Sose2015 presentation

University of Stuttgart
Universitätsstr. 38
70569 Stuttgart
Germany
Phone +49-711-685 88477
Fax +49-711-685 88472
Research
Marigianna Skouradaki, Katharina Görlach,
Michael Hahn, Frank Leymann
Institute of Architecture of Application Systems
{firstname.lastname}@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de
Applying Subgraph Isomorphism
to Extract Reoccurring Structures
from BPMN 2.0 Process Models

22
Research
© Marigianna Skouradaki
BPMN 2.0
Process Models
Collection
Fragments
Repository
Workload
Mix
Graph
Matching
Selection
Criteria
Composition
Criteria
80%
20%
Motivation: Generation of Realistic Workload

33
Research
Agenda
 Process Model Matching
 Basic Concepts
 Algorithm
 Evaluation & Validation
 Conclusions & Outlook

55
Research
BPMN 2.0 Collection Characteristics
 Detect the reoccurring structures on BPMN 2.0 process
models which:
 Might be anonymized (no text information available)
 Might be mock-up models (non-executable)

66
Research
Text Matching
 Cannot be applied to anonymized models

88
Research
Matching Executional Information
log
 Comparing produced execution logs
Cannot be applied on mock-up models
log
2

99
Research
Structural Matching

1010
Research
The Challenge of Graph Isomorphism
NonDeterministic Polynomial
Time
(NP – Complete)
The time required to solve the
problem using any currently
known algorithm increases very
quickly as the size of the
problem grows.

1111
Research
Subgraph Isomorphism on BPMN 2.0 Process Models
BPMN 2.0 Process Models are special types of graphs
Subgraph isomorphism can be applied in lower complexity1
1 R. M Verma.; and S. W. Reyner; “An analysis of a good algorithm for the subtree problem, correlated,” SIAM J. Comput., vol. 18, no. 5,
pp. 906–908, Oct. 1989.

1313
Research
Exiting Attributes: Nested

1414
Research
Exiting Attributes: Different Positions

1515
Research
Exiting Attributes: Partially Similar

1616
Research
Process Fragment
A Process Fragment is a piece of process model with loose
completeness and consistency. The existence of process
graph elements (start, end, activities, context etc.) is
possible but not imperative in a process fragment.
However, a process fragment must have at least one
activity and there must be a way to convert it to an
executable process graph.2
1. It is not necessarily related with a complete process model
2. A starting point is not defined
3. Existence of split or merge node is optional
2D. Schumm, F. Leymann, Z. Ma, T. Scheibler, and S. Strauch, “Integrating Compliance into Business Processes: Process Fragments as
Reusable Compliance Controls” in MKWI’10, Göttingen, Germany, February 23-25, 2010, Ed., Conference Paper, pp. 2125–2137.

1717
Research
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments (RPFs)
 Checkpoint (the starting points)
 A pre-configured type of node that is used as start point of
the “extended” process fragments
 Relevant Process Fragment
 Exists in at least K business processes
 Starts with a checkpoint
 Has at least N nodes including the checkpoint
 Contains at least one activity

1818
Research
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process ModelsCheckpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes

1919
Research

2020
Research
RPF
RPF

2121
Research

2222
Research
RPF
RPF

2323
Research

2424
Research
RPF

2626
Research
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs

2727
Research

2828
Research

2929
Research

3030
Research

3131
Research

3232
Research

3333
Research

3434
Research

3535
Research

3636
Research

3737
Research

3838
Research

3939
Research

4040
Research

4141
Research

4242
Research

4343
Research

4444
Research

4545
Research

4646
Research

4747
Research

4848
Research

4949
Research

5050
Research

5151
Research

5252
Research

5353
Research

5454
Research
…continue likewise..
 Will not work for cycles

5656
Research
Validation & Evaluation
 46 artificial BPMN 2.0 Process Models
 BPMN 2.0 Standard Example Processes
 Models used in Pietsch and Wenzel, 2012
 2070 Comparisons
Scenario 1:
{events,
gateways}
Scenario 2:
{events,
gateways, tasks}

5757
Research
Validation: Process Models Used as Input

5858
Research
Validation: Discovered RPFs

5959
Research
Comparison Complexity:
Number of totally
compared checkpoint flows
Execution Times vs. Comparison Complexities

6060
Research
Average Execution Time vs. Average Comparison Complexity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600
AverageExecutionTimes(ms)
Average Comparison Complexities
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
O(n log n)

6161
Research
Conclusions & Outlook
 Set the theoretical framework
 Sub-graph isomorphism on BPMN 2.0 process models
 The algorithm can run in logarithmic complexity (experimental)
 Definition of checkpoints is not important for timing, but for
filtering and clustering
 Theoretical proof of the algorithm’s complexity
 Apply filtering
 Assign frequency values
 Increase expressiveness of Comparison Complexity
Thank you!
Questions?


Sose2015 presentation

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Sose2015 presentation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Sose2015 presentation