MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391903870 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.705

A Model-driven Method to Design SoaML Services from BPMN Models: Principles, Proof-of-concept, and Validation

2023· article· en· W4391903870 on OpenAlexafffund
Redouane Blal, Abderrahmane Leshob, Imen Benzarti, Hafedh Mili, Omar Khadeer Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness Process Model and NotationSoftware engineeringBusiness processBusiness architectureService-oriented architectureBusiness process modelingSoftware architectureArchitectural styleReference architectureEclipseBusiness domainProcess modelingProcess managementArchitectureSoftwareWeb serviceEngineeringWorld Wide WebProgramming languageWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's business processes are increasingly complex as they cross organizational boundaries. To execute their business processes, organizations develop software applications called Process-Aware Information System (PAIS). PAIS designers must consider complex scenarios involving multiple partners. Consequently, the architectural design of high quality PAIS is complex and requires vast amounts of knowledge and skills both in software architecture and in the business domain. This paper proposes a model-driven method to design the architecture of PAIS using the service-oriented architecture (SOA) style. The proposed method generates SOA-based design models expressed in SoaML from the specifications of collaborative business processes expressed in BPMN. We developed a prototype tool using the Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) ecosystem. We tested the method on a set of processes from the Enterprise Resource Planning literature to assess its effectiveness. Our results show that 80.95\% of the identified services were relevant and corresponded to what architecture specialists expected.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207