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

206 APPENDIX F. ANALYSIS OF EXEMPLAR STUDIES
Firstly, the goals "Delivery_is_Processed" and
"Invoice_to_Customer_is_Processed" are chosen from the goal ontology
as the integration goal. Running QRule-Activity-achievesHardGoal for
RE2.4 on annotated models from both enterprises. There is no result from
PM A , PM B1 and PM B2 which is directly related to the two goals. However,
reasoning from the goal ontology, "Delivery_is_Processed" has sub-goals
(has_parts) "Delivery_is_Scheduled", "Delivery_Terms_are_Generated",
and "End_Items_are_Delivered". "Invoice_to_Customer_is_Processed" has subgoals
"Invoice_to_Customer_is_Issued" and "Invoice_to_Customer_is_Paid".
By running the queries about these sub-goals, we are aware that such knowledge is
distributed in PM A and PM B2 and mostly related to "Delivering_Processing" in PM A
and "Deliver_items_to_franchisee" and "Deliver_items_to_shops" in PM B2 .
Another integration concern in this application is the integration of "Customer"
of two enterprises. In PM A the BPMN Swimlane "client" is same_as the ontology
concept "Customer" whilst in PM B2 the EEML Organization "shop" and "franchisee"
are both kind_of "Customer". When transforming or integrating two models, "shop"
and "franchisee" can be modeled as sub-class of "client" in PM A . The identical and
the unique parts of "Deliver_items_to_franchisee" and "Deliver_items_to_shops"
can be modeled as sub-Activities of "Delivering_Processing" in PM A respectively.
Moreover, we should check all the Activities relevant to "shop" or "franchisee" in
PM B2 and the Activities relevant to "client" in PM A . In the exemplar studies, the
Activity "Send_inquiry", "Send_quotation", "Receive_delivery" in PM A and the
Activity "Deliver_items_to_shops" and "Deliver_items_to_franchisees" in PM B2 are
returned in the query results. To check the underlying semantic relationships between
those Activities, we can run QRule-Activity-phaseof, QRule-Activity-kindof
and QRule-Activity-sameas to find out how those Activities mapped to the SCOR
ontology. Both "Deliver_items_to_shops" and "Deliver_items_to_franchisees" in
PM B2 are phase_of D1-Deliver_Stocked_Product, while in PM A "Send_quotation"
and "Send_inquiry" are phase_of D1.1-Process_Inquiry_and_Quote and "Receive_delivery"
is kind_of D1.13-Receive_and_Verify_Product. It is obvious that
the two Activities in PM B2 are too general (mapped to a process category of the SCOR
level 2), so that we can check if they have sub-Activities by running QRule-ActivitysubActivity.
If there is no sub-Activities, the Activities in PM A can be considered
as the refined sub-Activities for PM B2 because D1.1 and D1.13 are sub-Activities of
D1 according to the SCOR ontology. If there are any sub-Activities, further check
of those sub-Activities is to be deployed. Four sub-Activities are returned for "Deliver_items_to_franchisees":
"Generate_delivery_protocol", "Credit_control", "Issue_invoice"
and "Send_items". When checking the semantic mapping between those
sub-Activities and the SCOR ontology, "Send_items" is kind_of D1.12-Ship_Product,
"Credit_control" is phase_of "D1.2-Receive_Enter_and_Validate_Order" and "Issue_invoice"
is phase_of "D1.15-Invoice". By filling RE4.5, a possible integration
path could be
”Send_inquiry”(PM A ) → ”Send_quotation”(PM A ) → ”Credit_control”(PM B2 )
→ ”Delivering_Processing”(PM A ){”Deliver_items_to_ f ranchisee”(PM B2 };
”Deliver_items_to_shops”(PM B2 )} → ”Ship_items”(PM B2 ) →