Natural Language Generation for Declarative Process Models

  • Lars Ackermann
  • Stefan Schönig
  • Michael Zeising
  • Stefan Jablonski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 231)


Two different types of processes can be distinguished: well-structured routine processes and agile processes where the control-flow cannot be predefined a priori. In a similar way, two modeling paradigms exist whereby procedural models are more adequate for routine processes and declarative models are more suitable for agile processes. Often business analysts are not confident in understanding process models; this holds even more for declarative process models. Natural language support for this kind of processes in order to improve their readability is desirable. In the work at hand we define a technique that transforms declarative models to intuitive natural language texts. Hereof, the approach focuses on content determination and structuring the output texts.


Declarative process models Natural language generation Model transformation Process model validation 


  1. 1.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jablonski, S.: MOBILE: A modular workflow model and architecture. In: Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling and Information Systems (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Polyvyanyy, A.: Supporting process model validation through natural language generation. IEEE TSE 40(8), 818–840 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reiter, E., Dale, R.: Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalianis, H.: A method for validating a conceptual model by natural language discourse generation. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 593, pp. 425–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meziane, F., Athanasakis, N., Ananiadou, S.: Generating natural language specifications from uml class diagrams. Req. Eng. 13(1), 1–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malik, S., Bajwa, I.S.: Back to origin: transformation of business process models to business rules. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 611–622. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeising, M., Schönig, S., Jablonski, S.: Towards a common platform for the support of routine and agile business processes. In: Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schönig, S., Cabanillas, C., Jablonski, S., Mendling, J.: Mining the organisational perspective in agile business processes. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reiter, E.: Has a consensus nl generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible?. In: Proceedings of the 7th INLG, pp. 163–170 (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lavoie, B., Rambow, O.: A fast and portable realizer for text generation systems. In: 5th ANLP Conference, ANLC 1997, pp. 265–268. ACL (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coşkunçay, A.: An Approach for Generating Natural Language Specifications by Utilizing Business Process Models, Master’s thesis, Middle East TU (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burden, H., Heldal, R.: Natural language generation from class diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on MoDeVVa. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lavoie, B., Rambow, O., Reiter, E.: Customizable descriptions of object-oriented models. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on ANLP, pp. 253–256 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fellbaum, C.: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Bradford Books, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: Refactoring of process model activity labels. In: Hopfe, C.J., Rezgui, Y., Mètais, E., Preece, A., Li, H. (eds.) Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. LNCS, vol. 6177, pp. 268–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Edmond, D.: Workflow resource patterns: identification, representation and tool support. In: Pastor, O., e Cunha, J.F. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uszkoreit, H.: Categorial Unification Grammars. In: Proceedings of COLING (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bar-Hillel, Y.: A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language 29, 47–58 (1953)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shieber, S.M.: An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes Series, vol. 4. Center for SLI, Stanford (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McKeown, K.R.: Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text. Cambridge University Press, New York (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Melčuk, I.A.: Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Daw Book Collectors, State University Press of New York, New York (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Ackermann
    • 1
  • Stefan Schönig
    • 1
  • Michael Zeising
    • 1
  • Stefan Jablonski
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations