Using Classification Method for Querying the Relevant Process Models

  • Jiaxing Wang
  • Sibin Gao
  • Hongjie Peng
  • Bin Cao
  • Jing FanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 602)


Operations management is important to a company, so more and more business process models are created. At the same time, how to manage such a large amount of process models is becoming a big challenge for companies. Querying the relevant process models is proposed as a business process management technology and it has attracted more and more attention by researchers. The existing methods query the relevant models for a query process model by measuring their similarities. And most of them measure the similarity by focusing on only one kind of feature, such as the structural features or behavioral features, while ignoring other features. In this paper, we consider both structural features and behavioral features to query the relevant process models for a query process model. In order to reach this goal, we use two classification methods named back propagation neural network (BPNN) and support vector machines(SVM) for classifying the candidate models in the repository into two classes: relevant and irrelevant. For the sake of classification, we summarize 7 features to represent the similar or dissimilar parts of two process models. The experiment result shows the precision and efficiency of the classification methods are acceptable.


Business process model BPNN SVM Relevant process model Classification 


  1. 1.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Dongen, B.V., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fausett, L.: Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wong, W.E., Qi, Y.: BP neural network-based effective fault localization. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 19(04), 573–597 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zavaljevski, N., Stevens, F.J., Reifman, J.: Support vector machines with selective kernel scaling for protein classification and identification of key amino acid positions. Bioinformatics 18, 689–696 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joachims, T.: Making Large Scale SVM Learning Practical. Universität Dortmund, Dortmund (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tam, K.Y., Kiang, M.Y.: Managerial applications of neural networks: the case of bank failure predictions. Manag. Sci. 38(7), 926–947 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bunke, H.: On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 18(8), 689–694 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, J.M., Tao, J., Wong, R.K., Wen, L.J.: Querying business process model repositiories. World Wide Web 17, 427–454 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Comceptual Modelling-vol. 67, pp. 71–80. Australian Computer Society Inc. (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cao, B., Wang, J., Fan, J., et al.: Mapping elements with the hungarian algorithm: an efficient method for querying business process models. In: 2005 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pp. 129–136. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zha, H., Wang, J., Wen, L.J., Wang, C., Sun, J.: A workflow net similarity measure based on transition adjacency relations. Comput. Ind. 61, 463–471 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yan, Z., Dijkman, R., Grefen, P.: Fast business process similarity search with feature-based similarity estimation. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 60–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jin, T., Wang, J., Wen, L.: Querying business process models based on semantics. In: Yu, J.X., Kim, M.H., Unland, R. (eds.) DASFAA 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6588, pp. 164–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cao, B., Yin, J., Li, Y., Deng, S.: A maximal common subgraph based method for process retrieval. In: 2013 IEEE 20th International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pp. 316–323. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiaxing Wang
    • 1
  • Sibin Gao
    • 1
  • Hongjie Peng
    • 1
  • Bin Cao
    • 1
  • Jing Fan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Computer ScienceZhejiang University of TechnologyHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations