Advertisement

Business Process Activity Relationships: Is There Anything Beyond Arrows?

  • Greta AdamoEmail author
  • Stefano Borgo
  • Chiara Di Francescomarino
  • Chiara Ghidini
  • Nicola Guarino
  • Emilio M. Sanfilippo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 329)

Abstract

Business process modelling languages enable the depiction of the processes of an organisation by exploiting graphical symbols to denote the key elements to be represented. Despite the variety of approaches, graphical symbols, and (in)formal interpretations associated to the different languages, a fundamental component of every business process modelling language is the representation of the way activities are related by means of control arcs and gateways. While multiple kinds of relationships may hold among such activities, mainstream business process modelling languages seem actually only interested in modelling a single (very important) kind of relationship, namely the activity execution order within the control flow. In this paper we investigate the role of another kind of fundamental relationship between activities, namely ontological dependence, in the context of business process modelling. In particular, we introduce three forms of generic ontological dependence, namely historical dependence, causal dependence, and goal-based co-occurrence. We illustrate different forms in which they can occur, we introduce a language to express them and we discuss their usefulness in two concrete use cases.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially carried out within the Euregio IPN12 KAOS, which is funded by the “European Region Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino” (EGTC) under the first call for basic research projects.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, T., Maruster, L.: Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 16(9), 1128–1142 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adamo, G., Borgo, S., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Guarino, N., Sanfilippo, E.M.: Business processes and their participants: an ontological perspective. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2017 Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10640, pp.215–228. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_16
  3. 3.
    Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G., Santos Jr., P.S.: Applying and extending a semantic foundation for role-related concepts in enterprise modelling. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 3(3), 253–277 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benevides, A.B., Guizzardi, G.: A model-based tool for conceptual modeling and domain ontology engineering in OntoUML. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 24, pp. 528–538. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01347-8_44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Correia, F.: Ontological dependence. Philos. Compass 3(5), 1013–1032 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Montali, M.: Reasoning on LTL on finite traces: insensitivity to infiniteness. In: Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1027–1033. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Masellis, R., Francescomarino, C.D., Ghidini, C., Laponin, A., Maggi, F.M.: Rule propagation: adapting procedural process models to declarative business rules. In: 21st IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, (EDOC 2017), pp. 165–174. IEEE Computer Society (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desel, J.: Validation of process models by construction of process nets. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 110–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine, K.: Ontological dependence. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 95, pp. 269–290 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galton, A.: States, processes and events, and the ontology of causal relations. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2012), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 239, pp. 279–292. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghidini, C., Di Francescomarino, C., Rospocher, M., Tonella, P., Serafini, L.: Semantics-based aspect-oriented management of exceptional flows in business processes. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Applications and Reviews) 42(1), 25–37 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Norm compliance in business process modeling. In: Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2010. LNCS, vol. 6403, pp. 194–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16289-3_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heidari, F., Loucopoulos, P., Brazier, F., Barjis, J.: A meta-meta-model for seven business process modeling languages. In: IEEE 15th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI) 2013, pp. 216–221. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1532–1539. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lohmann, N., Fahland, D.: Where did i go wrong? In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 283–300. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lowe, E.J.: The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maggi, F.M., Slaats, T., Reijers, H.A.: The automated discovery of hybrid processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 392–399. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B., Lefebvre, É., Elabed, L., Boussaidi, G.E.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 43(1), 4 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics" of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Natschläger, C.: Towards a BPMN 2.0 ontology. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25160-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nicola, A.D., Lezoche, M., Missikoff, M.: An ontological approach to business process modeling. In: Proceedings of 3rd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1794–1813 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.: DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007), pp. 287–300. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reijers, H.A., Liman Mansar, S.: Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 33(4), 283–306 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: An ontology for the business process modelling notation. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2014). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 267, pp. 133–146. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sanfilippo, E.M., Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Events and activities: is there an ontology behind BPMN? In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2014). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 267, pp. 147–156. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simons, P.: Parts: a Study in Ontology. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smedt, J.D., Weerdt, J.D., Vanthienen, J.: Fusion miner: process discovery for mixed-paradigm models. Decis. Support Syst. 77, 123–136 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Söderström, E., Andersson, B., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E., Wangler, B.: Towards a framework for comparing process modelling languages. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47961-9_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management. Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greta Adamo
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Stefano Borgo
    • 2
  • Chiara Di Francescomarino
    • 1
  • Chiara Ghidini
    • 1
  • Nicola Guarino
    • 2
  • Emilio M. Sanfilippo
    • 3
  1. 1.FBK-IRSTTrentoItaly
  2. 2.ISTC-CNR Laboratory for Applied OntologyTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Ecole Centrale de Nantes – Laboratoire des Sciences du Numérique – LS2NNantesFrance
  4. 4.University of Genova, DIBRISGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations