Advertisement

Mapping UFO-B to BPMN, BORM, and UML Activity Diagram

  • Marek SuchánekEmail author
  • Robert Pergl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 366)

Abstract

Process modelling is the key part of a problem domain analysis, and there are multiple modelling languages for that purpose. In this paper, we present the mapping of three of such languages – namely BPMN, BORM, and UML Activity Diagram – with Unified Foundational Ontology UFO, more specifically its part describing behavioural aspects called UFO-B. Due to the mapping, we were able to find out interesting similarities and options when working with the selected languages and we also compare them in terms of expressiveness with respect to UFO. The specific properties of each languages became even more highlighted and explained, so this comparison can be used for a decision which language to use in a particular case. Our contribution can be used for future work in models integrations and transformations.

Keywords

Unified foundational ontology BPMN BORM UML Activity Diagram Ontology mapping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the grant of Czech Technical University in Prague No. SGS17/211/OHK3/3T/18.

References

  1. 1.
    Allweyer, T.: BPMN 2.0: Introduction to the Standard for Business Process Modeling. BoD-Books on Demand, Norderstedt (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: an introduction to the standard. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz, J.L., Hoogervorst, J.A.: Enterprise ontology in enterprise engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 572–579. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: UML activity diagrams as a workflow specification language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45441-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling (MEMO) conceptual framework and modeling languages, pp. 1258–1267. IEEE Computer Society (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2002.993989
  7. 7.
    Geambaşu, C.V.: Bpmn vs uml activity diagram for business process modeling. Account. Manag. Inf. Syst. 11(4), 637–651 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghidini, C., Rospocher, M., Serafini, L.: A formalisation of BPMN in description logics. Technical report, TR 06–004, FBK-irst (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Group, O.M.: Business process modeling notation, version 2.0 (2011). https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0
  10. 10.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Telematica Instituut, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005). http://doc.utwente.nl/50826/1/thesis_Guizzardi.pdf
  11. 11.
    Guizzardi, G., Fonseca, C.M., Benevides, A.B., Almeida, J.P.A., Porello, D., Sales, T.P.: Endurant types in ontology-driven conceptual modeling: towards OntoUML 2.0. In: Trujillo, J.C., Davis, K.C., Du, X., Li, Z., Ling, T.W., Li, G., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 136–150. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guizzardi, G., Guarino, N., Almeida, J.P.A.: Ontological considerations about the representation of events and endurants in business models. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 20–36. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: Conceptual simulation modeling with Onto-UML. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, WSC 2012, pp. 5:1–5:15. Winter Simulation Conference (2012). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2429759.2429765
  14. 14.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Almeida, J.P.A.: Towards ontological foundations for the conceptual modeling of events. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halpin, T.: Comparing metamodels for ER, ORM and UML data models. In: Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 3, pp. 23–44. IGI Global (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jalote, P.: CMM in Practice. Pearson Education India (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knott, R., Merunka, V., Polák, J.: The BORM method: a third generation object-oriented methodology. In: Management of the Object-Oriented Development Process. IGI Global (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Křemen, P.: Unified foundational ontology documentation (2018). http://onto.fel.cvut.cz/ontologies/ufo/. Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  19. 19.
    Laguna, M., Marklund, J.: Business Process Modeling, Simulation and Design. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Oliveira Bringuente, A.C., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G.: Using a foundational ontology for reengineering a software process ontology. J. Inf. Data Manag. 2(3), 511 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    (OMG), O.M.G.: OMG unified modeling language, v. 2.5. Technical report (2015). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/PDF
  22. 22.
    Podloucký, M., Pergl, R., Kroha, P.: Revisiting the BORM OR diagram composition pattern. In: Barjis, J., Pergl, R., Babkin, E. (eds.) EOMAS 2015. LNBIP, vol. 231, pp. 102–113. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24626-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style, with BPMN Implementer’s Guide: A Structured Approach for Business Process Modeling and Implementation Using BPMN 2.0. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Völzer, H.: An overview of BPMN 2.0 and its potential use. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPMN 2010. LNBIP, vol. 67, pp. 14–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16298-5_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wahl, T., Sindre, G.: An analytical evaluation of bpmn using a semiotic quality framework. In: Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol. 5, pp. 94–105. IGI Global (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weske, M.: Business process management architectures. Business Process Management, pp. 333–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations