MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2194570375 · doi:10.5339/qfarc.2014.itpp0954

Semantic Web Based Execution-time Merging Of Processes

2014· article· en· W2194570375 sur OpenAlexaff
Borna Jafarpour, Syed Sibte Raza Abidi

Notice bibliographique

RevueQatar Foundation Annual Research Conference Proceedings Volume 2014 Issue 1 · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceMerge (version control)Distributed computingProcess (computing)Execution timeSoftware engineeringProgramming languageParallel computing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A process is a series of actions executed in a particular environment in order to achieve a goal. It is often the case that several concurrent processes coexist in an environment in order to achieve several goals simultaneously. However, executing multiple processes is not always a possibility in an environment due to the following reasons: (1) All processes might be needed to be executed by a single agent that is not capable of executing more than one process at a time; (2) Multiple processes may have interactions between them that hamper their concurrent executions by multiple agents. As an example, there might be conflicting actions between several processes that their concurrent execution will stop those processes from achieving their goals. The existing solution to address the abovementioned complications is to merge several processes into a unified conflict-free and improved process before execution. This unified merged process is then executed by a single agent in order to achieve goals of all processes. However, we believe this is not the optimal solution because (a) in some environments, it is unrealistic to assume execution of all processes merged into one single process can be delegated to a single agent; (b) since merging is performed before actual execution of the unified process, some of the assumptions made regarding execution flow in individual processes may not be true during actual execution which will render the merged process irrelevant. In this paper, we propose a semantic web based solution to merge multiple processes during their concurrent execution in several agents in order to address the above-mentioned limitations. Our semantic web Process Merging Framework features a Web Ontology Language (OWL) based ontology called Process Merging Ontology (PMO) capable of representing a wide range of workflow and institutional Process Merging Constraints, mutual exclusivity relations between those constraints and their conditions. Process Merging Constraints should be respected during concurrent execution of processes in several agents in order to achieve execution-time process merging. We use OWL axioms and Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) rules in the PMO to define the formal semantics of the merging constraints. A Process Merging Engine has also been developed to coordinate several agents, each executing a process pertaining to a goal, to perform process merging during execution. This engine runs the Process Merging Algorithm that utilizes Process Merging Execution Semantics and an OWL reasoner to infer the necessary modifications in actions of each of the processes so that Process Merging Constraints are respected. In order to evaluate our framework we have merged several clinical workflows each pertaining to a disease represented as processes so that they can be used for decision support for comorbid patients. Technical evaluations show efficiency of our framework and evaluations with the help of domain expert shows expressivity of PMO in representation of merging constraints and capability of Process Merging Engine in successful interpretation of the merging constraints. We plan to extend our work to solve problems in business process model merging and AI plan merging research areas.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,750
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,003
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,302
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQatar Foundation Annual Research Conference Proceedings Volume 2014 Issue 1Même sujetBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisTravaux en français237 207