Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION other similar business system development; the logical business process models on the conceptual level can be transformed into physical models for implementation (e.g. services). Hence, facilitating reuse and management of business process models becomes critical. Business process models built as solutions for different enterprises are as well various in process modeling languages, process context and intentions of the systems’ owners. Different levels of interoperability can be identified based on different types of information heterogeneity and system heterogeneity. Our research objects are business process models at conceptual level, mainly concerning the representation of process semantics. We therefore focus on semantic interoperability. Semantic interoperability is about how to achieve the mutual understanding of interchanged data [170] in spite of semantic heterogeneity. Ontology-based semantic annotation is usually considered as a technique to achieve semantic interoperability by introducing common understanding and standardization. Semantic annotation has been developed and applied on both unstructured and structured artifacts to improve semantic interoperability (e.g. textual resources and Web services). The main applications based on semantic annotation are semantics-based information retrieval and automatic semantics-based discovery of services. According to our knowledge, few efforts on annotating semi-structured artifact (e.g. enterprise/business process models) were found when we started this work. The importance of semantic interoperability of enterprise process models becomes more and more obvious as pervasive development of applications for business process integration under a SOA (Service Oriented Architecture), where process models are vital assets of system specifications and interoperating objects in integration systems. On the other hand, semantic issues are leveraged and the usage of Semantic Web technology is gradually gaining attention in the enterprise modeling domain due to the advances of machine intelligence on semantics and inference. We follow such a trend and contribute our efforts on the research activities of building a descriptive methodology and implement a tool for the semantic annotation of heterogeneous business process models in order to facilitate managing process knowledge from different organizations. 1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions The following scenario exemplifies the problem to be solved in this thesis. A travel agency wants to build a new travel booking service. In the travel domain, there are legacy models about business of travel agency made by different organizations, e.g., models for a flight ticket booking system and models for a hotel reservation system. For the new system it is not necessary to build models for the travel booking service from the scratch, but try to reuse available models. In this case, we assume that the business process models from legacy systems are at conceptual level and can be used as business process knowledge. In order to reuse the knowledge, it requires a centralized management system to manipulate those heterogeneous models which were built by different organizations. The following semantic interoperability problems may arise: • Since models are created in different modeling languages, a same business phenomenon is represented variously in different models. For example, a process
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5 model of flight tickets booking is built in ActionWorkflow [103] and one hotel reservation process is modeled in CPR (Core Plan Representation) [135]. There would be interoperability problem when exchanging information about Agent or Actor between two models because they are using different modeling languages. In this case, Agent in ActionWorkflow models is semantically equal to Actor in CPR models. However, it is difficult for the user and the machine to identify they are the same without the support of the semantic mappings between those two modeling elements. • Terminology is used differently in different models. For instance, "Client" is used in the flight ticket booking model and "Customer" is used in the hotel reservation model, although the two terms represent the same concept in this case. If only keyword based search is applied, the concept Client represented by Agents in ActionWorkflow model and the concept Customer represented by Actors in CPR model can not be recognized as the same concept by machine. • Conceptualization mismatches include different classifications, aggregations, attribute assignments and value types. For example in this case, City is modeled in a class containing city name, graphic location and tourism information. It is used as the resource of a hotel reservation model. City is also one of attributes of Class Airport as input of a flight ticket booking process. Though the same term is used, the ways of representing the semantics are different. When reusing or integrating the models by the third party, incomplete or redundant semantics might be applied without knowing the differences. In order to cope with semantic interoperability problems, agreed semantics should be referenced to annotate the heterogeneous representations in process modeling languages and business process model contents in a human and machine understandable manner. An ontology is considered a kind of agreement on a domain representation. Hence, ontologies of process modeling languages and modeling domains must be developed. The Semantic Web technologies as the emerging technological advances in the manipulation of ontologies, have made several new possibilities and challenges apparent. Hence the main research question that the thesis attempts to answer: How can semantic interoperability of process models be improved by using semantic technologies such as ontologies in the process knowledge management applications? More specifically, • RQ1. What kind of semantic interoperability problems exist in process knowledge management? • RQ2. What kind of ontologies are required for process knowledge management and how to represent them? • RQ3. What metadata are essential for process model interoperability and how are they defined concerning reference ontologies for the reconciliation of the heterogeneous semantics of process models? • RQ4. How can Semantic Web technology to be incorporated in a tool using the proposed approach?
- 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: Chapter 1 Introduction Business pro
- 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: 2.3. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SEMANT
- Page 41 and 42: 2.3. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SEMANT
- 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: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- Page 63 and 64: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- Page 65 and 66: 3.2. SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY AND
- 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: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5<br />
model <strong>of</strong> flight tickets booking is built in ActionWorkflow [103] and one hotel<br />
reservation process is modeled in CPR (Core Plan Representation) [135]. There<br />
would be interoperability problem when exchanging in<strong>for</strong>mation about Agent or<br />
Actor between two models because they are using different modeling languages.<br />
In this case, Agent in ActionWorkflow models is semantically equal to Actor in<br />
CPR models. However, it is difficult <strong>for</strong> the user and the machine to identify they<br />
are the same without the support <strong>of</strong> the semantic mappings between those two<br />
modeling elements.<br />
• Terminology is used differently in different models. For instance, "Client" is used<br />
in the flight ticket booking model and "Customer" is used in the hotel reservation<br />
model, although the two terms represent the same concept in this case. If only<br />
keyword based search is applied, the concept Client represented by Agents in<br />
ActionWorkflow model and the concept Customer represented by Actors in CPR<br />
model can not be recognized as the same concept by machine.<br />
• Conceptualization mismatches include different classifications, aggregations, attribute<br />
assignments and value types. For example in this case, City is modeled<br />
in a class containing city name, graphic location and tourism in<strong>for</strong>mation. It is<br />
used as the resource <strong>of</strong> a hotel reservation model. City is also one <strong>of</strong> attributes<br />
<strong>of</strong> Class Airport as input <strong>of</strong> a flight ticket booking process. Though the same<br />
term is used, the ways <strong>of</strong> representing the semantics are different. When reusing<br />
or integrating the models by the third party, incomplete or redundant semantics<br />
might be applied without knowing the differences.<br />
In order to cope with semantic interoperability problems, agreed semantics should<br />
be referenced to annotate the heterogeneous representations in process modeling languages<br />
and business process model contents in a human and machine understandable<br />
manner. An ontology is considered a kind <strong>of</strong> agreement on a domain representation.<br />
Hence, ontologies <strong>of</strong> process modeling languages and modeling domains must be developed.<br />
The <strong>Semantic</strong> Web technologies as the emerging technological advances in the<br />
manipulation <strong>of</strong> ontologies, have made several new possibilities and challenges apparent.<br />
Hence the main research question that the thesis attempts to answer: How can<br />
semantic interoperability <strong>of</strong> process models be improved by using semantic technologies<br />
such as ontologies in the process knowledge management applications? More specifically,<br />
• RQ1. What kind <strong>of</strong> semantic interoperability problems exist in process knowledge<br />
management?<br />
• RQ2. What kind <strong>of</strong> ontologies are required <strong>for</strong> process knowledge management<br />
and how to represent them?<br />
• RQ3. What metadata are essential <strong>for</strong> process model interoperability and how<br />
are they defined concerning reference ontologies <strong>for</strong> the reconciliation <strong>of</strong> the heterogeneous<br />
semantics <strong>of</strong> process models?<br />
• RQ4. How can <strong>Semantic</strong> Web technology to be incorporated in a tool using the<br />
proposed approach?
Change language