Advertisement

Graph-Based Process Model Matching

  • Christina TsagkaniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 202)

Abstract

Nowadays organizations acquire multiple repositories with process specifications. Organization stakeholders such as business analysts and process designers need to have access and retrieve such information as it is proven that adapting existing business processes in order to meet current business needs is more effective and less error-prone than developing them from scratch. This thesis concentrates on process retrieval and will propose a business process searching mechanism, taking advantage and extending existing graph based matching techniques, with the aim to exploit the knowledge that already exists within an organization.

Keywords

Process model matching Process model similarity Graph matching 

References

  1. 1.
    Awad, A., Sakr, S., Kunze, M., Weske, M.: Design by selection: A reuse-based approach for business process modeling. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 332–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunke, H., Allermann, G.: Inexact graph matching for structural pattern recognition. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 1(4), 245–253 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cayoglu, U., et al.: Report: The process model matching contest 2013. In: Lohmann, N., Song, M., Wohed, P. (eds.) BPM 2013 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 171, pp. 442–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R., et al.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrig, M., et al.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, vol. 67, pp. 71–80. Australian Computer Society Inc. (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.W.P.J.: Structural matching of BPEL processes. In: Fifth European Conference on Web Services, 2007, ECOWS 2007, pp. 171–180. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Justice, D., et al.: A binary linear programming formulation of the graph edit distance. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 28(8), 1200–1214 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klinkmüller, C., Weber, I., Mendling, J., Leopold, H., Ludwig, A.: Increasing recall of process model matching by improved activity label matching. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 211–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. In: Soviet physics doklady, vol. 10, p. 707 (1966)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On measuring process model similarity based on high-level change operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: ICML 1998, Vol. 98, pp. 296–304 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.K.: On the discovery of preferred work practice through business process variants. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 165–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minor, M., Tartakovski, A., Bergmann, R.: Representation and structure-based similarity assessment for agile workflows. In: Weber, R.O., Richter, M.M. (eds.) ICCBR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4626, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nejati, S., et al.: Matching and merging of state-charts specifications. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neuhaus, M., Bunke, H.: A quadratic programming approach to the graph edit distance problem. In: Escolano, F., Vento, M. (eds.) GbRPR. LNCS, vol. 4538, pp. 92–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neuhaus, M., Bunke, H.: Bridging the Gap Between Graph Edit Distance and Kernel Machines. World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc, River Edge (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neuhaus, M., Riesen, K., Bunke, H.: Fast suboptimal algorithms for the computation of graph edit distance. In: Yeung, D.-Y., Kwok, J.T., Fred, A., Roli, F., de Ridder, D. (eds.) SSPR 2006 and SPR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4109, pp. 163–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riesen, K., Bunke, H.: Approximate graph edit distance computation by means of bipartite graph matching. Image Vis. Comput. 27(7), 950–959 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sorlin, S., Solnon, C.: Reactive tabu search for measuring graph similarity. In: Brun, L., Vento, M. (eds.) GbRPR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3434, pp. 172–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan, Z., Dijkman, R., Grefen, P.: Fast business process similarity search with feature-based similarity estimation. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 60–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Aalst, W.M., de Medeiros, A.K.A., Weijters, A.: Process equivalence: Comparing two process models based on observed behavior. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The ICoP framework: Identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weidlich, M., Sagi, T., Leopold, H., Gal, A., Mendling, J.: Predicting the quality of process model matching. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 203–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics and TelecommunicationsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA)IlisiaGreece

Personalised recommendations