Improving Business Process Model Quality Using Domain Ontologies
Tóm tắt
This paper addresses the issue of improving quality of business process (BP) models by exploiting domain knowledge. Indeed, business process models reflect the business processes of companies. The success of these processes has a direct and undeniable impact on business operations success. Managing them through their underlying models helps improving their effectiveness, consistency, and transparency. BP modeling aims at a better understanding of processes, allowing deciders to achieve strategic goals of the company. However, several studies from the literature showed that in experienced system analysts often produce low-level quality. This situation is partly due to lack of domain knowledge. In this paper, we propose to support this modeling effort with an approach that uses domain knowledge to improve the semantic quality of BP models. We suggest to use ontologies as a mean to capture domain knowledge and meta-modeling techniques to deal with BP models independently of languages in which they are expressed. Our contribution is threefold: (1) the meta-models describing both a domain ontology and a BP model are described, (2) the alignment between the concepts of both meta-models is defined and illustrated, (3) a set of Object Constraint Language mapping rules is provided. A simple case study illustrates the process.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 1.2. Technical report (2009). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2/PDF
van der Aalst WMP (2007) Challenges in business process analysis. In: ICEIS (Selected Papers). pp 27–42
van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Kiepuszewski B, Barros AP (2003) Workflow patterns. Distrib Parallel Databases 14(1):5–51
Aguilar ER, Ruiz F, García F, Piattini M (2006) Applying software metrics to evaluate business process models. CLEI Electron J 9(1)
Aguilar-Saven RS (2004) Business process modelling: review and framework. Int J Prod Econ 90(2):129–149. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VF8-48WPV50-1/2/46adae8b9ceafa72bb47d4abadc2b2ad
Basili VR, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (1994) The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of software engineering. Wiley, New York, vol 2, pp 528–532
Becker J, Rosemann M, von Uthmann C (2000) Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Business process management: models, techniques and empirical studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 30–49
Brucker AD, Krieger MP, Longuet D, Wolff B (2011) A specification-based test case generation method for uml/ocl. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Models in software engineering, MODELS’10. Springer, Berlin, pp 334–348. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2008503.2008548
Cardoso J (2007) Business process quality metrics: log-based complexity of workflow patterns. In: Proceedings of the 2007 OTM Confederated international conference on On the move to meaningful internet systems: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS—volume Part I, OTM’07. Springer, Berlin, pp 427–434. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1784607.1784645
Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. Language, speech, and communication. Mit Press, Cambridge. http://books.google.fr/books?id=Rehu8OOzMIMC
Ghani A, Muketha K, Wen W (2008) Complexity metrics for measuring the understandability and maintainability of business process models using goal–question–metric (GQM). Int J Comput Sci Netw Secur 8:219–225
Gruhn V, Laue R (2006) Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th international conference on business information systems (BIS 2006). Lecture notes in informatics, vol 85. pp 1–12
Jansen-vullers MH, Netjes M (2006) Business process simulation a tool survey. In: Workshop and tutorial on practical use of coloured petri nets and the CPN
Jarke M, Informatik THAF (1992) Theories underlying requirements engineering: an overview of NATURE at genesis. In: Aachener Informatik-Berichte. Fachgruppe Informatik der RWTH. pp 19–31. http://books.google.fr/books?id=-0kKHAAACAAJ
Johansson H (1993) Business process reengineering: breakpoint strategies for market dominance. Wiley, New York. http://books.google.fr/books?id=wA7tAAAAMAAJ
Kaiya H, Saeki M (2005) Ontology based requirements analysis: Lightweight semantic processing approach. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on quality software, QSIC ’05. IEEE computer society, Washington, DC, pp 223–230. doi:10.1109/QSIC.2005.46
Khatri V, Vessey I, Ramesh V, Clay P, Park SJ (2006) Understanding conceptual schemas: exploring the role of application and is domain knowledge. Inf Syst Res 17(1):81–99
Krogstie J, Lindland OI, Sindre G (1995) Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the IFIP international working conference on information system concepts: towards a consolidation of views. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, pp 216–231. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645618.660960
Leung F, Bolloju N (2005) Analyzing the quality of domain models developed by novice systems analysts. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 07. HICSS ’05. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p 188.2. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.98
List B, Korherr B (2006) An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on applied computing, SAC ’06. ACM, New York, pp 1532–1539. doi:10.1145/1141277.1141633
Mendling J, Recker JC, Reijers HA (2010) On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. Int J Inf Syst Model Design 1(2):40–58. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/32288/
Mendling J, Reijers HA, Cardoso J (2007) What makes process models understandable? In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on business process management, BPM’07. Springer, Berlin, pp 48–63. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1793114.1793120
Lopes de Oliveira J, Graciano Neto VV, Larissa da Costa S (2010) A business process metamodel for enterprise information systems automatic generation. In: Brazilian workshop on model-driven development, Brazil. UFBA, Salvador, BA, Brasil, p 4552
Purandare A, Pedersen T (2004) Word sense discrimination by clustering contexts in vector and similarity spaces. In: Proceedings of the conference on computational natural language learning. pp 41–48.
Purao S, Storey VC (2005) A multi-layered ontology for comparing relationship semantics in conceptual models of databases. Appl Ontol 1(1):117–139. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1412350.1412360
Shanks G (2007) Conceptual data modelling: an empirical study of expert and novice data modellers. Australas J Inf Syst 4(2): 63–73. http://dl.acs.org.au/index.php/ajis/article/view/360
Sugumaran V, C Storey V (2006) The role of domain ontologies in database design: an ontology management and conceptual modeling environment. ACM Trans Database Syst (TODS) 31:1064–1094
Sun PR (1995) Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. pp 448–453
Tziviskou C, Keet CM (2007) A meta-model for ontologies with orm2. In: Proceedings of the 2007 OTM confederated international conference on On the move to meaningful internet systems—volume Part I. OTM’07. Springer, Berlin, pp 624–633. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1780909.1781012
Vanderfeesten I, Cardoso J, Reijers HA, Van Der Aalst W (2007) Quality metrics for business process models. BPM and Worklow handbook, pp 179–190
Wieringa R (1989) Three roles of conceptual models in information system design and use. In: Falkenberg ED, Lindgreen P (eds) Information system concepts: an in-dept analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 31–51. http://doc.utwente.nl/67619/
Wu Z, Palmer M (1994) Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, ACL ’94. Association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 133–138. doi:10.3115/981732.981751