Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
190 APPENDIX D. ALGORITHM FOR GOAL ANNOTATION gets higher weight than the sub-string match (τ = 1 for exact match, and τ = 0.5 for sub-string match). Weights are also different for each case. We set different parameters for weighing each case. The values of parameters can be set by users. In the algorithm, α stands for the weight of case A with ontology comparison and β for case A with string match. The case B is relatively complex. Sub-cases are distinguished for case B: case B.I – the target artifact a f ′ of the goal concept is mapped to the annotation of the Output; case B.II – the target artifact a f ′ of the goal concept is mapped to the annotation of an Artifact which is directly associated with the activity; case B.III – the target artifact a f ′ of the goal concept is mapped to the annotation of an Artifact which is indirectly related with the activity. An Artifact can be associated with an Activity through direct relation "has_Artifact" or through the indirect relation "related_Artifact" of the Output. If the association is built through the indirect relation, the state of the target artifact a f ′ should be checked to match the Output too. Parameter θ is used for weight of case B.I, γ is for case B.II with ontology comparison, and δ is for case B.II with string match. ɛ and µ are for case B.III. That the models are mapped to the goals by case C (matching the target role) is regarded less important than by the other cases, because the actor role is seldom considered as the stand alone target of a goal. Two parameters ε and ζ are applied in case C for ontology comparison and string match respectively. The values for the two parameters should be set lower than other parameters. No ontology comparison is employed in case D, so one parameter η is assigned in such case. When matching a goal concept (g) with an activity (av) in models, all the four cases must be checked on g and av. The result of a match is a total weight by summing the weights from four cases. The higher total weight is, the better g matches av.
191 Algorithm 1 Goal Annotation Algorithm for Case A Require: weight parameters α and β initialize values of weight f oractivityonto, weight f oractivityname, σ, τ as 0 onto = OD(av) {av is the activity to be annotated in goal annotation, and OD(av) gets the domain ontological concept which was annotated to av in model annotation} r = SR(av, onto) {SR(av, onto) gets the semantic relationship between av and onto} for each target activity av ′ of a g in goal ontology do if o equals av ′ then if r is "same_as" then σ = 1 else if r is "kind_of" then σ = 0.8 else if r is "phase_of" then σ = 0.5 end if end if weight f orativityonto = weight f oractivityonto+σ if av.name equals av ′ .name by string match then τ = 1 else if av.name partly equals av ′ .name by string match then τ = 0.5 end if weight f oractivityname = weight f oractivityname+τ end for return α ∗ weight f oractivityonto+β ∗ weight f oractivityname Algorithm 2 Goal Annotation Algorithm for Case B.I Require: weight parameters θ initialize value of weight f oroutput as 0 Arrayout[] is a set of output associated with av {av is the activity to be annotated in goal annotation. out[] is got from has_Output relationship} for each output in out[] do onto = OD(out) {OD(out) gets the domain ontological concept which was annotated to output through mapped_to relationship} for each target artifact a f ′ of a g in goal ontology do if onto equals a f then weight f oroutput = weight f oroutput+ 1 end if end for end for return θ ∗ weight f oroutput
- 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 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: Appendix D Algorithm for Semi-Autom
- 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
190 APPENDIX D. ALGORITHM FOR GOAL ANNOTATION<br />
gets higher weight than the sub-string match (τ = 1 <strong>for</strong> exact match, and τ = 0.5 <strong>for</strong><br />
sub-string match).<br />
Weights are also different <strong>for</strong> each case. We set different parameters <strong>for</strong> weighing<br />
each case. The values <strong>of</strong> parameters can be set by users. In the algorithm, α stands <strong>for</strong><br />
the weight <strong>of</strong> case A with ontology comparison and β <strong>for</strong> case A with string match.<br />
The case B is relatively complex. Sub-cases are distinguished <strong>for</strong> case B: case B.I – the<br />
target artifact a f ′ <strong>of</strong> the goal concept is mapped to the annotation <strong>of</strong> the Output; case<br />
B.II – the target artifact a f ′ <strong>of</strong> the goal concept is mapped to the annotation <strong>of</strong> an<br />
Artifact which is directly associated with the activity; case B.III – the target artifact<br />
a f ′ <strong>of</strong> the goal concept is mapped to the annotation <strong>of</strong> an Artifact which is indirectly<br />
related with the activity. An Artifact can be associated with an Activity through<br />
direct relation "has_Artifact" or through the indirect relation "related_Artifact" <strong>of</strong><br />
the Output. If the association is built through the indirect relation, the state <strong>of</strong> the<br />
target artifact a f ′ should be checked to match the Output too. Parameter θ is used<br />
<strong>for</strong> weight <strong>of</strong> case B.I, γ is <strong>for</strong> case B.II with ontology comparison, and δ is <strong>for</strong> case<br />
B.II with string match. ɛ and µ are <strong>for</strong> case B.III. That the models are mapped to<br />
the goals by case C (matching the target role) is regarded less important than by the<br />
other cases, because the actor role is seldom considered as the stand alone target <strong>of</strong><br />
a goal. Two parameters ε and ζ are applied in case C <strong>for</strong> ontology comparison and<br />
string match respectively. The values <strong>for</strong> the two parameters should be set lower than<br />
other parameters. No ontology comparison is employed in case D, so one parameter η<br />
is assigned in such case.<br />
When matching a goal concept (g) with an activity (av) in models, all the four cases<br />
must be checked on g and av. The result <strong>of</strong> a match is a total weight by summing the<br />
weights from four cases. The higher total weight is, the better g matches av.
Change language