MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009809432 · doi:10.4018/jebr.2005070104

Business Process Modeling with URN

2005· article· en· W2009809432 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Weiß, Daniel Amyot

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of E-Business Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsComputer scienceNotationUSableBusiness process modelingArtifact-centric business process modelBusiness processBusiness Process Model and NotationBusiness ruleProcess modelingProcess (computing)Business process managementSoftware engineeringProcess managementData scienceEngineeringWork in processWorld Wide WebOperations managementProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article demonstrates how the User Requirements Notation (URN) can be used to model business processes. URN combines goals and scenarios in order to help capture and reason about user requirements prior to detailed design. In terms of application areas, this emerging standard targets reactive systems in general, with a particular focus on telecommunications systems and services. This article argues that the URN also can be applied to business process modeling. To this end, it illustrates the notation, its use, and its benefits with a supply chain management case study. It then briefly compares this approach to related modeling approaches; namely, use case-driven design, service-oriented architecture analysis, and conceptual value modeling. The authors hope that a URN-based approach will provide usable and useful tools to assist researchers and practitioners with the modeling, analysis, integration, and evolution of existing and emerging business processes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of E-Business ResearchSame topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207