A Modelling Environment for Business Process as a Service

  • Knut Hinkelmann
  • Kyriakos Kritikos
  • Sabrina Kurjakovic
  • Benjamin Lammel
  • Robert Woitsch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 249)


Business processes can benefit from cloud offerings, but bridging the gap between business requirements and technical solutions is still a big challenge. We propose Business Process as a Service (BPaaS) as a main concept for the alignment of business process with IT in the cloud. The mechanisms described in this paper provide modelling facilities for both business and IT levels: (a) a graphical modelling environment for processes, workflows and service requirements, (b) an extension of an enterprise ontology with cloud-specific concepts, (c) semantic lifting of graphical models and (d) SPARQL querying and inferencing for semantic alignment of business and cloud IT.


Business Process Cloud Service Cloud Provider Enterprise Architecture Semantic Annotation 
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.



The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation HORIZON 2020 (ICT-07-2014) under grant agreement number 644690 (CloudSocket).


  1. 1.
    Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kühn, O., Sintek, M.: Toward a technology for organizational memories. IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl. 13(3), 40–48 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amziani, M., Melliti, T., Tata, S.: A generic framework for service-based business process elasticity in the cloud. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 194–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentounsi, M., Benbernou, S., Atallah, M.J.: Security-aware business process as a service by hiding provenance. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 44(C), 220–233 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardoso, Y.C.: Creation and Extension of Ontologies for Describing Communications in the Context of Organizations. Universidade Nova de Lisboa (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cloud Service Level Agreement Standardization Guidelines. EC Cloud Select Industry Group (C-SIG), European Commission (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Bruijn, J.: Using Ontologies - Enabling Knowledge Sharing and Reuse on the Semantic Web. Technical report, DERI-2003-10-29, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), Galway, Ireland (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Leenheer, P., Mens, T.: Ontology evolution. In: Hepp, M., et al. (eds.) Ontology Management - Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and Business Applications, pp. 131–176. Springer Science + Business Media Inc., Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Den Haan, J.: An Enterprise Ontology based approach to Model-Driven Engineering. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, 15 October 2009.
  9. 9.
    Emmenegger, S., Hinkelmann, K., Laurenzi, E., Thönssen, B., Witschel, H.F., Zhang, C.: Workplace learning - providing recommendations of experts and learning resources in a context-sensitive and personalized manner. In: MODELSWARD 2016, Special Session on Learning Modeling in Complex Organizations, Rome (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox, M.S., Barbuceanu, M., Grüninger, M.: An organisation ontology for enterprise modelling: preliminary concepts for linking structure and behaviour. Comput. Ind. 29(1–2), 123–134 (1996). doi: 10.1016/0166-3615(95)00079-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox, M.S., Gruninger, M.: Enterprise modeling. AI Mag. 19(3), 109 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: Designing and Evaluating E-business Models. IEEE, 11–17 July/August (2001).
  13. 13.
    Gruninger, M., Fox, M.S.: Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In: Industrial Engineering (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hepp, M.: A methodology for deriving OWL ontologies from products and service categorization standards. In: ECIS (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hepp, M., Leymann, F., Domingue, J., Wahler, A., Fensel, D.: Semantic business process management: a vision towards using semantic web services for business process management. In: ICEBE 2005: IEEE International Conference on E-Business Engineering, pp. 535–540 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hinkelmann, K., Gerber, A., Karagiannis, D., Thoenssen, B., van der Merwe, A., Woitsch, R.: A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and IT: combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology. In: Computers in Industry, vol. 80 (2015).
  17. 17.
    Karagiannis, D.: Agile modeling method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 19th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp. 5–10 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knublauch, H., Hendler, J.A., Idehen, K.: SPIN - Overview and Motivation. W3C Member Submission. (2011). Accessed 23 December 2015
  19. 19.
    Leppänen, M.: A context-based enterprise ontology. In: Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the EDOC International Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies and Rules for the Enterprise (VORTE 2005), pp. 17–24. Enschede, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lynn, T., O’Carroll, N., Mooney, J., Helfert, M., Corcoran, D., Hunt, G., Van Der Werff, L., Morrison, J., Healy, P.: Towards a framework for defining and categorising business process-as-a-service (BPaaS). In: 21st International Product Development Management Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05, Palo Alto (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papazoglou, M.P., van den Heuvel, W.J.: Blueprinting the cloud. IEEE Internet Comput. 15(6), 74 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG. Business Motivation Model, Version 1.1. Object Management Group OMG (2010).
  24. 24.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. Object Management Group OMG, Needham, MA (2011).
  25. 25.
    OMG. Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), Version 1.0. Object Management Group OMG, Needham, MA (2013).
  26. 26.
    OMG. Decision Model and Notation Version 1.0. Object Management Group OMG, Needham, MA (2015).
  27. 27.
    The Open Group. TOGAF® Version 9.1. Van Haren Publishing (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Open Group. ArchiMate 2.1 Specification. The Open Group. (2012). Accessed 3 November 2015
  29. 29.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. Technical report, University of Edingburgh Artificial Intelligence Institute AIAI, p. 191 (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., Zorgios, Y.: The enterprise ontology. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 13(1), 31–89 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    W3C. SPARQL 1.1 Overview. W3C Recommendation. (2013). Accessed 30 December 2015
  32. 32.
    Zachman, J.A.: John Zachman’s Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework. Zachman International (2008).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Knut Hinkelmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kyriakos Kritikos
    • 3
  • Sabrina Kurjakovic
    • 1
  • Benjamin Lammel
    • 1
  • Robert Woitsch
    • 4
  1. 1.FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandWindischSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.FORTH Institute of Computer ScienceHeraklionGreece
  4. 4.BOC Asset ManagementViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations