Ontology-Based Heuristics for Process Behavior: Formalizing False Positive Scenarios

  • Jorge Roa
  • Emiliano Reynares
  • María Laura Caliusco
  • Pablo Villarreal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 281)

Abstract

Verification methods to detect errors in the behavior of process models can be formal or informal. The former are based on formal languages, whereas the latter are based on heuristics. The main advantage of informal methods with respect to the formal ones is their short run-time. However, heuristics may lead to false positives, i.e. they may detect errors in a process model even though such model is correct. In this work, we propose using ontologies to formalize heuristics that avoid false positive scenarios. With ontologies it is possible to avoid ambiguities in heuristics that may lead to inaccurate implementations and to enable their execution by ontology reasoners. To this aim, we propose a set of false positive scenarios and define SWRL rules and SPARQL queries to formalize heuristics for such scenarios by means of ontologies. In addition, we identified three requirements that should be met in order to formalize heuristics and their false positive scenarios.

Keywords

Business process model Anti-patterns Verification SPARQL 

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of petri nets to workflow management. J. Circ. Syst. Comput. 08(01), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, A., Puhlmann, F.: Structural detection of deadlocks in business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 239–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D., Räckers, M., Falk, T., Czerwonka, M.: Semantic business process modelling and analysis. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. IHIS, pp. 187–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_9 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi:10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breitman, K.K., Sampaio do Prado Leite, J.C.: Lexicon based ontology construction. In: Lucena, C., Garcia, A., Romanovsky, A., Castro, J., Alencar, P.S.C. (eds.) SELMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2940, pp. 19–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24625-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in bpmn. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koehler, J., Vanhatalo, J.: Process anti-patterns: How to avoid the common traps of business process modeling. IBM WebSphere Dev. Tech. J. 10(2–4) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kühne, S., Kern, H., Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Business process modeling with continuous validation. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 22(6–7), 547–566 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palma, F., Moha, N., Guéhéneuc, Y.-G.: Specification and detection of business process antipatterns. In: Benyoucef, M., Weiss, M., Mili, H. (eds.) MCETECH 2015. LNBIP, vol. 209, pp. 37–52. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17957-5_3 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roa, J., Chiotti, O., Villarreal, P.: Specification of behavioral anti-patterns for the verification of block-structured collaborative business processes. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 148–170 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roa, J., Chiotti, O., Villarreal, P.: Behavior alignment and control flow verification of process and service choreographies. JUCS 18(17), 2383–2406 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roa, J., Reynares, E., Caliusco, M.L., Villarreal, P.: Towards ontology-based anti-patterns for the verification of business process behavior. New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. AISC, vol. 445, pp. 665–673. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31307-8_68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: An ontology for the business process modelling notation. In: Garbacz, P., Kutz, O. (eds.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems - Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, FOIS2014, September 22–25, 2014, vol. 267, pp. 133–146. IOS Press, Rio de Janeiro (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Dongen, B., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.: Structural patterns for soundness of business process models. In: 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2006, pp. 116–128, October 2006Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74974-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Roa
    • 1
  • Emiliano Reynares
    • 1
  • María Laura Caliusco
    • 1
  • Pablo Villarreal
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Tecnológica Nacional - Facultad Regional Santa Fe - CONICETSanta FeArgentina

Personalised recommendations