Process Refinement Validation and Explanation with Ontology Reasoning

  • Yuan Ren
  • Gerd Gröner
  • Jens Lemcke
  • Tirdad Rahmani
  • Andreas Friesen
  • Yuting Zhao
  • Jeff Z. Pan
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8274)


In process engineering, processes can be refined from simple ones to more and more complex ones with decomposition and restructuring of activities. The validation of these refinements and the explanation of invalid refinements are non-trivial tasks. This paper formally defines process refinement validation based on the execution set semantics and presents a suite of refinement reduction techniques and an ontological representation of process refinement to enable reasoning for the validation and explanation of process refinement. Results show that it significantly improves efficiency, quality and productivity of process engineering.


Business Process Description Logic Business Process Management Abstract Process Parallel Branch 
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.


  1. 1.
    Wyner, G.M., Lee, J.: Defining specialization for process models. In: Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook, pp. 131–174. MIT Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Instantaneous Soundness Checking of Industrial Business Process Models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curran, T.A., Ladd, T., Ladd, A.: SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding Enterprise Supply Chain Management, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall International (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing Interacting WS-BPEL Processes using Flexible Model Generation. DKE 64, 38–54 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R.: Diagnosing differences between business process models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerth, C., Luckey, M., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Detection of Semantically Equivalent Fragments for Business Process Model Change Management. In: IEEE Interational Conference on Services Computing, pp. 57–64 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., Sadiq, W.: Specification and Validation of Process Constraints for Flexible Workflows. Information Systems 30(5), 349–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 37(3), 410–429 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Desai, N., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Process Compliance Analysis based on Behavioural Profiles. Inf. Syst. 36(7), 1009–1025 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H., Weske, M., Nugteren, T.: Business Process Model Abstraction: A Definition, Catalog, and Survey. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 1–37 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Constructing Customized Process Views. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64(2), 419–438 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, D., Shen, M.: Workflow Modeling for Virtual Processes: An Order-preserving Process-view Approach. Information Systems 28(6), 505–532 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Glabbeek, R., Goltz, U.: Refinement of Actions and Equivalence notions for Concurrent Systems. Acta Inf. 37(4/5), 229–327 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lam, V.: Equivalences of BPMN Processes. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 3, 189–204 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Medeiros, A.K.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Process Equivalence: Comparing Two Process Models Based on Observed Behavior. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Bisimulation for Higher-Order Process Calculi. Information and Computation 131, 141–178 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuan Ren
    • 1
  • Gerd Gröner
    • 2
  • Jens Lemcke
    • 3
  • Tirdad Rahmani
    • 3
  • Andreas Friesen
    • 3
  • Yuting Zhao
    • 1
  • Jeff Z. Pan
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 4
  1. 1.University of AberdeenUK
  2. 2.PALUNOUniversity of Duisburg-EssenGermany
  3. 3.SAP AGGermany
  4. 4.University of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations