOLKIT 185 Level 1 Me
- Page 207 and 208: C.3. LEVEL 3 PROCESS ELEMENTS 187 F
- Page 209 and 210: Appendix D Algorithm for Semi-Autom
- Page 211 and 212: 191 Algorithm 1 Goal Annotation Alg
- Page 213 and 214: Algorithm 4 Goal Annotation Algorit
- Page 215 and 216: 195 Algorithm 6 Goal Annotation Alg
- Page 217 and 218: Appendix E GUI of Pro-SEAT The prop
- Page 219 and 220: 199 Figure E.3: Mapping meta-model
9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN INTEGRATION APPLICATION 151<br />
be executed on those OWL instances <strong>for</strong> the evaluation. Section G.2 <strong>of</strong> Appendix G<br />
presents a SWRL file <strong>of</strong> above queries and rules .<br />
Figure 9.1: The SWRL rules in Protege-OWL SWRLTab<br />
9.3 Applicability Validation in an Integration Application<br />
The SWRL <strong>for</strong>mulations <strong>for</strong> requirements are applied in the exemplar studies to validate<br />
the applicability <strong>of</strong> the proposed annotation approach. The validation is described by<br />
an application <strong>for</strong> integrating delivery process from enterprise A and B. The procedure<br />
<strong>of</strong> the implementation <strong>of</strong> this application is also the procedure <strong>of</strong> the validation.<br />
The following steps have been undertaken <strong>for</strong> the integration application. In each<br />
step, some query questions are described by the application user, and the query questions<br />
are then inferred and answered by executing corresponding SWRL rules <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>for</strong>malized requirements. Results are then analyzed and adjusted based on the semantic<br />
relationships <strong>of</strong> ontologies and models:<br />
• Step 1. Set application goals and get goal-relevant model fragments.<br />
Running QRule-Activity-achievesHardGoal <strong>for</strong> RE2.4 (Find the model fragments<br />
<strong>of</strong> process models that reference to SCOR Goal) to find process model<br />
fragments achieving the integration goals.<br />
Query Question: Find model fragments from the PM A , PM B1 and<br />
PM B2 which have impact on the goals "Delivery_is_<strong>Process</strong>ed" and<br />
"Invoice_to_Customer_is_<strong>Process</strong>ed".<br />
Query Inference: Sub-goals <strong>of</strong> "Delivery_is_<strong>Process</strong>ed" and<br />
"Invoice_to_Customer_is_<strong>Process</strong>ed" are inferred to expand the query,<br />
such as "Delivery_is_Scheduled", "Delivery_Terms_are_Generated",
Change language