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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 ) →
F.2. INTEGRATION APPLICATION BASED ON SEMANTIC ANNOTATION 207 ”Receive_delivery”(PM A ) → ”Issue_invoice”(PM B2 ). Certainly that is not a complete and fine integration. The succeeding Activities of "Send_quotation" in PM A and the preceding Activities of "Credit_control" in PM B2 should be checked by QRule-Activity-hasSucceedingActivities and QRule- Activity-hasPrecedingActivities for RE1. Because "Credit_control" is a sub- Activity in PM B2 , the QRule-Activity-hasPrecedingActivities-hasSubActivity for RE3.2 should be executed as well. The returned succeeding and preceding Activities are then checked with the reference ontology based on the annotation. "Client_quotation_processing" and "Standard_order_processing" (succeeding Activities of "Send_quotation") in PM A are mapped to "D1.1" and "D1.2" respectively. The sequence of "Check_stock" and "Correct_orders" (preceding Activities of "Send_quotation") in PM B2 are found not consistent to the SCOR ontology because "Check_stock" is phase_of "D1.3-Reserve_Inventory_and_Determine_Date" and "Correct_orders" is phase_of "D1.2". The decision of adapting PM B2 to SCOR sequence in the integration model is made. Compared with "Standard_order_processing" in PM A , "Correct_orders" has the same ontology reference "D1.2" and the same Actor-role "Sales". Therefore, "Correct_orders" can be adapted as a subActivity of "Standard_order_processing". Searching the Activities referencing D1.3 in PM A , the Activity "Check_delivery_items" is found so that it is considered to be merged with "Check_stock" in PM B2 . Analogously, the two Activities "Credit_control" in PM A and in PM B2 are merged into one, and "Ship_items" in PM B2 is merged into "Transportation_processing" in PM A just because they share the same ontology references. ”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 A /PM B2 ) → ”Delivering_Processing”(PM A ){...; ”Check_stock”(PM B2 ); ...} → ”Transportation_processing”(PM A )/”Ship_items”(PM B2 ) → ”Receive_delivery”(PM A ) → ”Issue_invoice”(PM B2 ). Checking the succeeding Activities of "Credit_control" in PM A , a serials of delivery checking takes place before the Activity "Create_delivery" produces an output "delivery" which is mapped to "Customer_Delivery_Terms". However, in PM B2 only one Activity "Generate_delivery_protocol" following "Credit_control" and has the output of "delivery_protocol". "Delivery_protocol" is annotated with "Customer_Delivery_Terms". Such knowledge is got from running QRule-Activity- Output-mappedto. Hence the integration model can take the functions defined in PM A to specify "Generate_delivery_protocol" in PM B2 . Besides, the input of Activity "Issue_invoice" is checked through QRule-Activity-Input-mappedto and it is also mapped to "Customer_Delivery_Terms". According to Case 1 of RE4.5, "Create delivery" in PM A can be followed by "Issue_invoice" of PM B2 in the integration model. Since there is no strict sequence requirement between "Transportation_processing" and "Issue_invoice", the two Activities can proceed parallely.
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:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
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 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: 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?