Advertisement

Contract-Based Exception Handling Process Patterns

  • Jelena Zdravkovic
  • Vandana Kabilan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 5)

Abstract

Use of ontologies in enterprise modeling is extensively increasing. Two emerging uses are (a) making implicit domain explicit, and (b) facilitating interoperability between information system applications. For the first case, conceptual models play a key role. The domain of our interest is contractual obligations which are to be realized by enterprise business processes of the involved parties. A problem is that processes are not typically capable to handle diverse non-successful paths of contract executions. The main reason for this lies in the lack of a knowledge base for identifying possible exceptions and the procedures for handling them. To enable acquiring of this knowledge base, in this paper we propose the use of ontology for exception handling in business processes, where the exceptions are conceptualized to match to possible contract violations. The ontology is utilized for forming of autonomous process patterns for exception handlings, which extend the core processes to enable full realizations of vast contract requirements.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies:Principles, Methods and Applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2), 93–136 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artala, A., Franconi, E., Guarino, N., Pazzi, L.: Part-Whole Relations in Object-Cantered Systems: an Overview. Journal of Data and Knowledge Engineering 20(3), 347–383 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergamaschi, S., Castano, S., Vimercati, D., Vincini, M.: An Intelligent Approach to Information Integration. In: Int. Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 1998), Trento, Italy, pp. 72–88. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford, CA, 94305, Stanford University (2001), Available at http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology-tutorial-noymcguinness-abstract.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee S., Zorgios, Y.: The Enterprise Ontology, http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/ entprise/enterprise/ontology.htmlGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    TOVE Enterprise Ontology Project, http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/enterprise-modelling/tove/Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, B.: Ontology and Information Systems. In: Foridi, L. (ed.) Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, pp. 155–166. Blackwell, Oxford (2003), http://ontology.buffalo.edu/ontology(PIC).pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poli, R.: Formal and Formalized Ontologies. In: Fisette, D. (ed.) Husserl’s Logical Investigations reconsidered, pp. 183–210. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003), http://www.formalontology.it/Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johannesson, P., Boman, M., Bubenko, J., Wangler, B.: Conceptual Modeling. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baclawski, K., Kokar, M., Kogut, P., Hart, L., Smith, J., Holmes, W., Letkowski, J., Aronson, M.: Extending UML to Support Ontology Engineering for the Semantic Web. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 342–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kabilan, V., Johannesson, P.: Semantic Representation of Contract Knowledge using Multi-Tier Contract Ontology. In: Proceedings of Semantic Web and Databases workshop (SWDB 2003), co-located with VLDB 2003, Berlin, Germany, pp. 395–414 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems, Trento, Italy, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    qInternational Chamber of Commerce. ICC International contract for sale of goods, http://www.iccwbo.org/incoterms/id3045/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramberg, J.: ICC Guide to INCOTERMS, Understanding and Practical Use. International Chamber of Commerce, http://www.iccwbo.org/incoterms/id3045/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grosof, B., Poon, T.: SweetDeal: Representing Agent Contracts with exception using XML rules, Ontologies and process descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 124–146. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tan, Y.H., Thoen, W.: A Logical Model of Directed Obligations and Permissions to Support Electronic Contracting. Int. Journal of Electronic Markets 10(1), 78–92 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milosevic, Z., Jøsang, A., Patton, M.A., Dimitrakos, T.: Discretionary enforcement of Electronic Contracts. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2002), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 39–50. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002), ISBN 0769517420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    The MIT Process Handbook, ISBN 0262134292, MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ebXML, http://www.ebXML.orgGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dellarocas, C., Klein, M.: A Knowledge Based approach for handling exceptions in Business Processes. In: Int. Journal of Information Technology and Management, vol. 1(3), pp. 155–169. Baltzer Science Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pentland, B.: Grammatical Models of Organizational processes. The MIT Process Handbook, pp. 191–214. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003), ISBN 0262134292Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zdravkovic, J., Kabilan, V.: Enabling Business Process Interoperability Using Contract Workflow Models. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 77–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fernandez, M., Gomez-Perez, A., Juristo, N.: METHONTOLOGY: From Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering Workshop on Ontological Engineering, Stanford, California (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Ontology Definition MetaModel, http://www. omg.org/docs/ad/05-08-01.pdfGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akehurst, D., Linington, P., Patrascoiu, O.: Object Constraint Language 2.0: Implementing the standard. Technical Report no. 12–03, University of Kent, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM), User Guide, http://www.unece.org/cefact/umm/UMM_userguide_220606.pdfGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    White, S.: Business Process Modeling Notation 1.0 (BPMN). Business Management Initiative, http://www.bpmi.orgGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Microsoft, B.I., Siebel, S.A.P.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-bpelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelena Zdravkovic
    • 1
  • Vandana Kabilan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm University and Royal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations