Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
58 CHAPTER 3. STATE OF THE ART models must be expressed in RDF format and based on ATHOS metamodel. Moreover, the full semantic annotation in OWL expressions are not supported yet. 3.5 Requirements for Semantic Annotation Systems Based on the above survey, we have identified a list of requirements for a semantic annotation system, some of which we are targeting in our work. 1. The system should be able to present and parse annotation source models which are originally in certain formats and representations. 2. The system should provide an ontology browser for the overview and manipulation of ontological knowledge. 3. Semantic annotation schema or metadata should be supplied (pre-defined) or generated (ontology-based) by the system. 4. The annotation procedure should be easily manipulated by users with the system, i.e. easy to locate "annotatee" (e.g. entity in source model) and "annotater" (e.g. concept in ontology) during the annotation. 5. The system should support the maintenance of annotation results (e.g. embedded vs. stand-off annotation). 6. Multiple-ontology references (e.g. different levels of ontologies) might be supported in the system. 7. Different types of annotations (e.g. instance identification, URI links, and other semantic relationships) might be supported. 8. Semi-automation or automation of annotation might be considered in the system. 9. The system might be able to serialize annotation for reuse of annotation results in different systems. 10. It might be possible to conduct semantic inference among ontology-based semantic annotations. 3.6 Summary In this chapter, we has investigated the diversity of the modeling constructs defined in a number of existing business process modeling languages. The modeling constructs have been categorized according to the process perspectives. The categories illuminates the possibility to map the modeling constructs between different modeling languages in each process perspective. We have also surveyed a number of different process ontologies. Through the survey, we have compared the ontological representations of process perspectives in different process ontologies. The comparison results provide some principles of ontological representations of a process ontology which we can apply in our process ontology proposal for the semantic annotation purpose.
3.6. SUMMARY 59 In the goal modeling survey, we have found some overlapping modeling constructs in goal modeling and process modeling, such as actor or agent, resource or object, task or operation and constraint. That discloses the underlying relationships between goal models and process models. Connecting relationships in EEML goal modeling provide more explicit view of such links between goals and processes. A list of requirements have been identified based on the survey of the annotation tools and methods. Although they are not tailored to the semantic annotation of process models, they provide a good baseline — what a semantic annotation tool should look like and how to develop an ontology-based semantic annotation approach.
- 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
- Page 75 and 76: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- Page 77: 3.4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION METHODS AN
- 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
- 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: 106 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
3.6. SUMMARY 59<br />
In the goal modeling survey, we have found some overlapping modeling constructs<br />
in goal modeling and process modeling, such as actor or agent, resource or object, task<br />
or operation and constraint. That discloses the underlying relationships between goal<br />
models and process models. Connecting relationships in EEML goal modeling provide<br />
more explicit view <strong>of</strong> such links between goals and processes.<br />
A list <strong>of</strong> requirements have been identified based on the survey <strong>of</strong> the annotation<br />
tools and methods. Although they are not tailored to the semantic annotation <strong>of</strong> process<br />
models, they provide a good baseline — what a semantic annotation tool should look<br />
like and how to develop an ontology-based semantic annotation approach.
Change language