Advertisement

Semantic Business Process Engineering

  • Jens Lemcke
  • Tirdad Rahmani
  • Andreas Friesen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6325)

Abstract

In this tutorial, we compare OWL-DL reasoning and Petri net analysis for validating refinement and grounding of business processes.

(1) Process refinement: Like in software engineering, the implementation of a business process involves different interacting roles, such as business expert, analyst, process architect, and developer. Each role designs and refines different abstractions of the process until it is sufficiently refined. It is important to verify that the process models of the different abstractions are consistent.

(2) Process grounding: A sufficiently refined process has to be mapped on existing IT systems. Ideally, IT systems consist of components with a semantic annotation of their behavior. The most specific process must respect all IT systems’ behaviors. Formally capturing process semantics enables to check automatically for consistent process refinement and grounding.

The classic application of semantic techniques in the area of static models is well understood. The analysis of business processes deals with dynamics. Modeling dynamics is a challenge for current approaches of semantic Web services. We compare advantages and shortcomings of Petri net analysis and description logic (DL) reasoning for refinement and grounding validation.

Keywords

Business Process Block Detection Parallel Block Deadlock Detection Operation Place 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003) ISBN 0-521-78176-0zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Curran, T.A., Ladd, T., Ladd, A.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding Enterprise Supply Chain Management, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1999)Google Scholar
  3. Esparza, J.: Decidability and complexity of petri net problems - an introduction. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 374–428. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) ISBN 3-540-65306-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Esparza, J., Nielsen, M.: Decidability issues for petri nets - a survey. Bulletin of the EATCS 52, 244–262 (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Sattler, U. (eds.): Proceedings of the DL Home 22nd International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2009), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Oxford, UK, July 27-30, vol. 477. CEUR-WS.org (2009)Google Scholar
  6. Gutwenger, C., Mutzel, P.: A linear time implementation of spqr-trees. In: Marks, J. (ed.) GD 2000. LNCS, vol. 1984, pp. 77–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heineman, G.T., Councill, W.T.: Component-Based Software Engineering: Putting the Pieces Together, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  8. Hopcroft, J.E., Tarjan, R.E.: Dividing a graph into triconnected components. SIAM J. Comput. 2(3), 135–158 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, R., Pearson, D., Pingali, K.: The program structure tree: Computing control regions in linear time, pp. 171–185. ACM Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  10. Karp, R.M., Miller, R.E.: Parallel program schemata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 3(2), 147–195 (1969)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Pan, J.Z., Thomas, E., Zhao, Y.: Completeness guaranteed approximations for owl-dl query answering. In: Grau, et al. (eds.) (2009)Google Scholar
  12. Ren, Y., Gröner, G., Lemcke, J., Rahmani, T., Friesen, A., et al.: Validating process refinement with ontologies. In: Grau, et al, eds. (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Ren, Y., Gröner, G., Lemcke, J., Rahmani, T., Friesen, A., et al.: Validating process refinement with ontologies. In: Kendall, E.F., Pan, J.Z., Sabbouh, M., Stojanovic, L., Zhao, Y. (eds.) 5th International Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering (SWESE), CEUR Workshop Proceedings. vol. 524, pp. 1–15. CEUR-WS.org (2009b) ISSN 1613-0073, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-524/swese2009_1.pdf
  14. Ren, Y., Pan, J.Z., Zhao, Y.: Soundness preserving approximation for tbox reasoning in r. In: Grau, et al (eds.) (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wyner, G.M., Lee, J.: Defining specialization for process models. In: Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook, ch. 5, pp. 131–174. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003), http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/pdf/wp216.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Lemcke
    • 1
  • Tirdad Rahmani
    • 1
  • Andreas Friesen
    • 1
  1. 1.SAP Research, CEC KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations