Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
48 CHAPTER 3. STATE OF THE ART language [141]. The meta-model level of UEML is based on the BWW ontology but the UEML approach encourages the addition of new ontological classes, properties, states and transformations when describing modeling constructs. The growth of the BWW ontology is referred to as the UEML ontology [142]. Figure 3.9 displays the main UEML ontology classes. Due to the extensibility of the core ontology, the UEML ontology is able to cover all the process perspectives through the proper extensions. Figure 3.9: Generalization hierarchy of UEML ontology classes [144] The UEML ontology are represented using OWL Full with the Protégé as the UEMLBase tool. The UEMLBase tool has been used for experimentally describing the following languages: (Class and Activity diagrams of) UML 2.0, CPN (Coloured Petri Net), GRL (Goal-oriented Requirements Language), KAOS (Knowledge Acquisition in autOmated Specification), IDEF3 (Integrated DEFinition methods – Process Description Capture), and, partially, ISO 19440; the result is the UEMLBase content that can be retrieved, visualized and navigated by using the UEMLBase tool functionality [142]. 3.2.10 Comparison of process ontology representations Table 3.2 displays the comparison of ontology representation primitives, and main concepts and representation mechanisms for the process perspectives. The comparison presents how the semantics of process, i.e. the process perspectives are specified in different ontological representation forms. Some of them are specified like a meta-model of process modeling languages, such as PIF, OWL-S, POP*. Some are very general and need to be extended to represent more specific process semantics, such as BWW and UEML. The MIT process handbook and TOVE provide process templates and standardized taxonomy. WSMO is unique from the other ontologies by the use of interfaces to describe the functionality of Web services, so that there are no particular ontological representations for the process perspectives but mainly for the mediation of services.
3.3. GOAL MODELING 49 From the survey, we also found that the formal representation of the ontologies are usually specified through the primitives such as class (sub-class), property (attribute, relationship), and axiom. Standard taxonomy and process templates are also often included in the process ontologies. 3.3 Goal Modeling Goal is considered as an important concept to represent business strategy and support decision making. Goal models are used to represent business objectives for stakeholders and also to drive the elaboration of business requirements for business analysis and executions. The research on goal-driven methodologies brought out some goal modeling approaches and languages. From the literature, goal modeling is mostly designed as a requirements engineering method, such as KAOS [21], i*/GRL [55], GBRAM [56]. With the development of Web services, goal modeling is associated with Web services modeling for goal-driven services discovery, such as WSMO [210]. 3.3.1 KAOS (Knowledge Acquisition in autOmated Specification) KAOS [21] is a goal-driven methodology which is based on a rich framework for requirements elicitation, analysis and management. Goal modeling in KAOS is based on a goal-oriented process. The process starts with goals which are easy to understand and communicate. They describe the problems instead of the solutions, and can be refined to different levels of abstraction for incremental analysis process. With KAOS, functional and non-functional requirements are formally modeled in terms of goals, constraints, objects, operations, agents, etc. Goals are from available sources and asking why and how questions; objects, relationships and attributes are derived from the goal specifications; agents are identified and are assigned alternative responsibility based on goals; operations and domain pre-/postconditions are also identified from the goal specifications [192]. 3.3.2 i*/GRL (Goal-oriented Requirement Language) GRL is an extended version of i*, a language for supporting actor/role oriented modeling, goal-oriented modeling and reasoning of requirements, especifally for dealing with non-functional requirements [40]. Main concepts associated with goals are represented by intentional elements, intentional relationships and actors. The intentional elements in GRL are goal, task, softgoal, belief and resource. The intentional relationships include means-ends, decompositions, contribution, correlation and dependency. An actor is an active entity that carries out actions to achieve goals. Goals and requirements are analyzed through modeling strategic actor relationships. The relationships are modeled through Strategic Dependency (SD) models and Strategic Rational (SR) models. In a SD model, one actor (the depender) depends on another actor (the dependee) for a dependum. According to different types of dependum, several types of dependencies are distinguished in the Strategic Dependency model, namely goal dependency, task dependency, resource dependency, and softgoal dependency. The SR model provides a more detailed level of modeling by looking "inside" actors to model internal intentional
- 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: 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: Representation primitives Process P
- Page 71 and 72: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 73 and 74: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 75 and 76: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 77 and 78: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- 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: 66 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 88 and 89: 68 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 90 and 91: 70 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 92 and 93: 72 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 94 and 95: 74 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 96 and 97: 76 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 98 and 99: 78 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 100 and 101: 80 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- Page 102 and 103: 82 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION F
- 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: 96 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SEM
3.3. GOAL MODELING 49<br />
From the survey, we also found that the <strong>for</strong>mal representation <strong>of</strong> the ontologies are<br />
usually specified through the primitives such as class (sub-class), property (attribute,<br />
relationship), and axiom. Standard taxonomy and process templates are also <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
included in the process ontologies.<br />
3.3 Goal Modeling<br />
Goal is considered as an important concept to represent business strategy and support<br />
decision making. Goal models are used to represent business objectives <strong>for</strong> stakeholders<br />
and also to drive the elaboration <strong>of</strong> business requirements <strong>for</strong> business analysis and<br />
executions. The research on goal-driven methodologies brought out some goal modeling<br />
approaches and languages. From the literature, goal modeling is mostly designed as<br />
a requirements engineering method, such as KAOS [21], i*/GRL [55], GBRAM [56].<br />
With the development <strong>of</strong> Web services, goal modeling is associated with Web services<br />
modeling <strong>for</strong> goal-driven services discovery, such as WSMO [210].<br />
3.3.1 KAOS (Knowledge Acquisition in autOmated Specification)<br />
KAOS [21] is a goal-driven methodology which is based on a rich framework <strong>for</strong> requirements<br />
elicitation, analysis and management. Goal modeling in KAOS is based on<br />
a goal-oriented process. The process starts with goals which are easy to understand<br />
and communicate. They describe the problems instead <strong>of</strong> the solutions, and can be<br />
refined to different levels <strong>of</strong> abstraction <strong>for</strong> incremental analysis process. With KAOS,<br />
functional and non-functional requirements are <strong>for</strong>mally modeled in terms <strong>of</strong> goals, constraints,<br />
objects, operations, agents, etc. Goals are from available sources and asking<br />
why and how questions; objects, relationships and attributes are derived from the goal<br />
specifications; agents are identified and are assigned alternative responsibility based<br />
on goals; operations and domain pre-/postconditions are also identified from the goal<br />
specifications [192].<br />
3.3.2 i*/GRL (Goal-oriented Requirement Language)<br />
GRL is an extended version <strong>of</strong> i*, a language <strong>for</strong> supporting actor/role oriented modeling,<br />
goal-oriented modeling and reasoning <strong>of</strong> requirements, especifally <strong>for</strong> dealing with<br />
non-functional requirements [40]. Main concepts associated with goals are represented<br />
by intentional elements, intentional relationships and actors. The intentional elements<br />
in GRL are goal, task, s<strong>of</strong>tgoal, belief and resource. The intentional relationships include<br />
means-ends, decompositions, contribution, correlation and dependency. An actor<br />
is an active entity that carries out actions to achieve goals. Goals and requirements are<br />
analyzed through modeling strategic actor relationships. The relationships are modeled<br />
through Strategic Dependency (SD) models and Strategic Rational (SR) models. In<br />
a SD model, one actor (the depender) depends on another actor (the dependee) <strong>for</strong> a<br />
dependum. According to different types <strong>of</strong> dependum, several types <strong>of</strong> dependencies<br />
are distinguished in the Strategic Dependency model, namely goal dependency, task<br />
dependency, resource dependency, and s<strong>of</strong>tgoal dependency. The SR model provides a<br />
more detailed level <strong>of</strong> modeling by looking "inside" actors to model internal intentional