Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
50 CHAPTER 3. STATE OF THE ART relationships. Intentional elements appear in SR models not only as external dependencies, but also as internal elements arranged into (mostly hierarchical) structures of means-ends, task-decompositions and contribution relationships [212]. The means-ends links provide understanding about why an actor would engage in some tasks, pursue a goal, need a resource, or want a soft goal; the task-decomposition links provide a hierarchical description of intentional elements that make up a routine; the contribution links provide elaboration of the effects from intentional elements to softgoals. 3.3.3 GBRAM (Goal-Based Requirements Analysis Method) GBRAM [56] addresses the critical nature of the discovery process in goal analysis. GBRAM can be used in goal analysis and goal refinement/evolution. It defines a top-down analysis method refining goals and attributing them to agents starting from inputs such as corporate mission statements, policy statements, interview transcripts etc. Therefore operationalization process is provided for defining a goal with enough detail so that its subgoals have an operational definition. GBRAM distinguishes between achievement goals and maintenance goals. Achievement goals are objectives of functional processes. Maintenance goals are those goals that are satisfied while their target condition remains true. They tend to be operationalized as actions or constraints that prevent certain states from being reached. Achievement goals usually map to actions that occur in a system, while maintenance goals map to nonfunctional requirements. In GBRAM, agents are the entities or processes that seek to achieve goals within an organization or system based on the implicit responsibility that must assume for the achievement of certain goals; constraints place conditions on the achievement of a goal; goal obstacles are behaviors or other goals that prevent or block the achievement of a given goal. GBRAM supports goal decomposition to subdividing a set of goals into a logical subgrouping. 3.3.4 Goal modeling in EEML Goals in an EEML model can be decomposed into sub-goals and goal connectors such as "and", "or", or "xor". Those connectors can be used to specify logical relationships between the goal and its sub-goals. Besides, EEML provides more connecting relation types to associate goals with the elements in an EEML process model. The connecting relationships in the EEML goal modeling are listed in Table 3.3. 3.3.5 Goal specification in WSMO Goal models in WSMO [210] are descriptions of Web services that would potentially satisfy the user desires. They provide the user view in the Web service usage process. Goal is represented through the capability of the Web services the user would like to have, and the interface of the Web service the user would like to have and interact with. A set of properties strictly belonging to a goal are defined as non-functional properties of a WSMO goal. A goal may be defined by reusing one or several already-existing goals by using goal mediators.
3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AND TOOLS 51 Table 3.3: EEML goal modeling relations Relation type Related type Explanation Goal connector Goal Indicate relationships between goals. A goal connector is used when needing to link several goals Is source of person|organization (origin) The person or organization that is the source of the goal Applies to task|resource role (target) The task or resource role which the goal is relevant for Is precondition for input port (target) A rule to describe more precisely the condition for starting a task Is postcondition for output port (target) A rule to describe more precisely the condition for ending a task Is decision rule of decision point (target) A rule to guide the performance of a decision Is action rule of task (target) A rule for automation of task 3.3.6 Goal modeling and process modeling Although most goal modeling methods do not directly address business process issues, the modeling primitives in those modeling languages are close to process modeling elements, such as actor, task, resource. However, those goal modeling methods do not provide mechanisms to associate goal models to legacy process models. The i*/GRL approach analyzes requirements with strategic dependencies among goals, actors, tasks and resources. In KAOS requirements specification, goals are refined into constraints, objects and operations which are assigned to agents. Actor or agent, resource or object, task or operation and constraint are usually modeling constructs in most process models. That discloses the underlying relationships between goal models and process models. EEML [59] includes goal modeling as one of its four modeling domains. Different types of connecting relationships between goals and process models are defined in EEML goal modeling. WSMO [210] has goals to represent an objective for which fulfillment is sought through the execution of a Web service. The association of a goal and Web services is established through the capability of Web services and a set of ontology mediators. For a business driven SOA, intentional service modeling [157] describes a service in business terms, i.e. goals and to organize their publication, search and composition of the basis of these descriptions. A goal in the intentional service model is described as a state to be reached or maintained by the service. Operation of a business goal is executed through a composition of derived intentional services from MAP [156], a process model expressed in a goal driven perspective. 3.4 Semantic Annotation Methods and Tools Semantic annotation is currently regarded as an approach to enable the Web content machine-understandable in order to achieve the Semantic Web applications. Such a kind of approach usually requires an annotation schema or reference ontologies with explicitly-defined, consensually-agreed, and machine-understandable semantics to annotate the content. Semantic annotation methods have been proposed to be used in giving semantics to unstructured digital resources, such as digital documents, Web pages and images by
- 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 and 68: Representation primitives Process P
- Page 69: 3.3. GOAL MODELING 49 From the surv
- 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
- Page 118 and 119: 98 CHAPTER 6. PRO-SEAT (PROCESS SEM
3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AND TOOLS 51<br />
Table 3.3: EEML goal modeling relations<br />
Relation type Related type Explanation<br />
Goal connector Goal Indicate relationships between goals. A<br />
goal connector is used when needing to<br />
link several goals<br />
Is source <strong>of</strong> person|organization (origin) The person or organization that is the<br />
source <strong>of</strong> the goal<br />
Applies to task|resource role (target) The task or resource role which the goal<br />
is relevant <strong>for</strong><br />
Is precondition <strong>for</strong> input port (target) A rule to describe more precisely the<br />
condition <strong>for</strong> starting a task<br />
Is postcondition <strong>for</strong> output port (target) A rule to describe more precisely the<br />
condition <strong>for</strong> ending a task<br />
Is decision rule <strong>of</strong> decision point (target) A rule to guide the per<strong>for</strong>mance <strong>of</strong> a<br />
decision<br />
Is action rule <strong>of</strong> task (target) A rule <strong>for</strong> automation <strong>of</strong> task<br />
3.3.6 Goal modeling and process modeling<br />
Although most goal modeling methods do not directly address business process issues,<br />
the modeling primitives in those modeling languages are close to process modeling elements,<br />
such as actor, task, resource. However, those goal modeling methods do not<br />
provide mechanisms to associate goal models to legacy process models. The i*/GRL<br />
approach analyzes requirements with strategic dependencies among goals, actors, tasks<br />
and resources. In KAOS requirements specification, goals are refined into constraints,<br />
objects and operations which are assigned to agents. Actor or agent, resource or object,<br />
task or operation and constraint are usually modeling constructs in most process<br />
models. That discloses the underlying relationships between goal models and process<br />
models. EEML [59] includes goal modeling as one <strong>of</strong> its four modeling domains. Different<br />
types <strong>of</strong> connecting relationships between goals and process models are defined<br />
in EEML goal modeling. WSMO [210] has goals to represent an objective <strong>for</strong> which<br />
fulfillment is sought through the execution <strong>of</strong> a Web service. The association <strong>of</strong> a goal<br />
and Web services is established through the capability <strong>of</strong> Web services and a set <strong>of</strong><br />
ontology mediators. For a business driven SOA, intentional service modeling [157] describes<br />
a service in business terms, i.e. goals and to organize their publication, search<br />
and composition <strong>of</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> these descriptions. A goal in the intentional service<br />
model is described as a state to be reached or maintained by the service. Operation <strong>of</strong><br />
a business goal is executed through a composition <strong>of</strong> derived intentional services from<br />
MAP [156], a process model expressed in a goal driven perspective.<br />
3.4 <strong>Semantic</strong> <strong>Annotation</strong> Methods and Tools<br />
<strong>Semantic</strong> annotation is currently regarded as an approach to enable the Web content<br />
machine-understandable in order to achieve the <strong>Semantic</strong> Web applications. Such a<br />
kind <strong>of</strong> approach usually requires an annotation schema or reference ontologies with<br />
explicitly-defined, consensually-agreed, and machine-understandable semantics to annotate<br />
the content.<br />
<strong>Semantic</strong> annotation methods have been proposed to be used in giving semantics<br />
to unstructured digital resources, such as digital documents, Web pages and images by
Change language