<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Semantic Audit Application</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Katalin Ternai</string-name>
          <email>katalin.ternai@uni-corvinus.hu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ildikó Szabó</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Information Systems, Corvinus University of Budapest 1093 Budapest</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Fővám tér 13-15.</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="HU">HUNGARY</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Compliance checking of business processes executed by auditors requires to analyze documents e.g. log files, business process models depending on requirements derived from reference guidelines. This paper presents a forward compliance checking application for facilitating conformant behavior by detecting organizational operations and their deviations based on these documents in a semantic way. This application has been tested on the Internalization process in the respect of Erasmus mobility.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>erasmus mobility</kwd>
        <kwd>process ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>ontology learning</kwd>
        <kwd>ontology matching</kwd>
        <kwd>compliance check</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Auditors have to collect evidence whether organizational operations are working
according guidelines and well-documented. Computer-aided audit tools are not capable
of processing documents in a semantic way [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. Different semantic approaches exist
for solving this compliance checking. Supporting compliant process executions or
detecting non-compliant process executions are distinguished as forward or backward
compliance checking [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. This is only one dimension of the semantic framework
elaborated in the SUPER project for compliance management. This public research
project presents five perspectives on compliance checking: design-time/run-time;
forward/backward; active/passive; task checking/process checking or
enginebased/query-based perspective [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]
Auditors must detect current organizational operations and their deviations through
scrutinizing documents. Our solution wants to help auditors in this work. We assume
that business process models are hidden within documents. Process ontologies
preserve the structure of these models and easily filtered in a semantic way. Process
ontologies are a set of abstract entities like Process step (S), Data (D), IT System(T) and
Roles(R) classes. The function M(X) is to determine the set of instances of X class.
The linkage between instances of these classes can be considered as a graph P = (N,
L), where N= and L contains the following ordered
pairs. This table contains their interpretations.
      </p>
      <p>Ordered pairs Interpretation of them
performed_by (M(S), M(R)) A given role is responsible for executing a
given process step
Produces_output(M(S),M(D))</p>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>Uses_input(M(S),M(D))</title>
        <p>Uses_system(M(S), M(T))</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-2">
        <title>A given data (including a document) is created</title>
        <p>
          by a process step
A given process step uses an input for its run
A given process step uses an information
system for its run
In our solution, business process models in the shape of process ontologies are
extracted from organizational documents with using standard process models in the
form of process ontologies as well. The structure and objects of standard process
models are used as compliance specifications because, in our approach, these
processes must be run if conformant behavior is followed by a given organization. The
deviations can be discovered by investigating the structure and objects of the
abovementioned process ontologies. Ontology matching is capable of performing this kind
of structural and semantic examination. Hence an ontology matching tool is used to
detect deviations of organizational processes from standard ones and create a
transparent report from them for auditors. This forward compliance checking is executed
in design time without using any runtime data, on process level instead of task level
and with embodied ontology-based techniques. Ontology-based approach was used by
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ], but their compliance ontology was used to determine rules and not for executing
the matching. Our Semantic Audit Application is presented in the next section.
2
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Semantic Audit Application</title>
      <p>The process ontology building component is responsible for discovering semantic
contents in documents in an automated manner. This module uses reference process
ontologies transformed from BOC ADONIS1 process models by using XSLT
transformation as inputs. These process ontologies and business process models are stored
in the repository of this system. The first step of the algorithm is to build the
organizational process ontology (OPO) with the help of the reference process ontology (RPO).
The skeleton of these ontologies are the same. Semantic rules are used to find process
elements (like IT resources, roles, input/output documents). First of all, the name of
these process elements (like Student, Coordinator as Roles) are tried to find within the
document. If it does, the initial OPO will be extended by these entities as classes.
New process elements will be discovered by using the initial relations of the process
ontologies (see in Table 1) as open queries. For example the goal is to find a role who
performs a process step. The meaning of „performed_by“ relation suggests that
“&lt;x&gt;by the&lt;y&gt;” open query as pattern within text can detect a relation between an x
task (process step) and an y role. Newly discovered process elements will be added to
the OPO.</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>1 https://uk.boc-group.com/adonis/</title>
        <p>The algorithm picks each process steps from the RPO in order to add process steps to
the OPO. It splits the name of these process steps into terms. It seeks them through
texts and measures the frequency of their occurrence within a given sentence. The
sentence providing the higher value will validate this process step. Having identified
these process steps, they are added to the OPO and connected to an existent other
process elements of the OPO (Role, IT resources etc) which are located nearby
(namely within a given radius). The process ontology building component creates the
organizational process ontology containing process elements from the organizational
document.</p>
        <p>Documents</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Process</title>
        <p>ontology building
component
Standards</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Ontology matching component</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>Report generator</title>
        <p>The ontology matching component uses DL Queries and Protégé 4 OWL Diff for
filtering the ontologies, adding instances with a predefined attribute (e.g. region) to
them and creating a technical report after executing the matching. This report is
processed by a report generator to create a transparent report for auditors which
contains information about the number of task, filtered role, missing, unnecessary or
common organizational process elements. Hence auditors can discover areas requiring
deeper investigations in the next phase when leaders are interrogated by them.
3</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Conclusion and future work</title>
      <p>Nowadays Campus Mundi projects are to improve higher education processes in
Hungary. The audit guideline elaborated for investigating compliance checking of
Internationalization activities wants to detect “how the current mechanisms are
effective”. Our semantic audit application can help to compare institutional processes with
standard processes articulated in the Erasmus Mobility Handbook. The Student
Application procedure was used to test this application. Erasmus mobility calls represent
the organizational documents. This test was executed on ten different sources.2 The
precision of this application is presented by the following charts. The first one shows
that how many total and meaningful roles were detected by the above-mentioned
algorithm using “by the” semantic rule. It seems that at most one wrong role was
extracted in the most cases. The blue line on the second chart presents how many
tasks related to the Student role were extracted from the organizational documents,
the red line shows how many of them were the same as in the reference process. The
notable differentiation between them indicates two cases: the algorithm identified
tasks badly or the higher education institutions obligate students to perform tasks
which are related to a different role in the handbook. The latter case must be
investigated by the auditors, because the segregation of duties control might be failed. So the
improvement of the algorithm leads to emerge an application that provides auditors
reports for facilitating further investigations. This JAVA application containing
libraries of OWL API, DLQueryExample and the SVN Repository of Protégé 4 OWL Diff.
2 http://erasmus.yasar.edu.tr/student-mobility/outgoing-students/
http://www.ciim.ac.cy/outgoing-students
https://www.international.tum.de/en/going-abroad/students/erasmus/...etc.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Braun</surname>
            <given-names>RL</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Davis</surname>
            <given-names>HE</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          )
          <article-title>Computer‐assisted audit tools and techniques: analysis and perspectives</article-title>
          .
          <source>Managerial Auditing Journal</source>
          <volume>18</volume>
          :
          <fpage>725</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>731</lpage>
          . doi:
          <volume>10</volume>
          .1108/02686900310500488
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ramezani</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fahland</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Aalst</surname>
            <given-names>WMP van der</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          )
          <article-title>Where Did I Misbehave? Diagnostic Information in Compliance Checking</article-title>
          . In:
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barros</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gal</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Kindler E (eds) Business Process Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp
          <fpage>262</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>278</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>El Kharbili</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stein</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Markovic</surname>
            <given-names>I</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pulvermüller</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <article-title>Towards a framework for semantic business process compliance management</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the workshop on Governance, Risk and Compliance for Information Systems</source>
          . pp
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>15</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmidt</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bartsch</surname>
            <given-names>C</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Oberhauser</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
          <article-title>Ontology-based Representation of Compliance Requirements for Service Processes</article-title>
          . In: SBPM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>