Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
166 CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK • RQ2. What kind of ontologies are required for process knowledge management and how to represent them? Ontologies can provides a standard and formal representation of a conceptualization, which can be used for semantic reconciliation. Through the analysis of semantic discrepancies at both levels, meta-model and model levels, we have determined that a process modeling ontology is needed for the meta-model level and a business domain ontology is necessary for the model level. A general process ontology — GPO has been proposed and the concepts and their relationships have been defined in a meta-model of process models in Chapter 4. A business domain is determined by the use cases so that the domain ontology is driven from the SCOR reference models. The ontological representations of SCOR have been exemplified in Chapter 7. Besides, a goal ontology representing the process objectives have been regarded as an additional requirement for managing process knowledge. The goal ontology is associated with the contextual semantics of process models, and moreover goal specifications can be used in the goal-driven process knowledge management. A general goal ontology representation has been defined in Chapter 5. In order to facilitate associating goals with processes, some concepts in GPO are reused in the goal ontology representation. A specific goal ontology is domain dependent and an example of the specific goal ontology of SCOR domain has been used in exemplar studies in Chapter 7. All the ontologies have been modeled in OWL with Protégé in order to make use of Semantic Web technologies in applications. • RQ3. What metadata are essential for process model interoperability and how are they defined concerning reference ontologies for reconciliation of the heterogeneous semantics of process models? In Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, we have presented our semantic annotation framework, consisting of profile annotation, meta-model annotation, model annotation and goal annotation. The annotation metadata is also referred as annotation schema in this thesis. A set of metadata including Dublin Core has been categorized into the types of administrative, descriptive, preservation, technical and use to describe the profile information of process models in Table 4.1. In the metamodel annotation, different process modeling languages are mapped to GPO to reconcile the different modeling constructs with the common definitions in GPO. There are three cases of mapping: one-one, many-one and combination-one, which need to be specified in the meta-model annotation schema. GPO is the basis of the semantic annotation framework and it constructs the semantic annotation model for model annotation and goal annotation after the meta-model annotation. In the semantic annotation model, process knowledge in original models is represented in a common knowledge representation format. Model annotation is to refer model contents to domain ontology concepts. Simple reference is not sufficient for specifying the semantic discrepancies. We refined the reference through semantic relationships (such as synonym, polysemy, hypernym, hyponym, meronym, holonym and instance) which are usually used in ontology specifications, so that the model annotation looks like to build "intermediate ontologies" between the domain ontology concepts and the local model contents.
10.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS 167 During the process knowledge management, the "intermediate ontologies" can be used to rank and infer the knowledge query results (see Chapter 8). Those semantic relationships are defined in the semantic annotation model together with the relationships defined in GPO. The semantic annotation model is the model annotation schema. Such model annotation schema is extended by goal annotation metadata achieves, positively_satisfies and negatively_satisfies, which are used to associate goal ontology concept with process model fragments. The semantic annotation schema is defined in OWL and a semantic annotation model is instantiated when it is generated as a result of meta-model annotation. • RQ4. How can Semantic Web technology to be incorporated in a tool using the proposed approach? We have integrated the Protégé Java API into the prototype of our annotation tool — ProSEAT to manipulate the ontologies edited in Protégé (see Chapter 6). With the tool, users can browse the ontologies and select reference concepts from the ontology for the annotation. The tool supports manual mapping between GPO and process modeling languages, automatic generation of an OWL instances of a semantic annotation model for the model and goal annotation, manual model annotation and semi-automatic goal annotation. Annotation results are saved in the OWL instance model, which can be read by any OWL supported system. Semantic inference can be made on the annotation results using OWL DL reasoners such as Racer [61], FaCT++ [162], KAON2 [118], Pellet [96]. • RQ5. How can we use the proposed approach to facilitate process knowledge management? The annotation procedure with the annotation tool in exemplar studies has been elaborated in Chapter 7. Based on the annotation results, a process knowledge management application has been demonstrated in Chapter 9. We have validated the applicability of semantic annotation approach and results. The process knowledge management activities — process knowledge query and process model integration — have been analyzed through checking the satisfactions of a set of identified application requirements. Semantic Web technologies — OWL DL inference with SWRL rules has been applied in the applications and evaluations. The positive evaluation results proved the quality and applicability of the semantic annotation approach in the exemplified process knowledge management application. From the answers to the research questions, we can associate them with the objectives specified in Chapter 1. We therefore conclude: the solutions to RQ1 achieve the objective "to investigate semantic heterogeneity issues in business process modeling"; the solutions to RQ2 and RQ3 achieve the objective "to explore a comprehensive annotation approach to deal with heterogeneous semantics of process knowledge with referenced ontology"; the solutions to RQ4 achieve the objective "to develop an annotation tool to implement the approach by applying Semantic Web technologies"; the solutions to RQ5 achieve the objective "to evaluate quality and use feasibility of the proposed approach and tool in supporting process knowledge management activities".
- 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 and 170: 9.2. SWRL FORMULATION 149 RE3.2 RE3
- Page 171 and 172: 9.3. APPLICABILITY VALIDATION IN AN
- 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 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
- 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
10.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS 167<br />
During the process knowledge management, the "intermediate ontologies" can be<br />
used to rank and infer the knowledge query results (see Chapter 8). Those semantic<br />
relationships are defined in the semantic annotation model together with<br />
the relationships defined in GPO. The semantic annotation model is the model<br />
annotation schema. Such model annotation schema is extended by goal annotation<br />
metadata achieves, positively_satisfies and negatively_satisfies,<br />
which are used to associate goal ontology concept with process model fragments.<br />
The semantic annotation schema is defined in OWL and a semantic annotation<br />
model is instantiated when it is generated as a result <strong>of</strong> meta-model annotation.<br />
• RQ4. How can <strong>Semantic</strong> Web technology to be incorporated in a tool using the<br />
proposed approach?<br />
We have integrated the Protégé Java API into the prototype <strong>of</strong> our annotation<br />
tool — ProSEAT to manipulate the ontologies edited in Protégé (see Chapter<br />
6). With the tool, users can browse the ontologies and select reference concepts<br />
from the ontology <strong>for</strong> the annotation. The tool supports manual mapping between<br />
GPO and process modeling languages, automatic generation <strong>of</strong> an OWL<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> a semantic annotation model <strong>for</strong> the model and goal annotation, manual<br />
model annotation and semi-automatic goal annotation. <strong>Annotation</strong> results<br />
are saved in the OWL instance model, which can be read by any OWL supported<br />
system. <strong>Semantic</strong> inference can be made on the annotation results using OWL<br />
DL reasoners such as Racer [61], FaCT++ [162], KAON2 [118], Pellet [96].<br />
• RQ5. How can we use the proposed approach to facilitate process knowledge management?<br />
The annotation procedure with the annotation tool in exemplar studies has been<br />
elaborated in Chapter 7. Based on the annotation results, a process knowledge<br />
management application has been demonstrated in Chapter 9. We have validated<br />
the applicability <strong>of</strong> semantic annotation approach and results. The process<br />
knowledge management activities — process knowledge query and process model<br />
integration — have been analyzed through checking the satisfactions <strong>of</strong> a set <strong>of</strong><br />
identified application requirements. <strong>Semantic</strong> Web technologies — OWL DL inference<br />
with SWRL rules has been applied in the applications and evaluations.<br />
The positive evaluation results proved the quality and applicability <strong>of</strong> the semantic<br />
annotation approach in the exemplified process knowledge management<br />
application.<br />
From the answers to the research questions, we can associate them with the objectives<br />
specified in Chapter 1. We there<strong>for</strong>e conclude: the solutions to RQ1 achieve<br />
the objective "to investigate semantic heterogeneity issues in business process modeling";<br />
the solutions to RQ2 and RQ3 achieve the objective "to explore a comprehensive<br />
annotation approach to deal with heterogeneous semantics <strong>of</strong> process knowledge with<br />
referenced ontology"; the solutions to RQ4 achieve the objective "to develop an annotation<br />
tool to implement the approach by applying <strong>Semantic</strong> Web technologies"; the<br />
solutions to RQ5 achieve the objective "to evaluate quality and use feasibility <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed approach and tool in supporting process knowledge management activities".