=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1562/paper2
|storemode=property
|title=SemFrameX - Towards a Framework for the Semantic Justification of BPMN Adaptations
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1562/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-1562
|authors=Richard Braun
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/zeus/Braun16
}}
==SemFrameX - Towards a Framework for the Semantic Justification of BPMN Adaptations==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1562/paper2.pdf
SemFrameX 13
SemFrameX – Towards a Framework for the
Semantic Justification of BPMN Adaptations
Richard Braun
Technische Universität Dresden,
Chair of Wirtschaftsinformatik, esp. Systems Development, 01062 Dresden, Germany
richard.braun@tu-dresden.de
Abstract. In recent years numerous extensions and adaptations of the
BPMN evolved, since model users aim to both exploit the benefits of
the modeling standard and adapt BPMN to particular domain peculiar-
ities or project requirements. Methodical support for conducting such
adaptations is generally rare and very focused on the abstract syntax,
which is actually insufficient, since particular semantics are more relevant.
Consequently, it seems to be reasonable to explicitly conduct semantical
analysis and comparison checks before extending or adapting BPMN.
However, appropriate semantic specifications of BPMN are missing. After
introducing and motivating the entire issue, we therefore outline the
SemFrameX framework that aims to specify the BPMN meta model se-
mantics with a special consideration of ontic, epistemological, conceptual,
linguistic and pragmatics aspects.
Keywords: Semantics, Meta Modeling, Extensibility, Process Modeling,
Enterprise Modeling Languages, Semantics Framework
1 Extension and Adaptation of BPMN
The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) constitutes a prevalent
standard for modeling business processes and workflows, which are pivotal parts
of enterprises [15]. The level of standardization and application in various domains
and projects both in industry and academia leads inevitably to the need for
situational extension or adaptation of BPMN [9] in order to enhance, augment
[2, p. 51] or specify the language [8]. This implies a particular customization of
the BPMN [8, p. 400], which may constitute as dialect [4,10], punctual extension
[11] or even as reduced BPMN version [18]. This need for language adaptation is
especially caused by the immanent diversity of single domains and enterprises,
which factually precludes any one fits all approach [24,5]. In contrast to nearly
all Enterprise Modeling Languages (EMLs [8, p. 399]) BPMN therefore explicitly
provides an extension mechanism aiming to integrate additional meta model
elements systematically [31, p. 43]. Further, BPMN as Purpose-Specific Modeling
Language (PSML) provides concepts that are explicitly under-specified (cf. [19,
p. 136]) in order to enable their specification for respective domains or problems
(e.g., Data Objects [31, p. 203] or Pools [31, p. 306]). While the syntax of BPMN
C. Hochreiner, S. Schulte (Eds.): 8th ZEUS Workshop, ZEUS 2016, Vienna, Austria,
27-28 January 2016, Proceedings – published at http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1562
14 Richard Braun
is (widely [30,7]) well-defined, the issue of language adaptation is only supported
to a very limited extent implicating both a lack of procedural assistance and
semantics [7]. Research on BPMN adaptations merely focuses the syntax and
semantic issues are only discussed occasionally [13].
We assume that this is strongly amplified by the general syntax focus of
the BPMN specification, which provides only very short and limited semantic
references in natural language statements [31]. This might be caused by the rather
technical origin of BPMN. Further, parts of BPMN are intended to be executable
[31, p. 435] implicating formal behavioral semantics [6, p. 3402], while a range
of concepts have material semantics (e.g., Manual Tasks or Pools). Both types
of semantics actually require different kinds of semantic specification (cf. [33]).
Due to the stated issues it is difficult to conduct well-justified adaptations of
BPMN, since the BPMN specification itself does not provide a solid and detailed
semantic base. To the best of our knowledge there is no complete semantic
analysis or description of BPMN, which provides respective semantic domain
concepts and mappings. Existing research works are either not very mature [13],
focus syntactical aspects [30,36] or address only the model layer but not the
meta model layer [29]. However, imprecise or even missing semantic specification
of EMLs is a general issue that is under-investigated [21, p. 485], [1, p. 108],
although semantics seem to be an extremely promising language driver (cf. [4]).
This paper therefore aims to bring light into the dark of semantic specifica-
tions in BPMN. Therefore, the semantic issue of BPMN is stated in Section 2.
Section 3 then motivates the semantics first approach and outlines the Sem-
FrameX framework by introducing its dimensions. The paper ends with a short
outlook in Section 4.
2 Issues with Semantics
Several authors criticize the lack of semantic specifications in EMLs and emphasize
their importance [20, pp. 67-69], [37, pp. 690, 706]. But despite several approaches
(e.g., [22,32,26]) no accepted and prevalent standard evolved so far and also the
explication of required modeling concepts is still rudimental [19,16]. Instead, both
the design of EMLs and EML extensions strongly focus the syntax perspective,
while semantics and pragmatics are more or less ignored [4]. In the context of
BPMN, we assume that the following reasons may cause the unsatisfying struggles
with semantics.
Awareness of relevant parts: There is a lack of consensus about those parts,
which determine semantics. The specification of semantics is rather diffuse and
remains mostly informal. It is therefore advised to take an integrated view on
semantics in regard of the meta model constructs itself as well as the used textual
elements.
Formal and material semantics: In contrast to formal domains in the field
of Computer Science (CS) [17], the domain of enterprises and business process
cannot be completely formalized (material semantics [33]). However, some tasks
or purposes require the definition of formal specifications (formal semantics
SemFrameX 15
[17,6]). Respective differences and also integration points should be investigated
(hybrid semantics [12]).
Ambiguity: Enterprises are complex socio-technical information systems af-
fecting several aspects – both real-world things and artificial things [26]. This
underlines the importance of subjective interpretation depending on personal
experiences, cognition and mental conceptualization [27], which is especially rele-
vant within collaborative process modeling in order to avoid misunderstandings,
for instance. It is hence necessary to take ontic and epistemological issues into
account in order to become aware of its impact and respective consequences for
language design and language application.
Multiple research fields: The investigation of semantics is an essential topic in
philosophy and cognition research that addresses fundamental epistemological
questions. In the CS community, semantics is relevant in the field of Information
Retrieval or Semantic Web, for instance. Both areas seem to be relevant in the
Information Systems (IS) discipline. However, integration is not trivial due to
differing semantic understandings (cf. [38,20]).
3 SemFrameX - Integrated Framework Approach
3.1 Semantically Driven Justification of BPMN Adaptations
It becomes obvious that semantics are crucial in the context of BPMN and also
indispensable for BPMN adaptation. We therefore argue that all adaptations
should follow a semantics first approach in the sense of the following two parts:
Explication of the expected semantics: First, the expected semantics in the
sense of required domain concepts should be explicated in order to express
objectives and requirements [35,13,16]. The expected semantics are closely coupled
with the underlying pragmatic intention [4]. For instance, if the user just aims to
document particular real-world aspects then material semantics are applicable
(e.g., [2]). If the user intends to enhance BPMN for some automation tasks
then formal semantics might become relevant (e.g., [6]). Also hybrid semantics
as combination of both aspects is imaginable (e.g., in case of clinical decision
systems, where supporting processes need to be automated [12]).
Justification of EML adaptation: Afterwards it is necessary to compare the
expressiveness of BPMN with the required expressiveness of a particular situation
in order to justify and elaborate the need for adaptation based on semantic
correspondence checks [1, p. 100]. The comparison finally leads to respective
syntactical constructs [13] and might determine the type of extension (e.g., a
profile-based BPMN dialect [10]).
3.2 Framework Architecture
As stated in Section 1, semantics in the Enterprise Modeling (EM) context are
multi-faceted, not trivial and little considered in literature so far. We therefore
aim to tackle the issue by analyzing several dimensions in regard of semantics,
16 Richard Braun
which constitutes as the SemFrameX 1 framework that is presented in Figure 1.
With respect to the limited space of this paper, the architecture is introduced by
a brief presentation of the single dimensions.
Representation Dimension BPMN Meta BPMN Ext.
Conceptualization Dimension Model Meta Model
Consensus Dimension
Ontic Dimension
BPMN BPMN Ext.
Things
Semantic Semantic
Area of Discourse Mapping Mapping
(Epistemological Positions) Semantic Semantic
Sem.
Pragmatic Dimension Domain Check Ext. Domain
Specification Specification
Modeling Languages Natural Language
Fig. 1. The SemFrameX framework for the multi-faceted specification of meta model
semantics and its relevance for language extension.
3.3 Ontic Dimension and Epistemological Position
Fundamentally, any semantic consideration finally leads to an analysis of those
things that are somehow referred by symbols of a language [39]. It is therefore
necessary to analyze and categorize different types of things, e.g. material things
or artificial things [26]. As we consider the meta model layer, a thing itself is
understood as an already abstracted class of things with common features within
a particular area of discourse. Hence we consider an implicit abstraction step of
modelers, which have to be inferred from single, detectable entities to a class
of those entities. More precisely, the fundamental type of respective classes of
things in regard of their actual existence in reality (realism vs. idealism) as
well as their perception (objectively perceptible vs. subjectively perceptible)
have to be considered (adapted from [14,3]). This categorization is important for
contingent epistemological positions like Positivism, Critical Rationalism, Radical
Constructivism or Methodic Constructivism. Those positions largely determine
respective theories of truth, which are especially relevant for the differentiation
between formal and material semantics [33] as well as for the identification of
differences between conceptualizations of things [25].
1
SemFrame stands for semantic framework, while the suffix X emphasizes its relevance
for extensions and adaptations.
SemFrameX 17
3.4 Conceptualization Dimension
Conceptualization is understood as the individual understanding of the stated
class of things. This conceptualization is a central point of analysis, as it depends
on the personal understanding of a particular meta model and finally refers to
some things s/he has in mind. The only exception is represented by a class of
things that is perceived as real and objectively perceptible (Positivism). In each
other constellation, the conceptualization is strongly subject-dependent and can
cause variant interpretations of meta model constructs by interpreting them
differently, for instance [27].
3.5 Pragmatic Dimension
Generally, the application context determines the expected capabilities of a
modeling language [38, p. 5] and the concrete modeling purpose plays an immanent
role within conceptualization [4, p. 436]. Some authors state that the real meaning
of a language finally results from its factual usage [4, p. 438], serving a particular
utility [35]. Hence, the underlying or intended pragmatics also influence the aimed
semantics. If BPMN is intended to be used for pure documentation then material
semantics are relevant, causing a descriptive mode of the semantics (cf. [1]).
In contrast, BPMN can be also used to describe (at least partly) automatable
processes or message exchange services, which rather cause formal semantics and
represent a normative or prescriptive character.
3.6 Representation Dimension
Conceptualizations and things (in case of Positivism) need to be explicated in
any form. Ontologies are often proclaimed as means for semantic annotations
[22,23]. Basically, even those rather minimalistic languages have a certain syntax
and semantics, which have to be taken into account. Further, also the semantics
of the meta modeling language used to design the BPMN meta model has to
be considered, as it refers indirectly to some artificial things of constructs (e.g.,
Generalizations). These aspects are covered by the framework element modeling
language. In addition, natural language emphasizes the importance of single words
(sememe) as basic source of ambiguity. While structural issues are covered by the
above mentioned dimensions, natural language based ambiguity is actually the
most important issue, since all the stated problems finally lead to lexical topics
like synonym and homonym conflicts [34]. For instance, further research on other
lexical types like hypernyms, hyponyms, meronyms, holonyms, antonyms and
troponyms is needed [22, p. 1628], [38, p. 8], [28, p. 89].
3.7 Consensus Dimension
Despite divergence and ambiguity, it is important to find a particular consensus on
semantics in the sense of an agreement of different personal conceptualizations in
order to provide an applicable language within a language community. Although
18 Richard Braun
Consensus Theory of Truth is usually applied in Constructivism and Critical
Rationalism, we suggest its consequent application, since process modeling usually
covers at least some things that are not invariant interpretable. After finding a
particular consensus on the semantic specification of either the entire BPMN or
prospective BPMN extensions, semantic comparison techniques can be applied in
order to justify extension or adaptation need (right side in Figure 1). Currently,
we intend to conduct specific ontological comparisons based on generic enterprise
ontologies and domain-specific ontologies for this task.
4 Conclusion
This paper presents an overview of a research-in-progress project aiming to
elaborate an integrated and multi-faceted semantic description technique for
BPMN based on an analysis of ontic and epistemological aspects. The integrated
semantic description of BPMN elements should facilitate the justification of
potential BPMN extensions or adaptations. Further, the aimed semantic de-
scription technique should support the specification of respective requirements
profiles, which are the base for comparison with semantics of BPMN. The initial
architecture of the SemFrameX framework is outlined and its dimensions are
briefly introduced.
Further research is manifold, as each dimension has to be investigated in
detail. We therefore aim to start with the core of the framework by characterizing
and classifying different types of things and respective consequences for their
interpretation (formal or material semantics). This is closely related to current
investigations in the field of hybrid semantics aiming to specify and integrate both
types in BPMN and support the derivation of BPMN extensions and dialects.
Furthermore, an inductive application of the proposed architecture to other EMLs
seems to be promising.
Acknowledgement: This paper presents results from the research project
SFB Transregio 96, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
The author further appreciates the helpful reviewer comments on this paper.
References
1. Anaya, V., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R., Opdahl, A.L.,
Panetto, H., Verdecho, M.J.: The unified enterprise modelling language – overview
and further work. Computers in Industry 61(2), 99–111 (2010)
2. Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R., Fritzsche, M.: Modeling language extension in the en-
terprise systems domain. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE EDOC. pp. 49–58
(2013)
3. Becker, J., Holten, R., Knackstedt, R., Niehaves, B.: Wissenschaftstheoretische
grundlagen und ihre rolle für eine konsensorientierte informationsmodellierung pp.
307–334 (2003)
4. Bjekovic, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.S.: Embracing pragmatics. In: Conceptual
Modeling. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 431–444 (2014)
SemFrameX 19
5. Bjekovic, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.S.: Enterprise modelling languages – just
enough standardisation? In: Business Modeling and Software Design. LNBIP, vol.
173, pp. 1–23 (2013)
6. Bork, D., Fill, H.G.: Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: A comparison
framework. In: Proceedings of the 47th HICSS. pp. 3400–3409 (2014)
7. Braun, R.: Behind the scenes of the bpmn extension mechanism - principles,
problems and options for improvement. In: Proc. of the 3rd MODELSWARD. pp.
403–410 (2015)
8. Braun, R.: Towards the state of the art of extending enterprise modeling languages.
In: Proc. of the 3rd MODELSWARD. pp. 394–402 (2015)
9. Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Classification of domain-specific bpmn extensions. In: The
Practice of Enterprise Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 42–57 (2014)
10. Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Designing dialects of enterprise modeling languages with
the profiling technique. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE EDOC. pp. 60–67 (2015)
11. Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Extending the mof for the adaptation of hooks, aspects,
plug-ins and add-ons. In: Model and Data Engineering. pp. 28–38. LNCS (2015)
12. Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Towards hybrid semantics of enterprise modeling languages.
In: Proc. of the 4th MODELSWARD (2016)
13. Braun, R., Schlieter, H.: Requirements-based development of bpmn extensions: The
case of clinical pathways. In: IEEE 1st RE-BPMN. pp. 39–44 (2014)
14. Braun, R., Esswein, W.: Eine methode zur konzeption von forschungsdesigns in der
konzeptuellen modellierungsforschung. In: Data Warehousing. pp. 143–172 (2006)
15. Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: Bpmn: An introduction to the standard. Computer
Standards & Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)
16. De Kinderen, S., Ma, Q.: Requirements engineering for the design of conceptual
modeling languages - a goal-and value-oriented approach. Applied Ontology (2015)
17. Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic meta modeling: A
graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in uml. In:
UML 2000 – The Unified Modeling Language, pp. 323–337. Springer (2000)
18. Fernández, H.F., Palacios-González, E., Garcı́a-Dı́az, V., G-Bustelo, B.C.P.,
Martı́nez, O.S., Lovelle, J.M.C.: Sbpmn – an easier business process modeling
notation for business users. Computer Standards & Interfaces 32(1), 18–28 (2010)
19. Frank, U.: Domain-specific modeling languages: requirements analysis and design
guidelines. In: Domain Engineering, pp. 133–157. Springer (2013)
20. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of semantics?
Computer 37(10), 64–72 (2004)
21. Harzallah, M., Berio, G., Opdahl, A.L.: New perspectives in ontological analysis:
Guidelines and rules for incorporating modelling languages into ueml. Information
Systems 37(5), 484–507 (2012)
22. Höfferer, P.: Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels
and ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 15th ECIS. pp. 1620–1631 (2007)
23. Kaczmarek, M.: Categories of ontologies’ applications in the realm of enterprise
modeling. In: Proceedings of IEEE 17th CBI. vol. 1, pp. 98–107 (2015)
24. de Kinderen, S., Ma, Q., Proper, H.A.: Model bundling: Towards a value-based
componential approach for language engineering. In: Proceedings of the 8th VMBO
(2014)
25. van der Linden, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: Challenges of identifying communities with
shared semantics in enterprise modeling. In: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling.
LNBIP, vol. 134, pp. 160–171 (2012)
26. van der Linden, D., van Zee, M.: On the semantic feature structure of modeling
concepts: an empirical study. In: Proc. IEEE 16th CBI. pp. 158–165. IEEE (2014)
20 Richard Braun
27. van der Linden, D.: Personal semantics of meta-concepts in conceptual modeling
languages. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2015)
28. Mendling, J., Leopold, H., Pittke, F.: 25 challenges of semantic process modeling.
IJISEBC 1(1), 78–94 (2014)
29. Mickevičiūtė, E., Butleris, R.: Towards the combination of bpmn process models
with sbvr business vocabularies and rules. In: Information and Software Technologies,
pp. 114–121. Springer (2013)
30. Natschläger, C.: Towards a bpmn 2.0 ontology. In: Business Process Model and
Notation, pp. 1–15. Springer (2011)
31. OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) - Version 2.0. Object Man-
agement Group (OMG) (2011)
32. Opdahl, A.L.: Anatomy of the unified enterprise modelling ontology. In: Enterprise
Interoperability, pp. 163–176. Springer (2011)
33. Pfeiffer, D., Gehlert, A.: A framework for comparing conceptual models. In: Pro-
ceedings EMISA. pp. 108–122 (2005)
34. Pittke, F., Leopold, H., Mendling, J.: Automatic detection and resolution of lexical
ambiguity in process models. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 41(6), 526–544 (2015)
35. Proper, H.A., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Hoppenbrouwers, S.: On utility-based selection
of architecture-modelling concepts. In: Proc. of the 2nd APCCM. pp. 25–34 (2005)
36. Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: An ontology for the business process
modelling notation. In: Formal Ontology in Information Systems - Proceedings of
the 8th FOIS. vol. 267, pp. 133–146. IOS Press (2014)
37. Santos, P.S., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: An ontology-based analysis and
semantics for organizational structure modeling in the aris method. Information
Systems 38(5), 690–708 (2013)
38. Thalheim, B.: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics of conceptual modelling. In:
Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, pp. 1–10. Springer (2012)
39. Ullmann, S.: Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning (1979)