BPM meets Semantic Web

3,674 views
3,520 views

Published on

Talk at W-JAX/SOACON 2009 in Munich.

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,674
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
53
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

BPM meets Semantic Web

  1. 1. Jörg Nitzsche | Daimler AG/IAAS, University of Stuttgart Tammo van Lessen | IAAS, University of Stuttgart BPM meets Semantic Web
  2. 2. About Us Tammo van Lessen Jörg Nitzsche  Independent Consultant  Enterprise Architecture  Researcher & PhD Student Management IAAS, University of Stuttgart Daimler AG  Committer & PMC Member  Researcher & PhD Student Apache ODE IAAS, University of Stuttgart
  3. 3. Prof. Scheer on BPM 3.0 “Although semantic BPM currently only exists in the research labs of universities and a limited number of BPM technology providers, such as IDS Scheer, this technology is key to the future of BPM. For it to succeed, organizations must have a high level of BPM maturity, but given the rapid progress made recently by BPM at the technology and organizational levels, it can only be a matter of a few years before semantic BPM becomes reality.” [1] [1] Scheer, A.W., Klueckmann, J.: „The Future of BPM starts now!”, ARIS Expert Paper, 2009. http://cdn.ariscommunity.com/media/pdf/BPM_-_Scheer_Klueckmann_-_Future_of_BPM_-_en.pdf
  4. 4. The Talk Today • Overview • Semantic Business Process Management • Problem Statement • sBPM Lifecycle • Modelling • Configuration • Execution • Analysis • Conclusion
  5. 5. Semantic Business Process Management (sBPM)
  6. 6. The Business-IT-Gap
  7. 7. Process Implementation
  8. 8. Problem Setting
  9. 9. What are my services?
  10. 10. Semantic Matchmaking Semantic Web Services
  11. 11. Matching Model Representations & Semantics
  12. 12. Querying the Process Space 12
  13. 13. Aim of Semantic BPM
  14. 14. What is SUPER? SUPER Semantics Utilised for Process management within and between EnteRprises EU Integrated Project (IP), FP6 Program: Information and Society Technologies Begin: April 2006 Duration: 36 months Funding: ~16,4 Million € 19 Partners, ~60 Researchers Consortium: SAP, CEFRIEL, Etel, Hanival, IBIS Prof. Thome, IBM, IDS Scheer, iSOCO, LFU Innsbruck, MIP, NUI Galway, Nexcom, Ontotext/Sirma, Open University, Telefonica, Telekomunikacja Polska, Poznan University, TU Eindhoven, University of Stuttgart
  15. 15. Semantic BPM Lifecycle • Modelling – add semantic (ontological) annotations to business processes (BPMN): enables discovery of appropriate process fragments (auto- completion), enables composition • Configuration – map from the business model to an executable process specification • Execution – process execution (BPEL) with discovery of SWS during runtime • Analysis – monitor, analyse & improve processes
  16. 16. sBP Modelling
  17. 17. sBP Modelling • Processes are modeled in a graphical notation known to business people (e.g. BPMN) • Processes are semantically annotatated • The semantics of process tasks and events are specified explicitly by using ontologies • Different kinds of ontologies needed • Process Ontology • Organizational Ontology • SWS Ontology (WSMO) • Domain ontologies • Features during process modeling: • Semantic discovery of already existing processes and process fragments in the SBP repository Auto-Completion • Refinement of conceptual models via composition • Semantic Verification 17
  18. 18. Semantics for the WWW Web Services Semantic Web Dynamic UDDI, WSDL, SOAP Services OWL-S, WSMO, SAWSDL Static WWW Semantic Web URI, HTML, HTTP RDF, RDF(S), OWL, WSML
  19. 19. WSMO – The Web Service Modelling Ontology Semantic Description of the requirements a client has: •Capability (funtional) •Interface (usage) Provide the formally Semantic description specified terminology of Web Services: of the information •Capability (functional) used by all other •Interface (usage) components Connectors between components with mediation facilities for handling heterogenities
  20. 20. WSMO – Web Services (& Goals) - Advertising of Web Service - quality aspects - Support for WS Discovery - Web Service Management Capability Non-functional Properties functional description DC + QoS + Version + financial client-service realization of interaction interface functionality by for consuming WS Web Service WS aggregating - External Visible Implementation other Web Services WS Behavior (not of interest in Web - functional Service Description) - Communication WS decomposition Structure - WS composition - ‘Grounding’ Choreography --- Service Interfaces --- Orchestration
  21. 21. Attaching WSMO Goals to Processes client-service - quality aspects - Advertising of Web Service interaction interface - Web Service Management - Support for WS Discovery for consuming WS - External Visible Non-functional Properties Capability Behavior - Communication DC + QoS + Version + financial functional description Structure - ‘Grounding’ </interactionActivity> ... messageRef=“out-only:Out”/> <input messageLabel=“out-optional-in:Out” mep=“out-only” <interactionActivity ...
  22. 22. Features during Process Modelling • Semantic discovery of already existing processes and process fragments in the SBP repository Auto-Completion • Semantic Verification • Refinement of conceptual models via composition • Composition queries the service repository for appropriate services for each task of a process • In case there is no service for a given task, multiple services are combined • Based on ontologically defined inputs and outputs and ontological reasoning
  23. 23. Verification
  24. 24. Verification (2)
  25. 25. Verification (3)
  26. 26. Verification (4)
  27. 27. Verification (5)
  28. 28. Verification (6)
  29. 29. Verification (7)
  30. 30. Composition
  31. 31. Composition (2)
  32. 32. Composition (3)
  33. 33. sBP Configuration
  34. 34. Configuration options • During configuration there are a couple of options to chose from • Discover WS during configuration  Conventional BPEL is produced • Endpoint references are fixed • Endpoint references are discovered during runtime based on WSDL interfaces • Pros: mature technology • Cons: limited flexibility • Discover WS only during runtime based on semantic goal descriptions  The result is BPEL4SWS • Pro: enhanced flexibility • Cons: semantic middleware is only implemented prototypically
  35. 35. BPEL Process BPEL Process … Online Shop WSDL Service salesPLT A … orderItem … B payBill … C getShippingDetails …
  36. 36. BPEL for Semantic Web Services BPELlight Extension of BPEL 2.0 Removes dependencies on WSDL. Describes Message Exchanges. Independent of any IDL. Grouping Activities to Conversations and to logical partners “Binding” to Services is done during deployment. BPEL4SWS Defines such a “Binding” for Semantic Web Services. Introduces an activity to perform data mediation Proposes an API for SWS middleware to support long running service interactions. Uses SAWSDL for Lifting and Lowering.
  37. 37. BPEL4SWS Process BPELlight Process Aktivity definition … with WSMO Online Shop WSDL Service WSMO Goal WSMO Service A Capabilities Capabilities orderItem Choreography Choreography … Achieved by B payBill … getShippingDetails Aktivity C  C getShippingDetails …
  38. 38. sBP Execution
  39. 39. SBP Execution – Architecture Tools SEE SBPELEE Modelling Service Navigator Tool Discovery Build Time DB Monitoring Service Tool Selection Mining Tool Service Runtime DB Invocation sRBE Tool WS Gateway SWS Gateway Event Publisher Deployment Mgr Semantic Service Bus (SSB) SPAB/SWAB Binding Data LILO Deployer Components Mediators SWS Execution Repository History 40
  40. 40. SBP Execution – Architecture Tools SEE SBPELEE Modelling Navigator Tool Build Time DB Monitoring 1. Deployment Tool Black box 2. Execution of sBP Mining Runtime DB Tool 3. Monitoring sRBE Tool WS Gateway SWS Gateway Event Publisher Deployment Mgr Semantic Service Bus (SSB) SPAB/SWAB Binding Data LILO Deployer Components Mediators SWS Execution Repository History 41
  41. 41. SBP Deployment BPEL4SWSs (SA-)WSDLs Deployment Descriptor Semantic Process Artefacts Bundle WSMO Goals (SPAB) Partner WSMO WSs Partner WSDLs Lifting & Lowering Definitions
  42. 42. SBP Deployment (2) Tools SEE SBPELEE Modelling Service Navigator Tool Discovery Build Time DB Monitoring Service Tool Selection Mining Tool Service Runtime DB Invocation sRBE Tool WS Gateway SWS Gateway Event Publisher Deployment Mgr Semantic Service Bus (SSB) SPAB/SWAB Binding Data LILO Deployer Components Mediators SWS Execution Repository History
  43. 43. SBP Execution (vanilla WS) Tools SEE SBPELEE Modelling Service Navigator Tool Discovery Build Time DB Monitoring Service Tool Selection Mining Service Runtime DB Tool Invocation sRBE Tool WS Gateway SWS Gateway Event Publisher Deployment Mgr Semantic Service Bus (SSB) SPAB/SWAB Binding Data LILO Deployer Components Mediators SWS Execution Repository History 44
  44. 44. SBP Execution (SWS) Tools SEE SBPELEE Modelling Service Navigator Tool Discovery Build Time DB Monitoring Service Tool Selection Mining Service Runtime DB Tool Invocation sRBE Tool WS Gateway SWS Gateway Event Publisher Deployment Mgr Semantic Service Bus (SSB) SPAB/SWAB Binding Data LILO Deployer Components Mediators SWS Execution Repository History 45
  45. 45. SBP Execution – Generic LILO WSMLreq WSMLresp SBPELEE SEE XMLreq WSMLreq Lifting & WSMLreqS Lowering XMLreqS WSMLresp Component XMLrespS XMLresp WSMLrespS XMLreqS XMLrespS -Supports orchestration of legacy WS (backward compatibility) -Processes are provided as WS and SWS -Virtual Dualism of BPEL4SWS variables WSs… -SEE serves as ‘semantic adapter’ for legacy WS 46
  46. 46. SBP Execution – Monitoring Tools SEE SBPELEE Modelling Service Navigator Tool Discovery Build Time DB Monitoring Service Tool Selection Mining Service Runtime DB Tool Invocation sRBE Tool WS Gateway SWS Gateway Event Publisher Deployment Mgr Semantic Service Bus (SSB) SPAB/SWAB Binding Data LILO Deployer Components Mediators SWS Execution Repository History 47
  47. 47. Nexcom Prototype B2B and Automated Decision Making Implemented business process 49 Ivan Pavlov(Nexcom)
  48. 48. Nexcom Prototype ■ The customer enters data (name, address) requested services and QoS parameters ■ The system: ■ Checks for available services ( B2B partners) ■ Extracts data about the customer from IT Systems ■ Reasoning is used to rate the services: ■ Customer credit rating and company policy are considered ■ Highest rated are the services which Nexcom is most willing to offer for this customer ■ The customer receives offers, ordered by their rating ■ In the full implementation, the customer will see only the “best” offers ???? ■ The sales person manages the process: ■ Edits the ontologies ■ Monitors the process
  49. 49. Scenario Platform Services Execution Environment Lifting & SBPELEE SEE SWS Nexcom Lowering Repository Ontology Repository SSB Binding Components Nexcom Reasoning Services HTTP Service1 Service2 ServiceN … … Nexcom Legacy Systems Marketplace Service Layer Services Nexcom Nexcom Administrator Clients GUI GUI
  50. 50. Demo
  51. 51. sBP Analysis
  52. 52. SBP Analysis & Monitoring • Semantic annotations can significantly improve the results of process mining tools. • Open World Assumption makes domain and organisational models accessible. • Ontologies and Mediators help to introduce terminology transparency • During runtime, semantic model references can be seen as “traces” that allow for inferring information about which element of a business model relates to a technical, executable model.
  53. 53. sBP Monitoring & Analysis Tools
  54. 54. Conclusions •Semantics can help narrowing the gap between business and IT… •Modelling: composition, auto-completion, validation •Configuration/Execution: Improved Flexibility, loose coupling •Analysis: semantic queries based on ontologies •…but: requires additional effort •Prototypes for all phases of the lifecycle exist
  55. 55. Thank you for your attention! Questions? Further information: http://ip-super.org

×