Semantic and Structural Annotations for Comprehensive Model Analysis

  • Axel Hahn
  • Sabina El Haoum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7567)

Abstract

Nowadays enterprise models exist in a variety of types and are based mostly on graphical modeling languages, prominent examples being UML and BPMN. Model relations oftentimes are not made explicit and are hard to analyze. As a consequence, the information integration and interoperability potential of existing enterprise models cannot be exploited efficiently. This paper presents an approach, where based on annotations the model-contained information is made accessible for further processing. Multiple dimensions of the model (i.e. semantic and structural) are considered, allowing a comprehensive view on the model-contained information. Based on that, inter-model relations can be discovered and analyzed.

Keywords

enterprise modeling inter-model links semantic annotation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Molina, A., Chen, D., Panetto, H., Vernadat, F., Whitman, L.: Enterprise Integration and Networking: Issues, Trends and Vision. In: Bernus, P., Fox, M.S. (eds.) Knowledge Sharing in the Integrated Enterprise, pp. 303–313. Springer, Boston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zikra, I., Stirna, J., Zdravkovic, J.: Bringing Enterprise Modeling Closer to Model-Driven Development. In: Johannesson, P., Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) PoEM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 92, pp. 268–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kung, C.H., Sølvberg, A.: Activity Modeling and Behavior Modeling. Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice. pp. 145–171 (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weston, R.H.: Steps towards enterprise-wide integration: a definition of need and first-generation open solutions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 31, 2235–2254 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vernadat, F.: Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications. Springer (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liao, Y., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., Boudjlida, N.: Semantic Annotation Model Definition for Systems Interoperability. In: OTM 2011 Workshops 2011 - 6th International Workshop on Enterprise Integration, Interoperability and Networking (EI2N), pp. 61–67. Springer, Hersonissos (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agt, H., Bauhoff, G., Kutsche, R.-D., Milanovic, N., Widiker, J.: Semantic Annotation and Conflict Analysis for Information System Integration. In: Hein, C., Wagner, M., Mader, R., Kreis, A., Armengaud, E. (eds.) Model Driven Tool and Process Integration, Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Model-Driven Tool and Process Integration (MDTPI), Paris, France, June 16, pp. 7–18. Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lochmann, H.: HybridMDSD: Multi-Domain Engineering with Model-Driven Software Development using Ontological Foundations (2010), http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-27380
  10. 10.
    Bräuer, M., Lochmann, H.: An Ontology for Software Models and Its Practical Implications for Semantic Web Reasoning. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fellmann, M.: Konzeption und Anwendung einer ontologiebasierten Geschäftsprozessmodellierung. In: Eymann, T. (ed.) Tagungsband zum Doctoral Consortium der WI 2011, pp. 40–49 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Missikoff, M., Proietti, M., Smith, F.: Linking ontologies to Business Process Schemas. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche (CNR), Roma, Italy (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Missikoff, M., Proietti, M., Smith, F.: Querying Semantically Enriched Business Processes. In: Hameurlain, A., Liddle, S.W., Schewe, K.-D., Zhou, X. (eds.) DEXA 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6861, pp. 294–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boudjlida, N., Panetto, H.: Enterprise Semantic Modelling for Interoperability. In: IEEE (eds.) 12th IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA 2007, pp. 847–854. IEEE, Patras (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boudjlida, N., Panetto, H.: Annotation of Enterprise Models for Interoperability Purposes. In: International Workshop on Advanced Information Systems for Enterprises, pp. 11–17 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vujasinovic, M., Ivezic, N., Kulvatunyou, B., Barkmeyer, E., Missikoff, M., Taglino, F., Marjanovic, Z., Miletic, I.: Semantic Mediation for Standard-Based B2B Interoperability (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kühn, H., Bayer, F., Junginger, S., Karagiannis, D.: Enterprise Model Integration. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) E-Commerce and Web Technologies, pp. 379–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerke, K., Cardoso, J., Claus, A.: Measuring the Compliance of Processes with Reference Models. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5870, pp. 76–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Favre, J.-M.: Megamodelling and Etymology. In: Transformation Techniques in Software Engineering. IBFI, Dagstuhl (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., Vernadat, F.: Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry 59, 647–659 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    CEN European Committee for Standardization eds.: Enterprise integration - Framework for enterprise modelling (ISO 19439:2006), (2006). Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liao, Y., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., Boudjlida, N.: Why, Where and How to use Semantic Annotation for Systems Interoperability. In: 1st UNITE Doctoral Symposium, Bucarest, Roumanie, pp. 71–78 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation. IEEE Software 20, 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karagiannis, D., Höfferer, P.: Metamodels in action: An overview. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software and Data Technologies. INSTICC Press (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karagiannis, D., Höfferer, P.: Metamodeling as an Integration Concept. In: Filipe, J., Shishkov, B., Helfert, M. (eds.) ICSOFT 2008. CCIS, vol. 10, pp. 37–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology Mapping: The State of the Art. In: Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M., Sheth, A., Staab, S., Uschold, M. (eds.) Semantic Interoperability and Integration. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI). Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ziegler, J., Kunz, C., Botsch, V.: Matrix browser: visualizing and exploring large networked information spaces. In: CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 602–603. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scheer, A.-W.: Aris - Business Process Modeling. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen, P.P.-S.: The entity-relationship model - toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1, 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel Hahn
    • 1
  • Sabina El Haoum
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations