Validation of User Intentions in Process Models

Web Science & Technologies

University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany

Validation of User Intentions in Process Models

Gerd Gröner, Mohsen Asadi, Bardia Mohabatti, Dragan Gasevic, Fernando Silva Parreiras and Marko Boskovic

Gerd Grö[email protected] 2

WeST CAiSE 2012

What is the goal of a particular process?

Goal that should be achieved several goals subgoals dependencies between

goals

Process Model:➔ Operational representation

of activities to achieve a certain goal

?


WeST CAiSE 2012

Example: Traveling to Gdansk for CAiSE

quickjourney

comfortablejourney

cheapjourney

↯

✔

✔

late arrival

goals and dependencies among goals

activities and dependencies between them

➔ Dependencies / relationships might be contradicting!


WeST CAiSE 2012

Problems and Questions

quickjourney

comfortablejourney

cheapjourney

late arrival

How are goals represented?

Which kinds of dependencies are covered in a process model?

How to map / align between goals and activities?

(What is the meaning?)

How is the influence of a mapped goal on an activity?


WeST CAiSE 2012

Idea

quickjourney

comfortablejourney

cheapjourney

late arrival

3. Classify inconsistencies between mapped goals and activities

1. Extract and represent relationships of both models

logical view:➔ similar relationships between elements in both models

2. Explicitly represent mappings between goals and activities

4. Formalization for validation and recognition of inconsistencies


WeST CAiSE 2012

Outline

1. Modeling dimensions

i. Goal models

ii. Process models

2. Realization inconsistencies

3. Modeling principles

4. Validation

5. Discussion and conclusion


WeST CAiSE 2012

Requirements representation

Goal models:

Graph with intentional elements (hard

goals, soft goals, tasks) links (contributions) decompositions (AND, IOR,

XOR)

G2 G3

G1

AND

OR

G

OR

AND

+•

→ Representation: means for understanding user intentions and how they are related to each other

➔ requirements of a system-to-be

Requirements: goals, functions and constraints of a system

G5

G4


WeST CAiSE 2012

Intentions in Process Models

no additional fee

30 days term of credit

preferredpayment

ANDAND

Requirement perspective:• Goals (user intentions)• Relationships (constraints, dependencies)

Process model:• Control flow perspective - activities - ordering through different constructors

mapping

≈realization of a goal


WeST CAiSE 2012

… Problem

no additional fee

30 days term of credit

preferredpayment

ANDAND

Requirement perspective: Control flow perspective:

mapping

relations not necessarily coincide,they might even be contradicting


WeST CAiSE 2012

Outline


i. Goal models

ii. Process models



4. Validation



WeST CAiSE 2012

Realization Inconsistencies

Intentional relations (IR) over intentional elements

G1, …,Gm ∈ G

Control flow relations / workflow relations WF over activities

A1, …,An ∈ A

WF over A1, …,An ∈ A and IR over G1, …,Gm ∈ G, with target

goal G ∈ G and activities A1, …,An are realizations of G1, …,Gm

A strong inconsistency between WF and IR occurs if there is no execution combination of activities that leads to the fulfillment of the target goal G.

A potential inconsistency between WF and IR occurs if some execution combinations of activities lead to the fulfillment of G and some do not lead to the fulfillment of G.


WeST CAiSE 2012

Realization Inconsistencies – Example

Strong inconsistency:

30 days termof credit

no additionalfee

preferredpayment

ANDAND

Potential inconsistency:

little payment

effort

30 days termof credit

preferredpayment

ANDAND


WeST CAiSE 2012

Correspondences

Intentional relations

Control flow relations AND IOR XOR

AND-AND parallel split - synchronization ✔ ✔ ↯ ✔ ↯AND-OR parallel split – multi merge ✔ ✔ ↯ ✔ ↯AND-Disc parallel split – discriminator ✔ ✔ ↯ ✔ ↯AND-XOR parallel split – simple merge ✔ ✔ ↯ ✔ ↯IOR-IOR multi choice - multi merge ± ✔ ± ± ±IOR-Disc multi choice - discriminator ± ✔ ± ± ±IOR-XOR multi choice – simple merge ± ✔ ± ± ±XOR-XOR exclusive – simple merge ↯ ✔ ✔ ± ✔

Sequence ✔ ✔ ↯ ✔ ↯

-●+

●

↯ strong inconsistency, ± potential inconsistency, ✔ no inconsistency


WeST CAiSE 2012

Outline


i. Goal models

ii. User intentions for process models



4. Validation



WeST CAiSE 2012

Description Logics (DLs)

Concepts CProperty (role) RSubclass C ⊑ DNegation ¬ C

Union C ⊔ DIntersection C ⊓ DExistentialQuantification ∃ P.C

C(x)R(x,y)

∀ x (C(x) → D(x))¬ C(x)

C(x) ∨ D(x)C(x) ∧ D(x)

∃ y (P(x,y)∧C(y))

(2) Inference service:

Subsumption: C ⊑ D ? if KB ⊨ C ⊑ D

(1) DL Knowledge base (KB)


WeST CAiSE 2012

Towards a common knowledge base

A2

A1

A3

G1

G2

G3

(atomic) concepts:- goals- activities

complex concept expressions- intentional relations of Gi

- control flow relations of Aj

connect concepts (atomic concepts) of mapped entities


WeST CAiSE 2012

Complex concept expressions – for IR

RelCT ≡ ∃ relates . NF ⊓

∃ relates. CT

RelCRC ≡ ( ∃ relates . CRC ⊔

∃ relates . CCR ) ⊓

¬ (∃ relates . CTC ⊓

∃ relates . CCT)

RelAP ≡ ( ∃ relates . MR )

Preferred payment (PP)

ANDAND

CCR

XOR

DTC

XOR

Apply Process (AP)

+•

Minimize Risk (MR)

CRC

30 credit term (CT)

no add.fee (NF)


WeST CAiSE 2012

Complex concept expressions – for WF

RelFD ≡ ∃ relates . FD ⊓

∃ relates. AD

RelCP ≡ ( ∃ relates . CP ⊔

∃ relates . CCP ) ⊓

¬ (∃ relates . CP ⊓

∃ relates . CCP)


WeST CAiSE 2012

Outline


i. Goal models

ii. User intentions for process models



4. Validation



WeST CAiSE 2012

How to detect inconsistencies?

A2

A1

A3

G1

G2

G3G4

IR by complex concept

WF by complex concept

atomic concept

equivalence

➔ complex concept expressions: logical formulas

➔ comparison of concept expressions


WeST CAiSE 2012

Validation – slightly abstracted

Logical point of view:

M

Validation principle: • compare RelG and RelA if there is a mapping between G and A

RelG RelAMi

G1 A1

• both models are correct on their own• only mapped elements need to be considered

RelG RelA

?- coincide / equivalent ?- contradicting?- no influence?


WeST CAiSE 2012

Relation comparison

Strong inconsistency ''...no execution combination fulfills the target goal …''

➔ KB: no common instance: RelG ⊓ RelA ⊑ ⊥

Potential inconsistency

''… there are some execution combinations that do not lead to the fulfillment of G...''

➔ an execution combination not necessarily fulfills G➔ KB: entailment RelA ⊑ RelG does not hold: ¬(RelA ⊑ RelG)

Otherwise Relations coincide


WeST CAiSE 2012

Relation comparison – concept level

RelG RelA

?compare RelG and RelA

✔ RelA ⊑ RelG✔ relations coincide

↯ RelG ⊓ RelA ⊑ ⊥ ↯ relations contradict

± ¬(RelA ⊑ RelG)

± depends on particular execution

➔ detect inconsistency between both models➔ identify the source (i.e., activity and goal) of an inconsistency


WeST CAiSE 2012

Resolve inconsistency

change intentional relations change control flow relations change mapping

➔ individual assessment

RelG RelA

inconsistency detected


WeST CAiSE 2012

Conclusion

2 views / perspectives

goals / intentionsactivities and their execution

CCR

XOR

DTC

XOR

(realization of goals)

intentionalrelationships

control flowrelationships

➔ Problem: goals and activities depend on other goals and activities ➔ Mapping imposes to an activity also relationship from its corresponding goal

CRC

mapping


WeST CAiSE 2012

Conclusion (2)

Approach

1) Specifying realization inconsistencies

2) Formalizing relationships of both models

3) Detection of inconsistencies of mapped goals and activities

Contribution of DLs Detection of inconsistencies

Potential inconsistency Strong inconsistency

Pinpointing of sources for inconsistencies

Future Work: focus on behavioral constraints (semi-) automatic derivation of process models


WeST CAiSE 2012

Thank you!

Validation of User Intentions in Process Models

News & Politics

Transcript of Validation of User Intentions in Process Models