CycLc

SemanticEPC:EnhancingProcessModelingUsingOntologyLanguagesOliverThomas,MichaelFellmannInstituteforInformationSystems(IWi)attheGermanResearchCenterforArtificialIntelligence(DFKI),Saarbruecken(Germany){oliver.
thomas|michael.
fellmann}@iwi.
dfki.
dehttp://iwi.
dfki.
deAbstract.
Inthisarticlewedescribeasemanticextensionofevent-drivenproc-esschains,withwhichitispossibletospecifythesemanticsofindividualmodelelementsasitisindicatedbytheirlabelinnaturallanguageusingcon-ceptsofaformalontology.
Todoso,amulti-levelapproachwasdeveloped,whichcomprisesanontologylevel,ametadatalevel,aswellasamodellevel.
Withtheapproachpresentedhere,ambiguitythatisintroducedbytheuseofnaturallanguageinsemi-formalmodelscanberemoved.
Moreover,newpossi-bilitiesofreasoningoverbusinessprocessmodelsareintroducedwhichim-provetheanalysis,searchandvalidationofbusinessprocesses.
1Keywords:ProcessModeling,ModelingLanguages,Event-DrivenProcessChain,SemanticWeb,EnterpriseOntologies,OntologyLanguages1.
IntroductionAmultitudeofmodelinglanguagesfortherepresentationofprocesseshavebeendevelopedsincethefirstlargedataprocessingapplications[4].
ExamplesarethePetrinet[26],theevent-drivenprocesschain[23],theUMLactivitydiagram[6]ortheBusinessProcessModelingNotation(BPMN)[7].
Themodelsdescribedbythesemodelinglanguagesservethecommunicationbetweenemployeesinanorganizationwithspecialistknowledgeandthose,withmethodicalortechnicalknowledgesuchasforexample,consultantsorsoftwareengineers[29].
Onetriestoavoidtheproblemoffuzzinessinnaturallanguageandthemanyproblemsintheinherentimpracticabilityofmathematicalformulationsthroughsemi-formal,graphicformsofrepresentationinmodelinglanguages.
Thesearebasedcloselyonspecializedbusinessterms,exactenough,howeverthatthemodelscanserveasastartingpointfortheimplementationofcomputer-supportedinformationsystems.
1AnextendedversionofthisarticlewillappearintheSpecialIssueonInformationModelingandOntologiesoftheInternationalJournalofInteroperabilityinBusinessInformationSys-tems(http://ibis-journal.
net/).
Eventhoughthisisafundamentalideaforthemodel-drivendevelopmentofin-formationsystems[14;17],thesaidlinkagebetweennaturallanguageandgraphicrepresentationformsisamainproblemofsemi-formalmodelinglanguages.
Theidentifiersoftheindividualelementsofabusinessprocessmodelareaddedinanatu-rallanguagebythemodeler,irrespectiveofhisdecisionforacertainmodelinglan-guage.
Anessentialpartofthesemanticsofaprocessmodelisthusalwaysboundtothenaturallanguage,which,withitsambiguities,allowsmuchroomforinterpreta-tion.
Thisisnotaproblemaslongasamodeliscreatedandreadbyonlyoneperson.
Clearlydefinedsemanticsforeachmodelelementishowevernecessary,ifprocessmodelsfromvariousmodelersarecombined,searchedandtranslated[28]orifitisplannedthatthesemanticsinthemodelsshouldbeautomaticallyvalidatedandusedfortheconfigurationofaninformationsystem.
Theproblemmentionedabovecanbemetthroughthelinkageoftheelementsofabusinessprocessmodelwithconceptsfromanontology.
Inthisarticlewewillde-velopsuchasemanticextensionforaprocessmodelinglanguage,whichrepresentsthesemanticsofthelabelsofprocessmodelelementswithconceptsofaformalon-tology.
ThissemanticextensionwillbecarriedoutexemplifiedbytheEPC.
Wese-lectedtheprocessmodelinglanguageEPCbecauseofitspopularityinmodelingpractice.
However,ourapproachisprincipallytransferabletoothersemi-formalmod-elinglanguages,suchasforexampletheUMLactivitydiagramorBPMN.
2.
RelatedWorkTheideaofusingontologiesintheareaofbusinessprocessmanagementisnotnew.
Forexample,WandandWeberhaveusedontologiestodescribeandevaluatecertainaspectsofmodelinglanguages[31;32].
Thecoreareaofrelatedworkcanbefoundattheintersectionofbusinessprocessmanagementandsemanticweb,whichwascurrentlydiscussedintheworkshop"Se-manticsforBusinessProcessManagement"attheESWC2006[8].
Inadditiontoapplicationpossibilitiesinindustry,theusabilityofontologiesinbridgingofseman-ticdifferencesforadministrativeprocesseswasexemplified[20].
However,therewasnocontributionshowingaframeworkfortheinterplayofprocessmodelinglanguagesandontologies.
Whileourapproachtotheannotationofbusinessprocessmodelsis,inprinciple,designedlanguage-independent,therearerelatedprojectsthataregearedexclusivelytothesemanticannotationofmodelsinacertainlanguage.
AnapproachtosemanticannotationforPetrinets[11],aformalframeworkforprocessdescription[15],aswellasatoolforthesemi-automaticcompletionofmodelsduringmodelconstructiononthebasisofsimilarityanalysesexistforexample[10].
Aconceptfortheautomaticsynthesisandmodificationofmodelsafterchangestosub-processesalsoexistsfortheUMLactivitydiagram[24].
Whilewefocusmoreonbusiness-levelprocessmodels,thepotentialofcombiningprocessmodelswith(semantic)webservicesisdescribedin[18;19].
Thisworkcanbeseenascomplementarytoourapproachandmightbeusedinthefutureinordertoprovideaframeworkfortheintegrationofsemanticbusiness-levelandIT-levelproc-essmodels.
SemtalkisatoolforthelinkageofEPC-modelswithontologiesonthebasisofMicrosoftVISIO[12].
However,withthistoolthesemanticsoftheEPC-modelele-mentsisboundtothepropertiesandoperationsofobjects(intheobject-orientedmeaning),whichheavilylimitstheusabilityofthemodelinglanguage.
3.
ResearchMethodologyWiththeapproachpresentedhere,thesemanticsofindividualmodelelementswillbespecifiedusingconceptsfromaformalontology.
Thelinkageofmodelelementswiththeontologyrequiredforthiswillberealizedusingaseparatemetadatalevel.
Thus,themodelingtoolsanddataformatsremainusablewhilethemetadatacanbesavedinformatsaccessibletothedirectmachineprocessingofthesemanticscontainedinthemodels.
Altogether,theconnectionsillustratedintheframeworkforthesemanticannota-tionofbusinessprocessmodelsexistbetweenmodels,metadataandontologies(cp.
Fig.
1).
Metadataisgeneratedfrommodels(arrowfrom"Models"to"Metadata").
Thismetadatacontainsreferencestothemodelelementsoftheinitialmodel,aswellastotheconceptsoftheontology.
Ontologiesandmetadataareinterdependent(dou-ble-headedarrowbetween"Ontologies"and"Metadata").
Conceptsfromtheontol-ogyareusedinthemetadatatospecifythemeaningofmodelelements.
Therefore,theontologiesusedmustcontaintherequiredconceptsortheymustbeaddedtotheontologiesinthecourseofthecreationofthemetadata.
ConceptionRepresentationOntologiesMetadataModelsOWLRDFXMLFig.
1.
FrameworkforthesemanticannotationofbusinessprocessmodelsTheconceptualelementsoftheapproachpresentedherecanbeassignedtorepre-sentationformatsforimplementationpurposes.
ThesecanbeseenontherightsideofFig.
1andwillbeintroducedatalaterpointintime.
Inthecourseofthisarticle,wewillfirstdiscussontologiesforbusinessprocessmanagement.
Then,inthemainpartofthearticle,wewillshowhowontologiesandevent-drivenprocesschainscanbecombinedtoformanintegratedapproachtose-manticbusinessprocessmodeling.
Finally,thearticlecloseswithadiscussionandanoutlook.
4.
OntologiesforSemanticBusinessProcessManagementAstandardizationoftermsforandconceptsonontologieshasbeenthetopicofre-searchforyearsinthefieldofartificialintelligenceandthesemanticweb.
AccordingtoGruber,anontologyis"aformal,explicitspecificationofasharedconceptualiza-tion"[16].
Inthisarticle,wetransferthebasicideaofthesemanticwebwhichistogiveinformationawell-definedmeaninginordertomakeitprocessablebothforhumansandmachines[9],tothefieldofbusinessprocessmanagement.
Inourap-proach,ontologiesarenotonlyusedtoclarifythesemanticsofindividualmodelele-ments,butalsotoinfernewfactsnotincludedintheoriginalprocessmodeltoenableadvancedsearchandvalidationcapabilities(seealsosection5.
3).
Therearevariouslanguagesfortheexplicitandformalrepresentationofanontol-ogysuchas,forexampleCML,ConceptualRepresentation,CycL,KIF,Loom,OILandtheWebOntologyLanguage(OWL).
OWL[1]isastandardfromtheWorldWideWebConsortium(W3C),whichresultedfromthemergingofDARPAandOIL.
OWLwillbeusedhereasthelanguageforrepresentingontologiesduetoitsincreasedacceptanceand,inconnectionwiththis,thesupportofthelanguagethroughsoftwarelibrariesandtools.
OWLisavailableinthreevariations:OWLLite,OWLDLandOWLFull,however,thelevel"DL"issufficientfortheontologiesdiscussedinthisarticle.
Itisunnecessarytodevelopcompletelynewontologiesforsemanticbusinessproc-essmanagement.
First,oneshouldleverageexistingontologies.
Intheareaofenter-priseandprocessmodeling,relevantontologiesincludetheEnterpriseOntology[30],TOVE[TOrontoVirtualEnterprise,13]andBMO[BusinessManagementOntology,22].
Theseontologiesprovideastartingpointforthecoherentdescriptionoftheen-terprise.
Second,thedefinitionsforontology-constructionfoundinestablishedtech-nicalstandardsandvocabulariescanbereusedasvaluableassets.
Theseare,forex-ample,inthebusinessprocessesfieldebXMLandRosettaNet,forbusinesstransac-tionsEDIFACTandOpenTrans,forbusinessdocumentsUBLandxCBL,fortheclassificationofproductsandservicesUNSPSC,eCl@ss,cXMLandISIC–tonamebutafew.
Inadditiontotheseenterprise-spanningstandards,ontologiescan,third,alsobeobtainedfromthecompany-specificconceptualizationofadomain.
Forthis,ontologiescanalsobederivedfromentityrelationshipmodelscommonintheenvi-ronmentofrelationaldatabasesandERP-systemsusingtheOntologyDefinitionMetamodel(ODM)[3]proposedbytheOMG.
Inthefollowing,wewillshowasimpleexampleofanontologyandillustrateitwithagraphicrepresentation(cp.
Fig.
2).
Propertiessymbolizedbyarrowssignifyobjectproperties(ObjectProperties)inOWL,whichcorrelatetheinstancesofclassestooneanother.
Inheritancerelationsrefertothelanguageconstructrdfs:subClassOfusedinRDFandOWL.
Theontologyframeworkexemplarilycontainsclassesfororganizationalunits,tasks,events,servicesandrulesasrelevantelementsofanenterprisedescription.
Theseclassescanbespecializedarbitrarily.
Inourexample,theclassesEventandServicewerefurtherspecialized(cp.
Fig.
2).
Inadditiontoclasses,theexampleontologycontainsinstances,whichsymbolizeamemberofaclass.
ThepropertiespartOfandusesaredefinedtobetransitive,sothatadditionalfactscanbeinferredbyqueryingtheontologywithquerylanguages.
Inthecourseofthisarticle,ourex-ampleontologywillbeusedtospecifythemodelelement-specificsemanticsoftheelementsofanEPC-model.
Connections:PropertyInstantiationGeneralisation/Specialis.
TaskOrg.
unitOrderrelatedtaskOntologyProductDataCustomerdataCustomerorderprocessingOrderconfirma-tionOrderverificationEventSaleseventOrderreceiptProductionSalesProductioneventRuleCreditworthinessruleProductconfiguratorCreditworthinesscheckFeasibilitycheckusesdependsOnassignedToassignedTousesCreditworthinessusesdependsOnusesOrderacceptanceOrderverificationrulepartOfpartOfpartOfpartOfServiceDataserviceVerificationserviceClassesInstancesassignedTopartOfusesusesdependsOnFig.
2.
Frameworkforanenterpriseontology5.
SemanticEvent-DrivenProcessChains5.
1.
TheModelingLanguageEPCTheevent-drivenprocesschainisamodelinglanguagefortherepresentationofbusi-nessprocessescommoninresearchandpractice.
ItwasdevelopedattheInstituteforInformationSystemsattheSaarlandUniversityinSaarbruecken,incooperationwiththeSAP,Inc.
[23].
AnEPC-modelisadirectedandconnectedgraph,whosenodesareevents,functionsandlogicalconnectors.
Fig.
3showsanexampleEPC-model,whichdescribestheprocessforcustomerorderprocessing.
OrderreceivedVerifyorderOrderacceptedSendorderconfirmationOrderprocessedOrderrejectedSendorderrejectionFig.
3.
EPC-modelforcustomerorderprocessingEventsarethepassiveelementsintheEPCandarerepresentedbyhexagons.
Functions,representedbyroundedrectangles,aretheactiveelementsintheEPC.
Theterm"function"isequivalenttotheterm"task"intheEPC[23].
Whilefunctionsrepresenttime-consuminghappenings,eventsoccuratacertainpointintime.
Inlit-erature,therespectiveobjectandaninfinitiveverbaresuggestedasanamingcon-ventionforfunctions,whereasforevents,theobjectthatexperiencesthechange,aswellasaverbinperfecttense,whichstatesthetypeofchangearesuggested[27].
Eventstriggerfunctionsandaretheirresult.
Controlflowedgesrepresenttherela-tionshipsbetweenfunctionsandevents.
Conjunctive"",adjunctive""anddis-junctive""logicalconnectorsareintroducedtoexpressthatfunctionsarestartedbyoneormoreeventsresp.
thatafunctioncancreateoneormoreeventsasaresult(cp.
Fig.
3).
TheyarereferredtoasAND-,OR-resp.
XOR-connectors.
5.
2.
Ontology-basedRepresentationoftheEPCTospecifythesemanticsofEPC-modelelementsthroughrelationstoontologycon-cepts,theEPCfirstmustberepresentedwithintheontology.
Inregardtotherepre-sentationoftheEPCintheontology,onecandifferentiatebetweenarepresentationofEPC-languageconstructsandarepresentationofEPC-modelelements.
EPC-languageconstructssuchas"function"or"event",aswellasthecontrolflowarecreatedintheontologyasclassesandproperties.
Subsequently,theEPC-modelele-mentscanberepresentedthroughtheinstantiationoftheseclassesandpropertiesintheontology.
Fig.
4showsthisbymeansofasimpleprocessfragment.
Submodel1EventModelelementflowFunctionConnectorModelbelongsToflowflowbelongsTobelongsTobelongsTohasSubModelOrderprocessedProcessorderOrderreceivedModel1Event2Event1Function1hasSubModelORANDXORPropertyLinkageOntolgyandEPCInstantiationSpecialisationEPCcontrolflowConnections:Fig.
4.
RepresentationoftheEPCintheontology5.
3.
TheLinkagebetweenEPC-ModelElementsandOntologyInstancesThelinkageofEPC-modelelementswithontologyinstancescanalsobereferredtoasaprocessofsemanticannotation.
TheEPC-modelelementsalreadyrepresentedintheontology(cp.
precedingsection)aretherebyputinrelationtofurtherinstancesoftheontology.
Fig.
5showsthislinkagebasedontheexampleprocessofFig.
3andtheexampleontologyrepresentedinFig.
2.
ThelinkageoftheontologyandEPC-modelelementinstancesisaccomplishedbytheusageofproperties;thesearerepre-sentedinFig.
5assemType-properties.
Justasthenameindicates,thesepropertiesspecifythesemanticsofanEPC-modelelementthrougharelationtoanontologyinstancewithformalsemanticsdefinedbytheontology.
PropertyMappingEPC-Model/OntologyInstantiationSpecialisationEPCcontrolflowConnections:flowOrderreceivedVerifyorderOrderacceptedSendorderconfirmationOrderprocessedOrderrejectedSendorderrejectionProcessModelEPCMetadataflowflowsemTypesemTypeflowflowsemTypesemTypeflowsemTypeflowflowsemTypeEvent1ConnectorXOR1Event2Event3Event4Function1Function2Function3ConnectorXOR2TaskOrg.
unitOrderrelatedTaskProductdataCustomerdataCustomerorderprocessingOrdercon-firmationOrderverificationEventSaleseventOrderreceiptProductionSalesProductioneventRuleCreditworthinessruleProdctconfiguratorCreditworthinesscheckFeasibilitycheckusesdependsOnassignedToassignedTousesCreditworthinessusesdependsOnusesOrderacceptanceOrderverificationrulepartOfpartOfpartOfpartOfServiceDataserviceVerificationserviceassignedTopartOfusesusesdependsOnOntologyClassesInstancesFig.
5.
Semanticallyannotatedprocessmodel"customerorderprocessing"Inadditiontothedecouplingofthesemanticsofanindividualmodelelementfromitsnaturallanguagelabel,thecontextofamodelelementisspecifiedmoreaccuratelythroughthelinkageofanontologyinstancetothemodelelement.
Thishappensviarelations,whichexistbetweentheontologyinstancerepresentingtheEPC-modelele-mentandfurtherinstancesoftheontology.
Inprinciple,suchaspecificationofrela-tionstofurtherconcepts,suchasorganizationalunitsorresources,wasalreadysug-gestedwiththeextendedEPC[27]andotherapproachestomulti-perspectivemodel-ing.
Incontrasttotheseapproaches,theconceptpresentedhereusesaflexible,graph-baseddatamodel,whichallowsmachine-processablesemanticsthatcanbeextendedbyintegratingrules.
Bymeansofthegraph-baseddatamodelprovidedbytheResourceDescriptionFramework(RDF)[2]andOWL,abusinessprocessisrepresentedinthesemanticmetadataasandirectedgraphwithnodesandedges.
Consequently,onecantraversethegraphjumpingfromonenodetothenextviapropertiesusingsimplepatterns,alsoreferredtoasgraphpatternmatching.
AnexampleforsuchaqueryisthequestionintheexampleinFig.
5,astowhetheranEPC-functionexists,connectedviaapropertysemTypetoaTask,whosepartsareconnectedviaapropertyuseswithinstancesoftheclassService,whichinturnareconnectedviaapropertyuseswithaninstanceoftheclassRule.
WithSPARQL[5],whichisrecommendedbytheW3C,weal-readyhaveaquerylanguageforcarryingoutsuchqueries.
Moreover,newfactsthatarenotexplicitlycreatedintheprocessmodelbythemodelercanbeinferredduringtheexecutionofthequery.
IntheexampleinFig.
5,onecanconcludethroughthetransitivedefinitionofthepropertypartOf,thatthefeasibilitycheckisapartofcustomerorderprocessing.
Rulelanguagesallowasignificantextensionofthemachine-processablesemantics.
RulescanbeembeddedintheOWL-ontologyusingSWRL(SemanticWebRuleLanguage)[21].
SWRLrulescanbeexpressedusingthesyntaxofOWL,thereforeallowingatightintegrationofontologiesandrules.
Anexampleforasimpleruleistheuncle-rule,whichimpliesanuncle-relationthroughthecompositionofparentandbrother-relations:parent(,)brother(,)uncle(,)xyyzxz∧Transferredtobusinessprocessmodeling,suchrulesallow,asintegrityrules,anadvancedsemanticvalidation.
Thus,forexample,thepolicycanbeformulatedthatallbusinessprocessrelatedto"orderprocessing"mustcontainafunction"customerconfirmation".
Inaddition,newfactscanbewonintheformofderivationrulesdur-ingruntime.
Thus,forexample,wecanconcludethataprocess,whichcontainsafunctionthatrequiressemi-finishedproducts,reducesstock.
5.
4.
RDF-RepresentationoftheSemanticEPCIntechnicalterms,thelinkageofEPC-modelelementsisrealizedbyaddingattributestotheXML-representationofanEPC-model.
Theseattributesidentifytheontologyinstancewhichsemanticallyspecifiestherelevantprocessmodelelement.
Fig.
6illus-tratesthisgraphically,aswellaswiththecorrespondingXML-vocabulariesEPML(Event-DrivenProcessMarkupLanguage)fortheEPC-representation[25],RDFforasemanticrepresentationoftheEPC–referredtoassEPC–andOWLfortherepre-sentationofontologyclassesandinstances.
AswecanseeinFig.
6,alinkageoftheEPC-modelelementandontologyinstanceoccursoveranintermediatestepintheformofmetadata.
Thismetadatareferencesboththeontologyinstanceandtheprocessmodelelement,whichisindicatedbythedashedlineconnectingcheckOrderintheprocessmodel,inthemetadataandintheontology(cp.
alsoFig.
5).
Inaddition,thenaturallanguagelabelsoftheEPC-modelelementsareusedasnamesinthemetadatainthefieldrdfs:label(cp.
Fig.
6),indicatedbyanotherdashedlinegoingfromnameintheEPML-datatordfs:labelintheRDF-data.
Seenfromaconceptualpointofview,theexpressivenessofRDFissufficientforthemetadata,becauselanguageconstructsfromOWLarenotused.
Seenfromatech-nicalviewhowever,thenOWLDLisnecessary,becausetheontologyinstancesusedfortheannotationmustbeimportedintothemetadataforqueryingandreasoningpurposes.
VerifyorderOrderverificationsemTypeFunction1GraphicalNotationConnections:MappingbetweenEPC-ModelandtheOntologyEquivalencebetweengraphicalandtextualrepresentationOrderverification.
.
.
XMLRepresentationOntologyMetadataModelOWLRDF,OWLEPMLVerifyorderVerifyorderFig.
6.
LinkageofEPC-modelswithontologies(representation)AfterthelinkageoftheEPC-modelwiththeontologyinstances,acompletetrans-formationoftheEPCintoansEPCcantakeplaceonthebasisoftherepresentationformats.
ThesEPCconsistsoftheXML-representationofthemetadatashownexem-plarilyinFig.
6.
ThetransformationisshowninFig.
7.
.
.
.
OrderreceiptCheckorder.
.
.
(RestofEPC-Model).
.
.
EPMLOrderProcessingOrderreceiptCheckorder.
.
.
(RestofsEPC-Model).
.
.
RDFXSLTXSLTProcessorFig.
7.
TransformationfromEPMLtoRDF6.
ConclusionandOutlookWhenselectingamodelinglanguagefortherepresentationofbusinessprocessesonemustbalancebetweenformalprecisionandpragmaticmanageability.
Modelinglan-guageswithformalsemanticsaresuitedformachineprocessing.
Theinterpretationofreal-worldinterrelationscanhowever,becomeverycomplex.
Withourapproach,thegapbetweenformalandsemi-formallanguagescanbeclosedbylinkingmodelele-mentsfromsemi-formallanguageswithconceptsfromformalontologiesandthus,receivingaformalsemantic.
TheadvantagesofthistransformationofprocessmodelsintosemanticprocessmodelsusingOWLare:Processknowledge:Ontheonehand,theunderstandingofbusinessprocessesisincreasedthroughthelinkageofmodelelementswiththeconceptsofanontology,becauseclearlydefinedtermsareusedandontheother,theelementsofabusi-nessprocessarethusembeddedinacertaincontext.
Thiscontextcancontainfur-therspecializedandtechnicalinformation,whichmakessemanticallyannotatedprocessmodelssuitableasastartingpointforprocess-orientedknowledgeman-agement.
Processrepresentation:Theeffortof"internationalizing"processmodelsisre-duced,becauseidentifierscanbestoredintheontologyinseverallanguagesandarethus,madeusablefortheautomatedtranslationofthelabelsofthemodelele-ments.
Processsearch:Queriestoprocessmodelscantakeplaceonthesemanticlevel.
Byusinginferencemechanismsandrulelanguages,newfactsnotexplicitlycon-tainedintheprocessmodelscanbeinferredatquerytime.
Processvalidation:Inadditiontothesyntacticrulesdefinedbythemeta-modelofaprocessmodelinglanguagesuchastheEPC,thevalidationofprocessmodelscanalsooccuronasemanticlevelbytheusageofarulebase,whichisstoredintheontology.
Semanticallyincorrectbusinessprocessmodelscanthusbeidenti-fiedbeforeprocessexecutionandpoliciescanbeenforcedonallofthebusinessprocessesconsistently.
Processexecution:Processexecutionissimplifiedbecausetheontologyactsasthecentralrepositoryofahybrid,i.
e.
aconceptual,aswellastechnicaldescrip-tionoftheelementsofabusinessprocess.
Bestpracticesinthetransferofconcep-tualprocessesinIT-systemscanthusbecentrallystoredintheontology,freeofredundanciesandreusablebymeansofsemanticallyannotatedprocessmodels.
TheneedforfurtherresearchwithreferencetothesemanticannotationofprocessmodelsexistsregardingIT-supportfortheapproachpresented,inparticularfortheIT-basedrealizationoftheannotation.
Interestingisalsothequestionastohowtodealwithdynamics,i.
e.
changesintheontologiesusedforannotation,aswellastheconnectionoftheapproachtosemanticwebservicesorwebservicesrepositories.
7.
References[1]Smith,M.
K.
;Welty,C.
;McGuiness,D.
L.
(eds.
):OWLWebOntologyLanguageGuide:W3CRecommendation10February2004.
W3C,2004[2]W3C(ed.
):ResourceDescriptionFramework(RDF).
URLhttp://www.
w3.
org/RDF/[20.
01.
2007][3]OMG(ed.
):OntologyDefinitionMetamodel:ThirdRevisedSubmissiontoOMG/RFPad/2003–03–40.
Needham:OMG,2005[4]Dumas,M.
;vanderAalst,W.
M.
P.
;terHofstede,A.
H.
M.
(eds.
):Process-awareInfor-mationSystems:BridgingPeopleandSoftwarethroughProcessTechnology.
Hoboken,NewJersey:Wiley,2005[5]Prud'hommeaux,E.
;Seaborne,A.
(eds.
):SPARQLQueryLanguageforRDF:W3CWorkingDraft23November2005.
W3C,2005[6]ObjectManagementGroup(ed.
):UnifiedModelingLanguage:Superstructure,version2.
0,formal/05–07–04.
Needham:ObjectManagementGroup,2005[7]ObjectManagementGroup(ed.
):BusinessProcessModelingNotationSpecification:FinalAdoptedSpecificationdtc/06–02–01.
Needham:ObjectManagementGroup,2006[8]Hinkelmann,K.
;Karagiannis,D.
;Stojanovic,N.
;Wagner,G.
(eds.
):ProceedingoftheWorkshoponSemanticsforBusinessProcessManagementatthe3rdEuropeanSemanticWebConference2006,Budva,Montenegro,June2006[9]Berners-Lee,T.
;Hendler,J.
;Lassila,O.
:TheSemanticWeb.
ScientificAmerican,2001[10]Betz,S.
;Klink,S.
;Koschmider,A.
;Oberweis,A.
:AutomaticUserSupportforBusinessProcessModeling.
In:ProceedingoftheWorkshoponSemanticsforBusinessProcessManagementatthe3rdEuropeanSemanticWebConference2006,Budva,Montenegro,June2006,pp.
1–12[11]Brockmans,S.
;Ehrig,M.
;Koschmider,A.
;Oberweis,A.
;Studer,R.
:SemanticAlignmentofBusinessProcesses.
In:Manolopoulos,Y.
;Filipe,J.
;Constantopoulos,P.
;Cordeiro,J.
(eds.
):ProceedingsoftheEighthInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSys-tems(ICEIS2006).
Paphos,Cyprus:INSTICCPress,2006,pp.
191–196[12]Fillies,C.
;Weichhardt,F.
:OnOntology-basedEvent-drivenProcessChains.
URLhttp://www.
semtalk.
com//pub/semtalkepk.
pdf[25.
11.
2005][13]Fox,M.
S.
:TheTOVEProject:ACommon-senseModeloftheEnterprise.
In:Belli,F.
;Radermacher,F.
J.
(eds.
):IndustrialandEngineeringApplicationsofArtificialIntelli-genceandExpertSystems,5thInternationalConference,IEA/AIE–92,Paderborn,Ger-many,June9–12,1992,Proceedings.
London:Springer,1992(LNCS),pp.
25–34[14]Frankel,D.
S.
:Modeldrivenarchitecture:applyingMDAtoenterprisecomputing.
Indi-anapolis,IN:Wiley,2003[15]Greco,G.
;Guzzo,A.
;Pontieri,L.
;Saccá,D.
:AnOntology-DrivenProcessModelingFramework.
In:Galindo,F.
;Takizawa,M.
;Traunmüller,R.
(eds.
):DatabaseandExpertSystemsApplications:15thInternationalConference,DEXA2004,Zaragoza,Spain,Au-gust30-September3,2004.
Proceedings.
Berlin:Springer,2004(LNCS),pp.
13–23[16]Gruber,T.
R.
:TowardprinciplesforthedesignofontologiesusedforknowledgesharingIn:InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerStudies43(1995),No.
5–6,pp.
907–928[17]Hailpern,B.
;Tarr,P.
:Model-drivendevelopment:Thegood,thebad,andtheugly.
In:IBMSystemsJournal45(2006),No.
3,pp.
451–461[18]Hepp,M.
;Leymann,F.
;Domingue,J.
;Wahler,A.
;Fensel,D.
:SemanticBusinessProcessManagement:AVisionTowardsUsingSemanticWebServicesforBusinessProcessManagement.
In:ProceedingsoftheIEEEICEBE2005,October18–20,Beijing,China.
Bejing,China,2005,pp.
535–540[19]Hepp,M.
;Roman,D.
:AnOntologyFrameworkforSemanticBusinessProcessManage-ment.
In:Oberweis,A.
;Weinhardt,C.
;Gimpel,H.
;Koschmider,A.
;Pankratius,V.
;Schnizler,B.
(eds.
):eOrganisation:Service-,Prozess-,Market-Engineering:8.
Internati-onaleTagungWirtschaftsinformatik;Karlsruhe,28.
Februar–2.
Mrz2007;Band1.
Karlsruhe:Universittsverlag,2007,pp.
423–440[20]Herborn,T.
;Wimmer,M.
A.
:ProcessOntologiesFacilitatingInteroperabilityineGov-ernmentAMethodologicalFramework.
In:Hinkelmann,K.
;Karagiannis,D.
;Stojanovic,N.
;Wagner,G.
(eds.
):ProceedingoftheWorkshoponSemanticsforBusinessProcessManagementatthe3rdEuropeanSemanticWebConference2006,Budva,Montenegro,June2006,pp.
76–89[21]Horrocks,I.
;Patel-Schneider,P.
F.
;Boley,H.
;Tabet,S.
;Grosof,B.
;Dean,M.
:SWRL:ASemanticWebRuleLanguage:CombiningOWLandRuleML;W3CMemberSubmission21May2004.
W3C,2004[22]Jenz,D.
E.
:StrategicWhitePaper:Ontology-BasedBusinessProcessManagement;TheVisionStatement.
Erlensee:Jenz&PartnerGmbH,2003[23]Keller,G.
;Nüttgens,M.
;Scheer,A.
-W.
:SemantischeProzemodellierungaufderGrund-lage"EreignisgesteuerterProzeketten(EPK)".
In:Scheer,A.
-W.
(ed.
):Verffentlichun-gendesInstitutsfürWirtschaftsinformatik,No.
89,Saarbrücken:UniversittdesSaarlan-des,1992(inGerman)[24]Lautenbacher,F.
;Bauer,B.
:SemanticReference-andBusinessProcessModelingenablesanAutomaticSynthesis.
In:Hinkelmann,K.
;Karagiannis,D.
;Stojanovic,N.
;Wagner,G.
(eds.
):ProceedingoftheWorkshoponSemanticsforBusinessProcessManagementatthe3rdEuropeanSemanticWebConference2006,Budva,Montenegro,June2006,pp.
89–100[25]Mendling,J.
;Nüttgens,M.
:EPCMarkupLanguage(EPML)–AnXML-BasedInter-changeFormatforEvent-DrivenProcessChains(EPC):TechnicalReportJM–2005–03–10.
ViennaUniversityofEconomicsandBusinessAdministration,2005[26]Petri,C.
A.
:KommunikationmitAutomaten.
Bonn:MathematischesInstitutderUniversi-ttBonn,1962(inGerman)[27]Scheer,A.
-W.
;Thomas,O.
;Adam,O.
:ProcessModelingUsingEvent-drivenProcessChains.
In:Dumas,M.
;vanderAalst,W.
M.
P.
;terHofstede,A.
H.
M.
(eds.
):Process-awareInformationSystems:BridgingPeopleandSoftwarethroughProcessTechnology.
Hoboken,NewJersey:Wiley,2005,pp.
119–145[28]Thomas,O.
:JointReferenceModeling:CollaborationSupportthroughVersionManage-ment.
In:Sprague,R.
H.
(ed.
):Proceedingsofthe40thAnnualHawaiiInternationalCon-ferenceonSystemSciences:3–6January2007,BigIsland,Hawaii;AbstractsandCD-ROMofFullPapers.
LosAlamitos,CA:IEEEComputerSocietyPress,2007[29]Thomas,O.
;Scheer,A.
-W.
:ToolSupportfortheCollaborativeDesignofReferenceMod-els–ABusinessEngineeringPerspective.
In:Sprague,R.
H.
(ed.
):Proceedingsofthe39thAnnualHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences:4–7January2006,Kauai,Hawaii;AbstractsandCD-ROMofFullPapers.
LosAlamitos,CA:IEEECom-puterSocietyPress,2006[30]Uschold,M.
;King,M.
;Moralee,S.
;Zorgios,Y.
:TheEnterpriseOntology.
In:TheKnowledgeEngineeringReview13(1998),No.
1,pp.
31–89.
–SpecialIssueonPuttingOntologiestoUse[31]Wand,Y.
;Weber,R.
:ResearchCommentary:InformationSystemsandConceptualMod-eling–AResearchAgenda.
In:InformationSystemsResearch13(2002),No.
4,pp.
363–376[32]Weber,R.
:Ontologicalfoundationsofinformationsystems.
Melbourne:Coopers&Ly-brandandtheAccountingAssociationofAustraliaandNewZealand,1997