Preserving Consistency in Domain-Specific Business Processes Through Semantic Representation of Artefacts

  • Nikolaos LagosEmail author
  • Adrian Mos
  • Jean-Yves Vion-Dury
  • Jean-Pierre Chanod
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 228)


Large organizations today face a growing challenge of managing heterogeneous process collections containing business processes. Explicit semantics inherent to domain-specific models can help alleviate some of the management challenges. Starting with concept definitions, designers can create domain specific processes and eventually generate industry-standard BPMN for use in BPMS solutions. However, any of these artefacts (concepts, domain processes and BPMN) can be modified by various stakeholders and changes done by one person may influence models used by others. There is therefore a need for tool support to aid in keeping track of changes done and their impacts on different stakeholders. In this paper we present an approach towards providing such support based on a semantic layer that records the provenance of the information and accordingly propagates impacts of changes to related resources, and illustrate the applicability of the approach via an illustrative example.


Consistent process management Domain-specific process model Change management 


  1. 1.
    Mos, A.: Domain specific monitoring of business processes using concept probes. In: Toumani, F., et al. (eds.) ICSOC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8954. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suri, K., Mos, A. Human task monitoring and contextual analysis for domain specific business processes. In: International Conference on Software & System Engineering (ICSSEA 15), Paris, France, 27–29 May 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Object Management Group, Business Process Model and Notation.
  4. 4.
    Mos, A., Jacquin, T.: Improving process robustness through domain-specific model transformations. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW 2013), Vancouver, BC (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W3C (OWL Working Group).: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009.
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean. M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission, 21 May 2004.
  7. 7.
    Zedlitz, J., Jörke, J., Luttenberger, N.: From UML to OWL 2. In: Lukose, D., Ahmad, A.R., Suliman, A. (eds.) KTW 2011. CCIS, vol. 295, pp. 154–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stanford center for biomedical informatics research, 2013. Protégé Project, May 7, 2015, from Protégé:
  9. 9.
    Shearer, R., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: HermiT: A highly-efficient OWL reasoner. In: Ruttenberg, A., Sattler, U., Dolbear, C. (eds.), Proceedings 5th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2008 EU), Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26–27 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lezoche, M., De Nicola, A., Di Mascio, T., Taglino, F.: Semantic lifting of business process models. In: Workshops Proceedings of 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOCW 2008), Munich, Germany, 16 September (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aletheia project consortium. Aletheia – semantic federation of comprehensive product information (2010).
  12. 12.
    Aslam, M.A., Auer, S., Shen, J., Herrmann, M.: Expressing business process models as OWL-S ontologies. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OWL-S: semantic markup for web services. W3C Member submission November 2004.
  14. 14.
    Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: An ontology for the business process modelling notation. In: Proceedings 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS2014) September, 22–25, 2014, vol. 267, pp. 133–146. IOS Press, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prater, J., Mueller, R., Beauregard, B.: An ontological approach to oracle BPM. In: Pan, J.Z., Chen, H., Kim, H.-G., Li, J., Wu, Z., Horrocks, I., Mizoguchi, R., Wu, Z. (eds.) JIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 7185, pp. 402–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos Lagos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adrian Mos
    • 1
  • Jean-Yves Vion-Dury
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Chanod
    • 1
  1. 1.Xerox Research Centre Europe (XRCE)MeylanFrance

Personalised recommendations