Ontology-Based Discovery of Workflow Activity Patterns

  • Diogo R. Ferreira
  • Susana Alves
  • Lucinéia H. Thom
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 100)


Workflow activity patterns represent a set of recurrent behaviors that can be found in a wide range of business processes. In this paper we address the problem of determining the presence of these patterns in process models. This is usually done manually by the analyst, and it requires interpreting the process in terms of the semantics of those patterns. We describe an ontology-based approach to perform this discovery in an automated way. The approach makes use of an ontology, and a mapping between the elements in the given process and the classes in the ontology. A reasoner is then used to discover the patterns, and a SPARQL query is used to retrieve them. The approach is illustrated for a business process in a travel booking scenario.


Business Process Modeling Workflow Activity Patterns Ontology Engineering Semantic Reasoning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Generic Recurrent Patterns in Business Processes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F.: The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 1992, pp. 281–288. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietz, J.L.: The deep structure of business processes. Communications of the ACM 49, 58–64 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thom, L.H., Reichert, M., Iochpe, C.: Activity patterns in process-aware information systems: basic concepts and empirical evidence. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 4(2), 93–110 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thom, L.H., Reichert, M., Chiao, C.M., Iochpe, C., Hess, G.N.: Inventing Less, Reusing More, and Adding Intelligence to Business Process Modeling. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5181, pp. 837–850. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-Friendly Semantic Annotation in Business Process Modeling. In: Weske, M., Hacid, M.-S., Godart, C. (eds.) WISE Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4832, pp. 260–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zouggar, N., Vallespir, B., Chen, D.: Semantic enrichment of enterprise models by ontologies-based semantic annotations. In: Proceedings of the 12th International EDOC Conference Workshops, pp. 216–223. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Filipowska, A., Kaczmarek, M., Stein, S.: Semantically Annotated EPC within Semantic Business Process Management. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 486–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems 35(4), 467–482 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diogo R. Ferreira
    • 1
  • Susana Alves
    • 1
  • Lucinéia H. Thom
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.ISTTechnical University of LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Université Joseph FourierFrance
  3. 3.Institute of InformaticsUFRGSBrazil

Personalised recommendations