Advertisement

Representing and Validating Digital Business Processes

  • Lianne Bodenstaff
  • Paolo Ceravolo
  • Ernesto Damiani
  • Cristiano Fugazza
  • Karl Reed
  • Andreas Wombacher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4891)

Abstract

Today, the term extended enterprise (EE) is typically meant to designate any collection of organizations sharing a common set of goals. In this broad sense, an enterprise can be a whole corporation, a government organization, or a network of geographically distributed entities. EE applications support digitalization of traditional business processes, adding new processes enabled by e-business technologies (e.g. large scale Customer Relationship Management).

Keywords

Business Process Modal Logic Business Process Model Business Rule Dynamic Consistency 
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.

References

  1. Aßmann, U., Aksit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.): MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, B., Müller, J., Roser, S.: A model-driven approach to designing cross-enterprise business processes. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Corsaro, A. (eds.) OTM-WS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3292, pp. 544–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BMI. Business modeling & integration domain task force, http://bmi.omg.org/
  5. Bodenstaff, L., Wombacher, A., Reichert, M., Wieringa, R.: Monitoring collaboration from a value perspective. In: Proceedings of 2007 Inaugural IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies IEEE-DEST 2007, pp. 134–140 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. Boley, H., Dean, M., Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Tabet, S.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML (2004)Google Scholar
  7. Boley, H., Tabet, S., Wagner, G.: Design rationale of RuleML: A markup language for semantic web rules (2001), http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/boley01design.html
  8. Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Viviani, M.: Bottom-up extraction and trust-based refinement of ontology metadata. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(2), 149–163 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curland, M., Halpin, T.A.: Model driven development with norma. In: HICSS, p. 286 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. De Giacomo, G., Lesperance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence (2000)Google Scholar
  11. Fariñas del Cerro, L.: Molog: A system that extends prolog with modal logic. New Gen. Comput. 4(1), 35–50 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, J., Borenstein, J.: XMI and the many metamodels of enterprise metadata. In: XML conference and exhibition (2005)Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, N.E., Schwertel, U.: Reasoning in Attempto Controlled English. In: Bry, F., Henze, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) PPSWR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2901, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, N.E., Schwertel, U., Schwitter, R.: Attempto Controlled English (ACE) Language Manual, Version 3.0 (1999), http://attempto.ifi.unizh.ch/site/pubs/papers/ace3manual.pdf
  15. Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: A mu calculus for temporal logic. In: ACM Specifying and Verifying and Reasoning about Programs (2003)Google Scholar
  16. Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J.M.: Value-based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grahlmann, B.: The PEP tool. In: Proceedings of CAV (1997)Google Scholar
  18. Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management The Third Wave. Meghan-Kiffer Press (2003)Google Scholar
  19. Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: Description of the RACER system and its applications. In: International Workshop on Description Logics (2001)Google Scholar
  20. Jain, H., Kroening, D., Sharygina, N., Clarke, E.: Word level predicate abstraction and refinement for verifying rtl verilog. In: DAC 2005: Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference on Design automation, pp. 445–450. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jena. Jena, A Semantic Web Framework for Java, http://jena.sourceforge.net/
  22. Linehan, M.: Semantics in model-driven business design. In: Proc. of 2nd International Semantic Web Policy Workshop, SWPW 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. McCarthy, W.E.: The REA Accounting Model: a Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in a Shared Data Environment. Accounting Review 57, 554–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  24. Melnik, S., Decker, S.: A Layered Approach to Information Modeling and Interoperability on the Web. In: Semantic Web Workshop (2000)Google Scholar
  25. Nicola, R.D.: Three logics for branching bisimulation. Journal of the ACM (1995)Google Scholar
  26. OMG. Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules Specification (2006), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?dtc/06-08-05.pdf
  27. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: An e-business model ontology for modeling e-business. In: Proceedings of the 15th Bled E-Commerce Conference - Constructing the eEconomy (2002)Google Scholar
  28. Parsia, B., Sivrin, E., Grove, M., Alford, R.: Pellet OWL Reasoner. Maryland Information and Networks Dynamics Lab (2003), http://www.mindswap.org/2003/pellet/
  29. Ross, R.G.: Principles of the Business Rule Approach. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  30. van der Aalst, W., Hofstede, A., Weske, M.: Business process management: A survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van der Aalst, W., Weijters, A.: Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software through Process Technology. In: Process Mining, pp. 235–255. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  32. W3C. Semantic web activity, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
  33. W3C. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  34. Zlatev, Z., Wombacher, A.: Consistency between e\(^{\mbox{3}}\)-value models and activity diagrams in a multi-perspective development method. In: OTM Conferences, vol. (1), pp. 520–538 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lianne Bodenstaff
    • 1
  • Paolo Ceravolo
    • 2
  • Ernesto Damiani
    • 2
  • Cristiano Fugazza
    • 2
  • Karl Reed
    • 3
  • Andreas Wombacher
    • 4
  1. 1.Information Systems Group, Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of Twente (Nl)Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Information TechnologiesUniversità degli StudiMilanItaly
  3. 3.Computer Science Dept.LaTrobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.School of Computer and Communication SciencesÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Ch)Switzerland

Personalised recommendations