Aligning Business Process Models and Domain Knowledge: A Meta-modeling Approach

  • Samira Si-Said CherfiEmail author
  • Sarah Ayad
  • Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 186)


In recent years the problems related to modeling and improving business processes have been of growing interest. Indeed, companies are realizing the undeniable impact of a better understanding and management of business processes (BP) on the effectiveness, consistency, and transparency of their business operations. BP modeling aims at a better understanding of processes, allowing deciders to achieve strategic goals of the company. However, inexperienced systems analysts often lack domain knowledge leading and this affects the quality of models they produce. In this paper we propose to support this modeling effort with an approach that uses domain knowledge to improve the semantic quality of BP models. This approach relies on domain ontologies as a mean to capture domain knowledge and on meta-modeling techniques. The main contribution of this paper is threefold: 1) the metamodels describing both a domain ontology and a BP model are described, 2) the alignment between the concepts of both meta-models is defined and illustrated, 3) a set of OCL mapping rules is provided. A simple case study illustrates the process.


Domain knowledge Domain ontology Semantic quality Business process modeling Quality improvement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The international standards organisation isoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Challenges in business process analysis (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aguilar-Savén, R.S.: Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics 90(2), 129–149 (2004),, doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00102-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Fellbaum, C.: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Language, Speech, and Communication. MIT Press (1998),
  8. 8.
    Ghani, A., Muketha, K., Wen, W.: Complexity Metrics for Measuring the Understandability and Maintainability of Business Process Models using Goal-Question-Metric (GQM). International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 8, 219–225+ (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen-vullers, M.H., Netjes, M.: Business process simulation - a tool survey. In: Workshop and Tutorial on Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and the CPN (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansson, H. (ed.): Business process reengineering, reprinted edn. Wiley, Chichester (1994), Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Ontology based requirements analysis: Lightweight semantic processing approach. In: International Conference on Quality Software, pp. 223–230 (2005), doi:
  12. 12.
    Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., Park, S.J.: Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and is domain knowledge. Information Systems Research 17(1), 81–99 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conference on Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views, pp. 216–231. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London (1995), Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2006, pp. 1532–1539. ACM, New York (2007),, doi:10.1145/1141277.1141633
  15. 15.
    Mendling, J., Recker, J.C., Reijers, H.A.: On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 1(2), 40–58 (2010), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lopes de Oliveira, J., Graciano Neto, V.V., Larissa da Costa, S.: A business process metamodel for enterprise information systems automatic generation. In: Anais do I Congresso Brasileiro de Software: Teoria e Prtica - I Workshop Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento de Software Dirigido por Modelos, pp. 45–52. UFBA, Salvador (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Purao, S., Storey, V.C.: A multi-layered ontology for comparing relationship semantics in conceptual models of databases. Appl. Ontol. 1(1), 117–139 (2005), Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tziviskou, C., Keet, C.M.: A Meta-model for Ontologies with ORM2. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM-WS 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4805, pp. 624–633. Springer, Heidelberg (2007), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Reijers, H.A., Van Der Aalst, W.: Quality Metrics for Business Process Models (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Reijers, H.A., Van Der Aalst, W.: Quality Metrics for Business Process Models (2007),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samira Si-Said Cherfi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah Ayad
    • 1
  • Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau
    • 2
  1. 1.CEDRIC-CNAMParis Cedex03France
  2. 2.CEDRIC-CNAM and ESSEC Business SchoolParis Cedex03France

Personalised recommendations