semantic management of business processes in the future internet at bpsc 2009 leipzig, germany march...

Semantic Management

of Business Processes

in the Future Internet

at BPSC 2009

Leipzig, Germany

March 23rd, 2009

Presenters

• Marwane El Kharbili (IDS Scheer) • Dumitru Roman (STI Innsbruck) • Monika Starzecka (Poznan University

of Economics, Poland)

© SUPER 22.03.2009 2BPSC 2009, Leipzig, Germany

Acknowledgement & Copyrights

• This material is based upon works supported by the EU under the SUPER project (FP6 - 026850)

• Material Preparation – KMI: John Domingue, Barry Norton– Poznan University: Agata Filipowska– IAAS, University of Stuttgart: Dimka Karastoyanova, Jörg Nitzsche, Tammo van

Lessen, Zhilei Ma, Frank Leymann– IDS Scheer: Sebastian Stein – STI Innsbruck: Dumitru Roman, Michael Stollberg– DERI Galway: Maciej Zaremba, Sami Bhiri, Armin Haller – Ontotext: Marin Dimitrov

© by the SUPER project consortium


Agenda

1. Introduction: The Need of Semantics in BPM

2. Business Process Management ■ Introduction■ Process Execution with BPEL

3. Semantic Web Services■ Introduction■ SWS Technologies

4. Integration: The SUPER Approach■ SUPER Ontology Stack■ SUPER Architecture

5. SUPER Demonstration

Introduction

Monika Starzecka


Querying the Process Space


The Critical IT / Process Divide


What Are My Services?


Matching Activities and Port Types Based on Semantics

Semantic Web Services


Supporting Business Users Better


Matching Model Representations & Semantics


Agenda






Business Process ManagementIntroduction

Marwane El Kharbili


BusinessProcess

Management(BPM)

Office Automation(since 1980)

Workflow Systems(since 1985)

CSCW / Groupware /Workgroup Systems

EAI(since 1990)

Business Reengineering(since 1990)

Continuous Improvements(since 1990)

Business Process Modelling(since 1990)

Business Process Mngt.(since 2000)

Business Objects(since 2000)

SOA(since 2000)

BPM’s Parents and Definition


Enterprise Model

PurchaseOrder

ReceivedSYS

GetPurchaseOrder

PurchaseOrder

Extracted

SYS

Load ContentContent

Ready forDownload

SYS

Get License LicenseAvailable

SYS

Send Content& License

PurchaseOrder

Satisfied


PurchaseOrder

ReceivedSYS

GetPurchaseOrder

Cell Phone

PurchaseOrder

Extracted

SYS

Load ContentContent

Ready forDownload

SYS


SYS


PurchaseOrder

Satisfied

Cell Phone

Enterprise Model


PurchaseOrder

ReceivedSYS

GetPurchaseOrder

Cell Phone

Customer

PurchaseOrder

Extracted

SYS

Load ContentContent

Ready forDownload

SYS


SYS


PurchaseOrder

Satisfied

DigitalContent

Customer License

DigitalContent

License

Cell Phone

ContentIdentifier

ContentIdentifier

Enterprise Model


PurchaseOrder

ReceivedSYS

GetPurchaseOrder

Cell Phone

Customer

PurchaseOrder

Extracted

SYS

Load ContentContent

Ready forDownload

SYS


SYS


PurchaseOrder

Satisfied

DigitalContent

Customer License

DigitalContent

License

Cell Phone

Cell PhoneInterfaceService

ContentIdentifier

ContentIdentifier

ContentLibraryService

LicenseService


Enterprise Model


PurchaseOrder

ReceivedSYS

GetPurchaseOrder

Cell Phone

Customer

PurchaseOrder

Extracted

SYS

Load ContentContent

Ready forDownload

SYS


SYS


PurchaseOrder

Satisfied

DigitalContent

Customer License

DigitalContent

License

Cell Phone


ContentProvider

ContentIdentifier

ContentIdentifier

ContentLibraryService

LicenseService

SalesDepartment


IT DepartmentIT Department

Enterprise Model


too complex

Enterprise Model


Enterprise Modelling

Enterprise Models:“… a computational representation of the structure,

activities, processes, information, resources, people, behavior, goals, and constraints of a business, government, or other enterprises.”

What (Data)

How (Function)

Where (Network)

Who (People)

When Why

Models e.g.UML Class Diagram,ER Model

e.g.Function Modeling

e.g.Business Logistics System

e.g. Workflow

Model

e.g. Master

Schedule

e.g. Business Plan, Strategic Maps


• possible abstraction layers are:– requirements definition

– design specification

– implementation specification

– execution and run-time models

• possible views are:– organisational view

– product view

– data view (information architecture)

– function and IT view

– process view

Enterprise Model


• many different frameworks for enterprise architecture, e.g.:– Zachman Framework (very comprehensive)– ArchiMate (simplified version of Zachman)– ARIS (promoted by IDS Scheer)– TOGAF (strong IT focus)– IAF (promoted by Cap Gemini)

• currently many discussions around process design & execution, e.g.:– BPMN (notation for (IT oriented) business processes)– EPC (notation for business processes)– Petrinets (formalism often used for workflow modelling)– UML Activity diagrams – XPDL (execution language for process definitions)– BPEL (execution language for process definitions)– XLANG (execution language promoted by Microsoft)– ...

Enterprise Model


Process Lifecycle

• enterprise model evolves lifecycle• based on general Deming cycle for continuous process

improvements• sometimes also named Shewhart cycle

1. Plan

2. Do

3. Check

4. Act


Summary

• BPM definition depends on your focus• Enterprise Model describes all relevant aspects of your enterprise• different stakeholders will have different views and information

needs• lifecycle for the different parts of the Enterprise Model• BPM is done for many different purposes, but SUPER focus on:

– business process design

– business process execution

– monitoring and analysis of execution


Agenda






Business Process ManagementProcesses and Process Execution

Marwane El Kharbili


BPM Applications

Business Experts’ Perspective: Processes

IT Implementation Perspective

Process Implementation

Querying the Process Space Manual Labor


What is BPEL?

• BPM language/model

• Language to specify behaviour of business processes

• Executable and Abstract processes– Executable processes

– Executed within a compliant environment (portability)– Abstract processes

– Specify constraints of message exchange– Provide “views” on internal processes

• Combination of graph-based language (IBM WSFL) and calculus-based language (Microsoft XLANG)


BPEL Web Service composition

• BPEL process composes (uses) Web services


Business Processes as Web services

• BPEL Process is also a Web service– functionality in terms of WSDL port types and operations


* Receive may cause an Instantiation of a Process

BPEL Document

BPEL Engine

Process Definition

Execution via the Navigator

Process Instance

...Deployment

Instantiation

Process Lifecycle within the Engine

Invo

catio

n an

d M

ana

ge-

men

t F

ram

ewor

k

Receive*

Reply


Agenda






Semantic Web Services

Dumitru Roman

© SUPER 19.04.23 37

WWWURI, HTML, HTTP

Semantic WebRDF, RDF(S), OWL

Dynamic Web ServicesUDDI, WSDL, SOAP

Static

Semantic WebServices

Semantics for the WWW

Outline

• Semantic Web and Ontologies

• Web Services and SOA

• The WSMO Approach to SWS

• Some Use Cases for SWS

WWWURI, HTML, HTTP

Serious Problems in • information finding,• information extracting,• information representing,• information interpreting and• and information maintaining.


Static

Motivations for Semantic Web

What is The Semantic Web?

• “An extension of the current Web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation.”– Tim Berners-Lee et al., Scientific American, 2001

• “The next generation of the Web”– Not a separate Web but an augmentation of the

current one• Information has machine-processable and

machine-understandable semantics • Ontologies as basic building block

The Semantic Web is about…

• Web Data Annotation– Connecting (syntactic) Web objects, like text chunks, images, … to their semantic notion

(e.g., this image is about Leipzig, BPSC is a scientific event)

• Data Linking on the Web (Web of Data)– Global networking of knowledge through URI, RDF, and SPARQL (e.g., connecting my

calendar with my rss feeds, my pictures, ...)

• Data Integration over the Web– Seamless integration of data based on different conceptual models (e.g., integrating data

coming from my two favorite book sellers)

Publishing and querying machine processable data

• Publishing (related-to is transitive):B related-to AC related-to AD related-to C?x related-to ?y and ?y related-to ?z => ?x related-to ?z

• Querying (give me all things related to A):?x related-to A

Answer:?x = B?x = C?x = D

Semantic Web Data

Semantic Web Ontology

What is an ontology?

• Formal,

• explicit specification of

• a shared conceptualization

of a domain.

Elements of Ontologies

• Classes– Grouping of individuals with common properties– e.g. Persons, Cars, Universities, ...

• Relations– Connections between individuals– May be attached to classes– e.g. hasName, hasAge, owns, ...

• Individuals– Objects in the domain– May be instances of classes

• Axioms– Additional statements about the domain– Specified in logical language– e.g. “hasName has one value”

Ontologies and the Semantic Web

A wide variety of languages for Ontologies

• Graphical: Semantic Networks, Topic Maps, UML, RDF

• Logical: Description Logics, First Order Logic, Rules, Conceptual Graphs

The Evolution of the Semantic Web

2001 2006

(Tim Berners-Lee) (Tim Berners-Lee)

Issues when dealing with Ontologies

• Ontology Languages– Expressivity, reasoning support, web compliance

• Ontology Reasoning– Large scale knowledge handling, fault-tolerant, stable

& scalable inference machines

• Ontology Management Techniques– Editing and browsing, storage and retrieval,

versioning and evolution support

• Ontology Integration Techniques– Ontology mapping and alignment

Semantic Web Tools

• Browsers– mSpace, Longwell, OINK, BrownSauce, Piggy Bank, Tabulator, etc

• Annotators– Annotea, Clipmarks, PhotoStuff, M-OntoMat-Annotizer, KIM,

WSMT• Storages

– Oracle Spatial 10g, Kowari, Jena, Yars, 3Store, AllegroGraph, Joseki, ARC RDF Store

• Ontology Mappers– OntoMerge, HMARFA, CMS

• Reasoners– BOR, Bossam, FaCT++, Jess, OWLJessKB, RacerPro

• Composite Applications/Frameworks – Cerbera, Corse, IODT, Jena, TopBraid Composer, KAON

Web Services

WWWURI, HTML, HTTP



Static

Web Services: Definition

• “Loosely coupled, reusable software components that encapsulate discrete functionality and are distributed and programmatically accessible over standard Internet protocols”, The Stencil Group

• Web service applications are encapsulated, loosely coupled Web “components” that can bind dynamically to each other, F. Curbera

• “Web Services are a new breed of application. They are self-contained, self-describing, modular applications that can be published, located, and invoked across the Web. Web Services perform functions, which can be anything from simple request to complicated business processes”, The IBM Web Services tutorial

• Common to all definitions:– Components providing functionality– Distributed– Accessible over the Web

© SUPER 19.04.23 51

Web Services & SOA

• Web Service = program accessible over the Web

• Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA): – Use Web services as basic building blocks – Dynamically find & invoke those Web services

that allow to solve a particular request

• Web Service Technologies: 1. WSDL Web Service Description Language

2. SOAP XML data exchange protocol for the Web

3. UDDI registry for Web Services

Web Services – General Architecture

© SUPER 19.04.23 53

• Current technologies allow usage of Web Services• But:

– Only syntactical information descriptions – Syntactic support for discovery, composition and execution=> Web Service usability, usage, and integration needs to be inspected

manually – No semantically marked up content / services– No support for the Semantic Web

=> Initial Web Service Technology Stack failed to realize the SOA Vision

Deficiencies of Current WS Technology

Problem: Lack of technologies to cope with the scale envisioned for WSSolution: Techniques for automated support for service related tasks

© SUPER 19.04.23 54

WWWURI, HTML, HTTP



Static


Semantics for the WWW

55

Tasks to be automated in SWS

SWS Approaches: OWL-S, SWSF, WSMO, SAWSDL

The WSMO Approach

WSMO

WSMXWSML

A Conceptual Model for SWS

A Formal Language for WSMO An Execution Environment for WSMO

Objectives that a client may havewhen consulting a Web Service

Provide the formallyspecified terminologyof the information usedby all other components

Semantic description of WebServices: - Capability (functional)- Interfaces (usage)

Connectors between components withmediation facilities for handling heterogeneities

Top-level Elements Defined by WSMO

(http://www.wsmo.org)

http://www.wsmo.org/

WSMO/WSML – Ontologies

…

Ontology elements definitions in WSMO Examples in WSML

WSMO – Web Services

Web ServiceImplementation(not of interest in Web Service Description)

Choreography --- Service Interfaces ---

Capability

functional description

WS

WS

- Advertising of Web Service- Support for WS Discovery

client-service interaction interface for consuming WS - External Visible Behavior- Communication Structure - ‘Grounding’

realization of functionality by aggregating other Web Services - functional decomposition - WS composition

Non-functional Properties

DC + QoS + Version + financial

- quality aspects - Web Service Management

WS

Orchestration

WSMO/WSML – Web Services

…

WS definitions in WSMO

…

WS Capability examples in WSML…

WSML – static and dynamic aspects

• Ontology / Rule Languages– WSML Core: efficiency and compatibility– WSML DL: decidability, open world semantics– WSML Rule: efficient existing rule engines– WSML Full: unifying language, theorem proving

• Languages for dynamics – Transaction Logic over ASMs– Currently not fully defined

• Mapping languages– for dynamics (process mediation)– for data (data mediation)

URIUnicode

XML

RDF (S)

WSML Core

WSML DLWSML Rule

WSML Full

Static Aspects

Dynamic Aspects

WSML

WSMX – Web Service Execution Environment

• WSMX – reference implementation for WSMO/L• Architecture and execution environment

63

WSMX Component Example – Discovery

• Responsible for finding appropriate Web Services to achieve a goal (discovery)

• Different techniques available – trade-off: ease-of-provision vs. accuracy

– resource descriptions & matchmaking algorithms

Key Word Matching - match natural language key words in resource descriptions,

Controlled Vocabulary- ontology-based key word matching, and

Semantic Matchmaking - what Semantic Web Services aim at.

Ease of provision

Possible A

ccuracy

• Allows for a fast filtering and ranking of the huge number of available services rather quickly.

• Nonfunctional from the Dublin Core namespace (e.g. dc#description) is used as the base for indexing and querying.

64

WSMX Component Example – Discovery Key Word Matching

wsmlVariant _"http://www.wsmo.org/wsml/wsml-syntax/wsml-rule"

namespace {_"http://www.wsmo.org/sws-challenge/WSMuller#", dc _"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1#"}

webService WSMuller nfp dc#title hasValue "Muller Web Service" dc#description hasValue "We ship to Africa, North America, Europe, Asia (all countries)." dc#contributor hasValue "Maciej Zaremba, Matt Moran, Tomas Vitvar, Thomas Haselwanter" endnfp

capability WSMullerCapability...

65

WSMX Component Example – Discovery Semantic Matchmaking

Exact Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) <=> WS(x) )

PlugIn Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) => WS(x) )

Subsumption Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) <= WS(x) )

Intersection Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ x. (G(x) WS(x) )

Non Match: G, WS, O, M ╞ ¬x. (G(x) WS(x) )

= G = WS

X

• Requester and provider have their own communication patterns • Only if the two match precisely, a direct communication may take

place• At design time equivalences between the choreographies’

conceptual descriptions is determined and stored as set of rules• The Process Mediator provides the means for runtime analyses of

two choreography instances and uses mediators to compensate possible mismatches

66

WSMX Component Example – Process Mediation

67

WSMX Component Example – Process Mediation (cont’)

Business Partner1Business Partner1

Business Partner2Business A

B B



A B

B A



A and BA

B



A

BA and B

PM

PM

PM

PM



A

AckA

APM

© SUPER 19.04.23 68

An example of a SWS usage process

GOAL

Discoverer

BehavioralConformance

Data Mediator

ProcessMediator

Executor

if: usableif: composition possible

uses

matchmaking R with all WS

composition (executable)

uses

submission

if: compatible

if: successful

if: executionerror

information lookup for particular service

else: not solvable

Service Repository

uses

Selection &Ranking

Composer

else: try other WS

Other approaches to SWS

• OWL-based Web service ontology (OWL-S) – A set of OWL ontologies used to describe different aspects

SWS: Service Profile, Service Model, Service Grounding• Semantic Web Services Framework (SWSF)

– Two major components: an ontology and a language used to axiomatize it; builts upon OWL-S

• Internet Reasoning Service (IRS-III) – A platform which acts as a broker mediating between the goals

of a user or client and available deployed web services• Semantic Annotations for WSDL (SAWSDL)

– A mechanism to augment WSDL descriptions with semantics

SWS Scenario – MediationSWS-Challenge Workshop: http://sws-challenge.org/

Aim: overcome the need for manual development of mediation systems

http://sws-challenge.org/

SWS Scenario – Payment CompositionSWS-Challenge Workshop: http://sws-challenge.org/

Aim: overcome problems of goal-based web service compositions


SWS Scenario – Shipment Discovery (1)SWS-Challenge Workshop: http://sws-challenge.org/

Aim: automatically find shipment services

Examples of shipping services:


SWS Scenario – Shipment Discovery (2)SWS-Challenge Workshop: http://sws-challenge.org/

Examples of goals:


74

I want to have my package shipped from CA, USA to Tunis, Africa size (7/6/4), weight 1 lbs, the cheaper the better.

I want to have my package shipped from CA, USA to Tunis, Africa size (7/6/4), weight 1 lbs, the cheaper the better.

Discovery in WSMX – Example

75

Goal expressedin WSML is sent to theWSMX Entry Point

Discovery in WSMX – Example (cont’)

76

Communication Manager instantiates AchieveGoalExecution Semantics


77

Discovery is employedin order to find suitableWeb Service

Discovery consults appropriateontologies and Web Service descriptions

Web Service may be invoked in order to discover serviceavailability


78

List of candidate WebServices is ranked and best” solution is selected


79

Requester and provider choreographies areinstantiated and processed

Invocation of WebService occurs


80

Result is returned to the client in the form ofWSML message


SWS – Summary

• Semantic Web Services– Have the potential of improving the usability of services– Lots of progress in the last years

• WSMO/L/X is an active initiative in the area of SWS• Standardization based on WSMO/L/X is emerging

– OASIS SEE TC

• But still a lot to do…– Scalability– Reasoners– Large scale use cases

Additional Resources

• WSMO– http://www.wsmo.org/– http://www.wsmo.org/TR

• CMS WG– http://cms-wg.sti2.org/

• WSML– http://www.wsmo.org/wsml

• WSMX– http://www.wsmx.org/– http://sourceforge.net/projects/wsmx

• WSMT– http://wsmt.sourceforge.net

• WSMO Studio– http://www.wsmostudio.org

• OASIS SEE TC– http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/semantic-ex/


Agenda






Integration - SUPER Approach

Monika Starzecka


SUPER Main Approach

© SUPER 22.03.2009 I-CENTRIC, Malta 2008

Semantic BPM Lifecycle

■ Modelling – add semantic (ontological) annotations to business

processes

■ Configuration – map from the business model to an executable

process specification

■ Execution – process execution with discovery & composition of SWS

■ Analysis – monitor, analyse & improve processes

BPSC 2009, Leipzig, Germany


SBP ModellingText

Text

Semantic Business Process

Modelling


SBP ConfigurationText Text

Text


Configuration


SBP ExecutionText Text

Text


Execution


SBP Analysis Text Text

Text


Analysis

© SUPER 22.03.2009 93BPSC 2009, Leipzig, Germany 93

Agenda






Integration - SUPER Approach

SUPER Ontology Stack

Monika Starzecka


Current Ontology Stack


UPO


BPMO


sBPEL


Scenario Ontology Business Function Ontology

RBE OntologyI am interested in

an as-is analysis of the supply chain

management

sRBE Analysis Process

Business Question Repository


Ontology Stack


Organisational Cloud

E.g. YATOSP Framework

D.1.2 and D.1.6 Organisational Ontologies


Organisational Cloud


Organisational Structure Ontology


Business Roles Ontology


Organisational Units Ontology


Business Resources Ontology


Business Policies and Rules Ontology – work in progress


BFO Purpose

• Business Functions Ontology (BFO)– Provides domain-independent vocabulary.– Introduces a robust taxonomy of organization-related functions.

• BFO aims at the precise categorization of functions and activities taking place in an organization in order to enable and facilitate the enterprise description on the process level.

• A Business Function is any functional area of / or related to an enterprise e.g. Human Resources, Sales Management, etc.

• An Activity is unit of work identified with given business process e.g. Block Sales Order, Change Sales Order, etc.


BFO Facts & numbers

• BFO is conceptually based on the SAP Business Maps Ontology:– More than 23000 instances.

– 2807 names for functions and activities were filtered out, in the second step 1578 were chosen.

– More than 580 candidates were found irrelevant or in close synonymy to concepts already included.

• The final version of BFO consists of 32 axioms and 960 concepts divided into 14 functional areas and their peer activity sub-structures:

■ The maximum depth of the taxonomical hierarchy is 5.


BFO Structure

• BFO consists of 2 parallel structures:– Function structure - reflects main functional areas of the company.– ActivityOrStep structure – reflects activities, steps or sub-phases that are conducted within the functions.

• ActivityOrStep is connected with proper Function via isSubPhaseOf attribute.


Business Function Ontology


Business Strategy Ontology


Business Goals Ontology

• Business Goals Ontology provides a standard set of properties and relations used in modelling a hierarchy of organisational business goals and enables formal verification of goal specifications

• Business goal - state of the enterprise that an action, or a given set of actions, is intended to achieve

Integration - SUPER ApproachSUPER Architecture

Monika Starzecka


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBPComposition

SemanticExecution

Environment

ModellingTool

Monitoring & Management

ToolAnalysis Tool

SUPER Execution SUPER Tooling

SBP ProcessMediation

SBP Discovery Data Mediation

SBP Reasoner Transformation

SUPER Platform Services

SUPER Repositories

Deployment

Event Sink

Protocol Binder

Business Process Library


Repository

ExecutionHistory

Semantic Service Bus

Architecture: Structural Overview


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBPComposition

SemanticExecution

Environment

SUPER Execution





SUPER Repositories

Deployment

Event Sink

Protocol Binder



Repository

ExecutionHistory


ModellingTool


ToolAnalysis Tool

SUPER Tooling

Architecture: Tools


SBPComposition

ModellingTool


ToolAnalysis Tool

SUPER Tooling





SUPER Repositories

Deployment

Event Sink

Protocol Binder



Repository

ExecutionHistory


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SemanticExecution

Environment

SUPER Execution

Architecture: Execution Environment


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SemanticExecution

Environment

ModellingTool


ToolAnalysis Tool


SUPER Repositories

Deployment

Event Sink

Protocol Binder



Repository

ExecutionHistory


SBPComposition





Architecture: Platform Services


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBPComposition

SemanticExecution

Environment

ModellingTool


ToolAnalysis Tool






Deployment

Event Sink

Protocol Binder


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

Architecture: Repositories


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBPComposition

SemanticExecution

Environment

ModellingTool


ToolAnalysis Tool






SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

Deployment

Event Sink

Protocol Binder


Architecture: Semantic Service Bus


BPEL4SWS

WSDL

Deploymentdescriptor

WSMO Mediators

WSMOGoals

WSMO WSDL

Semantic ProcessArtefacts Bundle

(SPAB)

Architecture Behavioural Perspective: SBP Deployment


SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SemanticExecution

Environment

ModellingTool

SUPER Execution

SUPER Repositories

Deployment



Repository

ExecutionHistory


BPEL4SWS WSDLDeploymentDescriptor

WSMOMediators

S P A B

WSMOGoals

Architecture Behavioural Perspective: SBP Deployment

WSMOWSDL


Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

Architecture Behavioural Perspective: SBP Execution

SemanticExecution

Environment

1 Execute Task

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

Protocol Binder

Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution


Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory


SemanticExecution

Environment

1 Execute Task

2

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

Protocol Binder

Discover and Select Service

Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution


Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

SemanticExecution

Environment

1 Execute Task

2

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

3 MediateData

Protocol Binder


Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution



Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

SemanticExecution

Environment

4 Invoke Service

1 Execute Task

2

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

3 MediateData

Protocol Binder


Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution



Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

SemanticExecution

Environment

4 Invoke Service

1 Execute Task

2

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

3/5 MediateData

Protocol Binder


Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution



Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

SemanticExecution

Environment

4 Invoke Service

1 Execute Task

2

6

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

3/5 MediateData

Return Result

Protocol Binder


Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution



Data Mediation


SUPER Repositories



Repository

ExecutionHistory

SemanticExecution

Environment

4 Invoke Service

1 Execute Task

2

6

SemanticBPEL

ExecutionEngine

SBP Reasoner

3/5 MediateData

Return Result

Protocol Binder


Web Service

Event Sink

SUPER Execution

Generate Events



Agenda






SUPER Demonstration

Monika Starzecka

More information

• http://www.ip-super.org• Contact person:

– Agata Filipowska– [email protected]


http://www.ip-super.org/

semantic management of business processes in the future internet at bpsc 2009 leipzig, germany march...

Documents

germany super

super project consortium

super project fp6

business process mngt

process dividebpsc

process spacebpsc

germanyenterprise modelbpsc

business reengineeringsince