Exploiting Semantic Activity Labels to Facilitate Consistent Specialization of Abstract Process Activities

  • Andreas Bögl
  • Michael Karlinger
  • Christoph Schütz
  • Michael Schrefl
  • Gustav Pomberger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8939)


Designing business processes from scratch is an intricate and challenging task for process modellers. For this reason, the reuse of process patterns has become an integral part of process modelling in order to deal with recurring design issues in a given domain when modelling new business processes and variants thereof. The specialization of abstract process activities remains a key issue in process pattern reuse. Depending on the intended purpose of process pattern reuse, the specialization of abstract process activities typically ranges from the substitution of abstract process activities with sub-processes to the substitution of activity labels with specialized labels. The specialization of abstract process activities through label specialization has been hardly investigated so far in the business process community. The approach presented in this paper achieves consistent specialization of abstract process activities by ensuring consistent specialization of activity labels through exploitation of semantic activity labels as introduced in previous work. Semantic activity labels encode the linguistic meaning of process activities and thereby facilitate the establishment of consistency criteria based on the implicit semantics captured by activity labels.


semantic activity labels activity label specialization consistent reuse of process patterns 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to change. Theor. Comput. Sci. 270(1-2), 125–203 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Knackstedt, R.: Adaptive reference modeling: Integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In: Becker, J., Delfmann, P. (eds.) Reference Modeling, pp. 27–58. Physica-Verlag HD (2007),
  3. 3.
    Bögl, A., Karlinger, M., Schrefl, M., Pomberger, G.: EPCs annotated with lexical and semantic labels to bridge the gap between human understandability and machine interpretability. In: Smolnik, S., F.T, Thomas, O. (eds.) Semantic Technologies for Business and Information Systems Engineering, pp. 214–241. IGI Global (2012), NOTE: The published version of this book chapter unfortunately contains numerous typesetting errors caused by the publisher. An error-free version is available at the authors’ website
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: Roddick, J.F., Hinze, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2007). CRPIT, vol. 67, pp. 71–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greco, G., Guzzo, A., Pontieri, L., Saccá, D.: An ontology-driven process modeling framework. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3180, pp. 13–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK). Tech. Rep. 89, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany, Saarbrücken, Germany (January 1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koschmider, A., Blanchard, E.: User assistance for business process model decomposition. In: First IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 445–454 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lausen, G.: Modeling and analysis of the behavior of information systems. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 14(11), 1610–1620 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: On labeling quality in business process models. In: Proceedings of the 8th GI-Workshop Geschftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten (EPK), Berlin, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lyons, J.: Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 467–482 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0, OMG Document Number: formal/2011-01-03, (last visited September 29, 2014)
  15. 15.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Soffer, P., Sturm, A.: Extending the adaptability of reference models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A 40(5), 1045–1056 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schrefl, M.: Behavior modelling by stepwise refining behavior diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach (ER 1990), pp. 113–128 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Weske, M.: From fine-grained to abstract process models: A semantic approach. Inf. Syst. 37(8), 784–797 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weidlich, M., Barros, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Vertical alignment of process models – how can we get there? In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: A foundational approach for managing process variability. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Structural and behavioural commonalities of process variants. In: Gierds, C., Sürmeli, J. (eds.) ZEUS 2010. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 563, pp. 41–48. (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Bögl
    • 1
  • Michael Karlinger
    • 2
  • Christoph Schütz
    • 2
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 2
  • Gustav Pomberger
    • 3
  1. 1.Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbHHagenbergAustria
  2. 2.Department of Business Informatics – Data & Knowledge EngineeringJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria
  3. 3.Department of Business Informatics – Software EngineeringJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations