Advertisement

The ICoP Framework: Identification of Correspondences between Process Models

  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Remco Dijkman
  • Jan Mendling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6051)

Abstract

Business process models can be compared, for example, to determine their consistency. Any comparison between process models relies on a mapping that identifies which activity in one model corresponds to which activity in another. Tools that generate such mappings are called matchers. This paper presents the ICoP framework, which can be used to develop such matchers. It consists of an architecture and re-usable matcher components. The framework enables the creation of matchers from the re-usable components and, if desired, newly developed components. It focuses on matchers that also detect complex correspondences between groups of activities, where existing matchers focus on 1:1 correspondences. We evaluate the framework by applying it to find matches in process models from practice. We show that the framework can be used to develop matchers in a flexible and adaptable manner and that the resulting matchers can identify a significant number of complex correspondences.

Keywords

Business Process Similarity Score External Knowledge Schema Match Graph Distance 
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. 1.
    Dijkman, R.: A Classification of Differences between Similar Business Processes. In: Proceedings of IEEE EDOC, pp. 37–50 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R.: Diagnosing differences between business process models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhamankar, R., Lee, Y., Doana, A., Halevy, A., Domingos, P.: imap: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In: SIGMOD, pp. 383–394 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707–710 (1966)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Qu, Y., Hu, W., Cheng, G.: Constructing virtual documents for ontology matching. In: Carr, L., et al. (eds.) WWW, pp. 23–31. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Porter, M.F.: An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3), 130–137 (1980)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dijkman, R.M., 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
  11. 11.
    Bunke, H.: On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph. Pattern Recognition Letters 18(8), 689–694 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Käärik, R.: Aligning business process models. In: Proceedings of IEEE EDOC, pp. 45–53 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Documentair structuurplan (February 20, 2009), http://www.model-dsp.nl/
  14. 14.
    Do, H., Melnik, S., Rahm, E.: Comparison of schema matching evaluations. In: Chaudhri, A.B., Jeckle, M., Rahm, E., Unland, R. (eds.) NODe-WS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2593, pp. 221–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Informatica 37(4/5), 229–327 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preuner, G., Conrad, S., Schrefl, M.: View integration of behavior in object-oriented databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering 36(2), 153–183 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basten, T., Aalst, W.: Inheritance of Behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 47(2), 47–145 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grossmann, G., Ren, Y., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior based integration of composite business processes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 186–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pankratius, V., Stucky, W.: A formal foundation for workflow composition, workflow view definition, and workflow normalization based on petri nets. In: Hartmann, S., Stumptner, M. (eds.) APCCM. CRPIT, vol. 43. Austral. Comp. Soc. (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mendling, J., Simon, C.: Business Process Design by View Integration. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 55–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: APCCM. CRPIT, vol. 67, pp. 71–80. Austral. Comp. Soc. (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R.M., 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
  23. 23.
    Xu, L., Embley, D.W.: Discovering direct and indirect matches for schema elements. In: DASFAA, pp. 39–46. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    He, B., Chang, K.: Automatic complex schema matching across web query interfaces: A correlation mining approach. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 31(1), 346–395 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. In: Apers, P., et al. (eds.) VLDB, pp. 49–58 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 1
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 2
  • Jan Mendling
    • 3
  1. 1.Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations