Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ... Semantic Annotation for Process Models: - Department of Computer ...
64 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION FRAMEWORK section 2.2.1). Based on the semiotic triangle we can build the relationships between model, meta-model, modeling language and ontology as shown in Figure 4.1. In the triangle, a model is a conceptualization of referents and it is represented as a set of model denotations in a certain modeling language. Model denotations are signs which signify concepts in the model. The model is an instance of a meta-model, and the meta-model defines a modeling language. A concept is a mental perception which is in a human’s mind. One concept referring to a referent can be represented differently. On the other hand, representations of different concepts may look similar in two models. The differences are results of the way of conceptualization of modeling or representations of model denotations defined in a modeling language. The semantic heterogeneity existing in different models can therefore be distinguished at the model and the modeling language level (we also call it the meta-model level). Figure 4.1: Relationships between ontology, model, meta-model and modeling language in the semiotic triangle In order for a machine to understand the heterogeneous semantics in the models (e.g. various signs of referents referring to the same concepts or synonym signs of referents referring to different concepts), a common understanding of concepts has to be formalized in a machine-interpretable way. An ontology is created for this purpose. In the semiotic triangle, the semantics of concepts are formally in a standard i.e. they are represented as an ontology. Ontologies aid the sharing of knowledge on the basis of the assumption that there is a single reality and the sharing is a matter of aligning the way different people or systems think about it [70]. Therefore, in the semiotic triangle
4.1. THEORETICAL BASIS 65 concepts can be conceptualized as an ontology in a consensual way. A meta-model is also a model – a model of the modeling language. For a metamodel, a modeling referent is a meta-model element or modeling construct, and a modeling sign is the notation of a meta-model element. A modeling sign standing for a meta-model element is used to represent a modeling concept in a certain modeling domain. Semantic heterogeneity problems will still occur on the meta-model level provided that a meta-model is a model. We assume that a modeling ontology can provide the common conceptualization of modeling concepts referring to the same modeling referents. According to Leppänen’s OntoFrame [87], a meta-model can be adapted from a modeling ontology. The semantic heterogeneity of modeling languages can therefore be reconciled through the modeling ontology. Based on this theory, we annotate the meta-model of a modeling language with the modeling ontology in this research. The relationship between modeling language, meta-model and modeling ontology is displayed in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Relationships between modeling ontology, meta-model and modeling language in the semiotic triangle 4.1.2 Semiotic triangle for process modeling In the context of our research, process meta-model, process modeling language, process model, process model denotation and process ontology are specified in the semiotic triangle (Figure 4.3). We also include model levels in the figure to explicate the positions of those modeling concepts. The model levels are adapted from the model level ontology in [87] to show the different levels of process models. Process meta-model and process model are both models. Process meta-models are categorized at the meta level, and process models are at the type level. In this research, we focus on process models at the type level including their meta models at the meta level. Process models at the type level are the resources of process knowledge in our context.
- 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 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 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
- Page 128 and 129: 108 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 130 and 131: 110 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
- Page 132 and 133: 112 CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLAR STUDIES AND
64 CHAPTER 4. SEMANTIC ANNOTATION FRAMEWORK<br />
section 2.2.1). Based on the semiotic triangle we can build the relationships between<br />
model, meta-model, modeling language and ontology as shown in Figure 4.1. In the triangle,<br />
a model is a conceptualization <strong>of</strong> referents and it is represented as a set <strong>of</strong> model<br />
denotations in a certain modeling language. Model denotations are signs which signify<br />
concepts in the model. The model is an instance <strong>of</strong> a meta-model, and the meta-model<br />
defines a modeling language. A concept is a mental perception which is in a human’s<br />
mind. One concept referring to a referent can be represented differently. On the other<br />
hand, representations <strong>of</strong> different concepts may look similar in two models. The differences<br />
are results <strong>of</strong> the way <strong>of</strong> conceptualization <strong>of</strong> modeling or representations <strong>of</strong><br />
model denotations defined in a modeling language. The semantic heterogeneity existing<br />
in different models can there<strong>for</strong>e be distinguished at the model and the modeling<br />
language level (we also call it the meta-model level).<br />
Figure 4.1: Relationships between ontology, model, meta-model and modeling language in<br />
the semiotic triangle<br />
In order <strong>for</strong> a machine to understand the heterogeneous semantics in the models<br />
(e.g. various signs <strong>of</strong> referents referring to the same concepts or synonym signs <strong>of</strong><br />
referents referring to different concepts), a common understanding <strong>of</strong> concepts has to<br />
be <strong>for</strong>malized in a machine-interpretable way. An ontology is created <strong>for</strong> this purpose.<br />
In the semiotic triangle, the semantics <strong>of</strong> concepts are <strong>for</strong>mally in a standard i.e. they<br />
are represented as an ontology. Ontologies aid the sharing <strong>of</strong> knowledge on the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
the assumption that there is a single reality and the sharing is a matter <strong>of</strong> aligning the<br />
way different people or systems think about it [70]. There<strong>for</strong>e, in the semiotic triangle