Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

158 CHAPTER 9. VALIDATION OF APPLICABILITY Figure 9.13: The query result of QRule-Activity-Input-mappedto on PM B2 Figure 9.14: The query result of QRule-Activity-Output-mappedto on PM A context. The final result of the integration application after above steps is presented ("|" is used to represent non-strict sequence): ”Send_inquiry”(PM A ) → ”Send_quotation”(PM A ) → ”Client_quotation_processing”(PM A ) → ”Standard_order_processing”(PM A ) {”Correct_orders”(PM B2 )} → ”Credit_control”(PM B2 ) → ”Delivering_Processing”(PM A ){...; ”Check_stock”(PM B2 ); ...; ”Create_delivery”} → ”Issue_invoice”(PM B2 )|(”Transportation_processing”(PM A )/”Ship_items” (PM B2 ) → ”Receive_delivery”(PM A )). More details of the integration process are provided in Appendix F. By running the above SWRL queries and rules, the integration application has been implemented. The realized implementation validated the applicability of the proposed annotation approach through showing the capability of the annotation results to fulfill the requirements listed in section 9.1.1. 9.4 Discussion on Results of the Validation 9.4.1 Automatic vs. manual annotation During the validation, we found that the results of the SWRL queries for RE1 (Navigation requirements) can display the most information of the models through the annotation, but still some semantics of original models are found missing or incomplete in the annotation models. The results of QRule-ActivitysubActivity are the same as the original models, i.e. it is semantic completeness of the Activity composition for the annotation. Such completeness is guaranteed by Pro-SEAT’s automatic transformation from Metis models to PSAM models
9.4. DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION 159 based on the meta-model annotation. However, the results of QRule-ActivityhasPrecedingActivities, QRule-Activity-hasSucceedingActivities, QRule- Activity-hasPrecondition and QRule-Activity-hasPostcondition are not complete because current Pro-SEAT does not support the automatic annotation of the sequence of Activities. We have to manually annotate such information. When checking the results of QRule-Activity-hasArtifact and QRule- Activity-hasActor, it turns out that the automatic annotation of associating Artifact or Actor-role with Activity performs better on EEML models than on BPMN models. The reason is that EEML Resource Role (GPO:Artifact/Actor-role) is encapsulated in EEML Task (GPO:Activity) in Metis which behaves in the same way as GPO. However, the BPMN Logic Process (GPO:Activity) is encapsulated in BPMN Swimlane (GPO:Actor-role) but not in the reverse way. The relations can not be automatically transformed as has_Actor-role properties in PSAM models. Based on the above analysis, we can conclude that the function of automatic transformation should be improved in Pro-SEAT. RE1 (Navigation requirements) is almost fulfilled in spite of the missing annotation caused by the manual annotation. 9.4.2 Model analysis based on semantic relationships The reference ontology is introduced in the SWRL queries for RE2 (Search requirements). The links between the model fragments and the ontology concepts are built through the semantic annotation. When executing the SWRL queries for RE2 (Search requirements) on the three model instances respectively, we found that the synonym (same_as) (i.e. semantic equivalent) relationship is mostly used in annotating Artifacts and Actor-roles, while the hypernym (kind_of) and meronym (part_of, member_of) relationships are rarely used. Nevertheless, for ontology-based annotations of Activities the case is just reverse: more meronym (phase_of) relationships and hypernym than synonym are applied. Such phenomena is observed in all the three models. It shows that Artifacts and Actor-roles in the three models are not very specialized but relatively general and close to the SCOR standard. On the contrary, Activities in different models are quite various and meanwhile the modeling granularity of the Activity is smaller than the SCOR process elements. 9.4.3 Detecting missing annotation In order to detect missing annotations, we run the query rules 2 together with corresponding inference rules 3 . For instance, when only running QRule-ActivityhasArtifact on PM B1 , 19 records are returned. If the query is run together with IRule-Activity-subActivity-hasArtifact, the results set consists of 30 records. By running IRule-Activity-Input-hasArtifact and IRule-Activity- Output-hasArtifact with QRule-Activity-hasArtifact the query returns 40 records. The results of the execution of those inference rules and queries on three models are listed in Table 9.4. We comparing record numbers of the query results, we can see that there are more missing annotation on Arifacts in PM B1 than in PM A and in 2 starting with "Q" in the formulation name (see Table 9.4) 3 starting with "I" in the formulation name (see Table 9.4)
Page 1 and 2:
Yun Lin Semantic Annotation for Pro
Page 3:
To MY BELOVED HUSBAND HAO DING AND
Page 6 and 7:
ii The proposed approach has been i
Page 8 and 9:
iv CONTENTS 3 State of the Art 31 3
Page 10 and 11:
vi CONTENTS 7.5.2 Semantic reasonin
Page 12 and 13:
viii CONTENTS H PSAM Annotation Res
Page 14 and 15:
x LIST OF FIGURES 6.1 System module
Page 16 and 17:
xii LIST OF FIGURES
Page 18 and 19:
xiv LIST OF TABLES
Page 20 and 21:
xvi PREFACE My tremendous gratitude
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 1 Introduction Business pro
Page 25 and 26:
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH
Page 27 and 28:
1.4. APPROACH AND SCOPE 7 1.4.1 Sem
Page 29 and 30:
1.6. MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS 9 1.6 Majo
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2 Problem Setting In this c
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 2.1: Zachman Enterprise Arch
Page 35 and 36:
2.2. MODELING BASIS 15 meta-model o
Page 37 and 38:
2.3. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SEMANT
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
2.4. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY 23 3
Page 45 and 46:
2.5. BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL 25 2.5
Page 47 and 48:
2.6. PROCESS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 2
Page 49 and 50:
2.7. SUMMARY 29 • Creation or imp
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 3 State of the Art This cha
Page 53 and 54:
3.1. PROCESS MODELING LANGUAGES 33
Page 55 and 56:
3.1. PROCESS MODELING LANGUAGES 35
Page 57 and 58:
Table 3.1: Modeling constructs of d
Page 59 and 60:
3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
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:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
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:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
84 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION proce
Page 106 and 107:
86 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION in a
Page 108 and 109:
88 CHAPTER 5. GOAL ANNOTATION • i
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:
Page 118 and 119:
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 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 and 170: 9.2. SWRL FORMULATION 149 RE3.2 RE3
Page 171 and 172: 9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN
Page 177: 9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN
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 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
Page 221 and 222: 201 Figure E.5: Goal annotation UI
Page 223 and 224: Appendix F Analysis of the Annotati
Page 225 and 226: F.2. INTEGRATION APPLICATION BASED
Page 227 and 228: F.2. INTEGRATION APPLICATION BASED
Page 229 and 230:
Appendix G Schema of PSAM and SWRL
Page 231 and 232:
G.1. PSAM IN OWL 211
Page 233 and 234:
G.2. RULE DEFINITIONS IN SWRL 213
Page 235 and 236:
G.2. RULE DEFINITIONS IN SWRL 215
Page 237 and 238:
Appendix H Annotation Results in Ex
Page 239 and 240:
H.2. ANNOTATION OF PM B1 219 xmlns:
Page 241 and 242:
H.3. ANNOTATION OF PM B2 221 Av
Page 243 and 244:
Bibliography [1] ALTOVA. What is th
Page 245 and 246:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 [26] Dov Dori. Why
Page 247 and 248:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 [52] Ian Horrocks.
Page 249 and 250:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 [78] John Krogstie
Page 251 and 252:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231 [102] Diana Maynar
Page 253 and 254:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233 [129] OASIS Cover
Page 255 and 256:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235 [157] Colette Roll
Page 257 and 258:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 237 [185] Systems Thin
Page 259:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 [214] John.A. Zach
show all

Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?