Advertisement

Increasing Recall of Process Model Matching by Improved Activity Label Matching

  • Christopher Klinkmüller
  • Ingo Weber
  • Jan Mendling
  • Henrik Leopold
  • André Ludwig
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8094)

Abstract

Comparing process models and matching similar activities has recently emerged as a research area of business process management. However, the problem is fundamentally hard when considering realistic scenarios: e.g., there is a huge variety of terms and various options for the grammatical structure of activity labels exist. While prior research has established important conceptual foundations, recall values have been fairly low (around 0.26) – arguably too low to be useful in practice. In this paper, we present techniques for activity label matching which improve current results (recall of 0.44, without sacrificing precision). Furthermore, we identify categories of matching challenges to guide future research.

Keywords

BPM process similarity process model matching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Castelo Branco, M., Troya, J., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: Matching business process workflows across abstraction levels. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 626–641. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duchateau, F., Bellahsene, Z., Coletta, R.: A flexible approach for planning schema matching algorithms. In: COOPIS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grigori, D., Corrales, J.C., Bouzeghoub, M.: Behavioral Matchmaking for Service Retrieval. In: IEEE ICWS (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koschmider, A., Blanchard, E.: User assistance for business process model decomposition. In: IEEE RCIS (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kunze, M., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Behavioral similarity – A proper metric. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leopold, H., Niepert, M., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Probabilistic optimization of semantic process model matching. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 319–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: On the refactoring of activity labels in business process models. Inf. Syst. 37(5), 443–459 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707–710 (1966)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: ICML (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lovins, J.B.: Development of a stemming algorithm. Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics 11, 22–31 (1968)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The iCoP framework: Identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zha, H., Wang, J., Wen, L., Wang, C., Sun, J.: A workflow net similarity measure based on transition adjacency relations. Computers in Industry 61(5), 463–471Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Klinkmüller
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ingo Weber
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jan Mendling
    • 4
  • Henrik Leopold
    • 5
  • André Ludwig
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems InstituteUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Software Systems Research GroupNICTASydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesAustralia
  4. 4.Wirtschaftsuniversität WienViennaAustria
  5. 5.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations