On the Automatic Labeling of Process Models

  • Henrik Leopold
  • Jan Mendling
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)


Process models are essential tools for managing, understanding and changing business processes. Yet, from a user perspective they can quickly become too complex to deal with. Abstraction – aggregating detailed fragments into more coarse-grained ones – has proven to be a valuable technique to simplify the view on a process model. Various techniques that automate the decision of which model fragments to aggregate have been defined and validated by recent research, but their application is hampered by the lack of abilities to generate meaningful names for such aggregated parts. In this paper, we address this problem by investigating naming strategies for individual model fragments and process models as a whole. Our contribution is an automatic naming approach that builds on the linguistic analysis of process models from industry.


Business Process Business Process Model Business Object Model Collection Activity Label 
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.


  1. 1.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part a. Business Process Management Journal 12(2), 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Constructing customized process views. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(2), 419–438 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Process model abstraction: A slider approach. In: Proceedings of EDOC (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Nugteren, T., Weske, M.: Business Process Model Abstraction: Theory and Practice. Technical Report 35 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in process models: Review and effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Keller, G., Teufel, T.: Sap R/3 Process Oriented Implementation. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reijers, H., Limam, S., van der Aalst, W.: Product-based workflow design. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1), 229–262 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leopold, H., Smirnov, S., Mendling, J.: Refactoring of process model activity labels. In: Hopfe, C.J., Rezgui, Y., Métais, E., Preece, A., Li, H. (eds.) NLDB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6177, pp. 268–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Process instantiation. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(9), 777–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leopold, H.: Modularization of business process models using natural language techniques. Master’s thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Constructing Customized Process Views. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(2), 419–438 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Günther, C.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fuzzy Mining – Adaptive Process Simplification Based on Multi-perspective Metrics. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 328–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Business process model abstraction based on behavioral profiles. In: Maglio, P.P., Weske, M., Yang, J., Fantinato, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6470, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smirnov, S., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Meronymy-based aggregation of activities in business process models. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: Proceedings of APCCM, pp. 71–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Systems 36, 498–516 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Lin, Y., Ding, H.: Ontology-based semantic annotation for semantic interoperability of process models. In: Proc. of CIMCA/IAWTIC, pp. 162–167 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    de AR Gonçalves, J.C., Santoro, F.M., Baiao, F.A.: A case study on designing processes based on collaborative and mining approaches. In: Int. Conf. CSCWD (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kop, C., Vöhringer, J., Hölbling, M., Horn, T., Mayr, H.C., Irrasch, C.: Tool supported extraction of behavior models. In: ISTA, pp. 114–123 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghose, A.K., Koliadis, G., Chueng, A.: Rapid business process discovery (R-BPD). In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 391–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Friedich, F., Mendling, J., Puhlmann, F.: Process model generation from natural language text. In: Proc. of CAISE. LNCS (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Leopold
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 1
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 2
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations