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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

160 CHAPTER 9. VALIDATION OF APPLICABILITY Table 9.4: Query results of the inferred annotation options SWRL inference rules and queries PM A PM B1 PM B2 QRule-Activity-hasArtifact 26 19 9 QRule-Activity-hasArtifact + IRule-Activity-subActivityhasArtifact 27 30 12 QRule-Activity-hasArtifact + IRule-Activity-Input-hasArtifact 26 28 12 QRule-Activity-hasArtifact + IRule-Activity-Output-hasArtifact 32 33 11 QRule-Activity-hasArtifact + IRule-Activity-Input-hasArtifact + 32 40 12 IRule-Activity-Output-hasArtifact QRule-Activity-hasArtifact + IRule-Activity-Input-hasArtifact + 33 47 15 IRule-Activity-Output-hasArtifact + IRule-Activity-subActivityhasArtifact QRule-Activity-hasActor 31 28 16 QRule-Activity-hasActor + IRule-Activity-subActivity-hasActor 32 28 23 QRule-Activity-hasPrecedingActivities 30 20 12 QRule-Activity-hasPrecedingActivities + IRule-Activitysucceeding-inverse-preceding 37 31 14 QRule-Activity-hasPrecedingActivities + IRule-Activitysucceeding-inverse-preceding 37 31 14 + IRule-Activity-preceding-inverse- succeeding QRule-Activity-hasSucceedingActivities 35 21 10 QRule-Activity-hasSucceedingActivities + IRule-Activitypreceding-inverse-succeeding 37 31 14 QRule-Activity-hasSucceedingActivities + IRule-Activitypreceding-inverse-succeeding 37 31 14 + IRule-Activity-succeeding-inverse- preceding PM B2 . The big discrepancy is between running QRule-Activity-hasArtifact alone and running QRule-Activity-hasArtifact together with IRule-Activity-InputhasArtifact. It indicates that many Artifacts are allocated in the sub-Activities in PM B1 . Such knowledge is not explicitly represented in the original model so that it is difficult for an annotator to be aware of it when manually annotating. A similar case is observed when running QRule-Activity-hasActor and IRule-ActivitysubActivity-hasActor on PM B2 . When comparing the three models we notice the following: most Actor-roles are modeled in the sub-Activities of PM B2 ; no Actor-role is attached to the sub-Activities in PM B1 ; since the way of modeling Actor-role in BPMN is different from EEML(see the previous paragraph), the annotation about has_Actor-role for each Activity is made manually but carefully (Only one annotation is missed by mistake). With respect to the annotation about the sequence of Activities, again the most missing annotations are found in PM B1 . The reason is still the hierarchy of the sub-Activities. Three levels of sub-Activities hierarchy prevents an annotator from picking all the preceding and succeeding Activities inherited from the super-Activities. Not all of the inferred results should be considered as missing annotations. They are just optional annotations to disclose more implicit knowledge carried by the models. Some results of those queries also produce noise to the evaluation because they should not be the correct annotation. For example, the Activity v n is the sub-Activity of V 1 and the Activity V 2 precedes V 1 , but v n is not the direct preceding Activity of V 2 because v n is not the last sub-Activity of V 1 . The query results of QRule-Activity-subActivity-transitive-achievesHG, QRule- Activity-subActivity-transitive-positivelysatisfiesSG and QRule-Activity-
9.4. DISCUSSION ON RESULTS OF THE VALIDATION 161 subActivity-transitive-negativelysatisfiesSG can be used in the automatic goal annotation. In our method of "calculate the possible goal annotation from the subActivities" in the goal annotation, we synthesize the three inferences in the algorithms. Anyway, inference mechanisms should be taken into account in the development of the annotation tool for the sake of semi-automatic annotation. 9.4.4 Semantic validation Some SWRL rules can be applied to validate semantic representations in both annotated and original process models. Two examples are provided here: • When QRule-Activity-hassamePostcondition or QRule-ActivityhassamePrecondition is executed, the results list a set of Activities with same pre/postcondition. Through the observation, we can conclude two situations: 1. The results are caused by the way of modeling WorkflowPattern: in an EEML model, the logic connection "join" or "choice" is modeled by an EEML Milestone, and the annotated workflow branches from this connection share a same GPO Condition ("eeml:milestone" is mapped to "gpo:condition" in the meta-model annotation). Two evaluation results are therefore brought out: a) The EEML model should be improved by changing the way of modeling to specify the semantics of different conditions. b) In the annotation model, conditions for different branches should be separate. 2. Wrong model or redundant Activities with the same Conditions in the original models. • QRule-Activity-hasOutput-mappedto-sameonto-Activity-hasInput is usually used to navigate the information flow between Activities, which also can be used for the semantic validation. For instance, two different Activities from PM B2 have a same local name "Generate_delivery_protocol", and the outputs of these two Activities are mapped to the same concept "Customer_Delivery_Terms" in the annotation model. According to the query results from QRule-Activity-hasOutput-mappedto-sameonto- Activity-hasInput, the outputs are supposed to be passed to the Activity "Issue_invoice" as the input. When we check the original model, one of the two Activities (named with "Generate_delivery_protocol") is a sub- Activity of "Deliver_items_to_franchisees", and it is indeed followed by the Activity "Issue_invoice" in the original model. However, the other "Generate_delivery_protocol" which is a sub-Activity of "Deliver_items_to_shops" has no link to "Issue_invoice" in the original model. Such observations can be concluded as follows: 1. Two Activities "Generate_delivery_protocol" could be functionally implemented by one component. 2. The annotation of the outputs of the two Activities should be specified distinctively.
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:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131: 110 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 179: 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?