Is there a specific icon to represent a website in a BPMN 2.0 diagram?
For a particular case I've been given, the user in the system posts a document to a website, and I'm not sure how exactly to represent this.
Apologies if this is on the wrong Stack Exchange site - I've posted it here as there's been previous BPMN posts to Stack Overflow.
You may model the website as a participant, like an NPC. Then, you can model additional activities of the website, for example, how the website processes the posted document, whom does it notifies, where it stores results, and so on.
Take a look at my paper: From a BPMN Black Box to a Smalldb State Machine — The paper describes an algorithm to infer the implementation of a given NPC participant automatically, but before that, it shows how to draw such business processes in a useful way.
Pizza order & delivery example from the paper (the middle participant is a web application):
There is no specific element for modeling a website in BPMN 2.0.
However there is the generic Data Object element, see the BPMN 2.0 specification, page 30 (60 in PDF), respectively 205 (235 in PDF):
Data Objects provide information about what
Activities require to be performed and/or what they
produce [...]
In some cases, one might want to regard websites as actors within a process and model them using a dedicated pool/lane.
A third option some BPMN modeling tools provide, are custom BPMN elements (BPMN 2.0 is extensible), e.g. the element IT System, as existent in Signavio's modeling tool.
In your case, you could e.g. only model the website as a Data Object and link it as an output to the post document task. This would make sense if the document posted to the website is created as part of this task.
In case the posted document is already existent, you could link it as an input to the task:
Related
How architecturally sound and up to industry standards nesting resource representations in REST APIs is, especially when it comes to nested lists of resources (like books of an author)?
I'm interested in finding links to authoritative sources that answer to this question.
The authoritative source for REST is the dissertation of Roy Fielding, based on work he did during the standardization of HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068, RFC 2616, etc) in the 1990s.
REST defines resource ("Any information that can be named can be a resource..."), and requires that all resources understand messages the same way (uniform interface) but does not actually constrain your resource model.
"RESTful", historically, is context sensitive; in practice it means something like "more like REST than our current designs". In the web services community, it meant "more like REST than WS-* and SOAP". In Rails, it meant more like REST than the resource models that were recommended prior to Rails 1.2. And so on.
If what you are interested in is describing the relationship between a resource that is a collection and a resource that is an item in that collection, then the standard you want is RFC 6573.
But again, it doesn't tell you how to design the resources, or how to design the identifiers for those resources -- it just tells you how to indicate a relationship between them.
As far as I understand the web resource is something abstract identified by the IRIs and accessible through the web. What dereferencing the IRI gives back is the representation of the actual state of the identified resource, this is why it is called representational state transfer. I don't remember any standard that discusses nested resources. Maybe RDF is the closest what you are looking for. In practice if we follow RDF concepts, then to answer a GET request the REST API responds with a representation of an RDF subgraph starting with the resource indentified by the giving IRI and it can be any level deep. Nestedness is not something I would consider here, because it is a graph, not a hierarchy, it is sort of expanding relationships between resources or returning hyperlinks the API consumers can follow to do the exact same thing.
Not sure if this helps. I did not find any RFC beyond what VoiceOfUnreason's answer contains, I remember to read explicitly about web resources and identifying real things with hashtags or non-dereferenceable IRIs in an RFC 5+ years ago, but I have no idea which one it was. Maybe it was the Lanthaler dissertation or the SemWeb document VoiceOfUnreason suggested. What is certain it was somehow connected to the semantic web and RDF.
REST’s identification of resources constraint requires that resources
are identifiable so that they can be accessed and manipulated via
generic interfaces. On the Web, resources are identified by IRIs [44].
Since a resource may represent con- cepts which cannot be serialized
into a byte stream (e.g., persons or a feeling), resources are not
manipulated directly. Instead, REST is built on the concept of
manipulation of resources through representations; i.e., an additional
layer of indirection in the form of resource representations is
introduced.
https://www.markus-lanthaler.com/research/third-generation-web-apis-bridging-the-gap-between-rest-and-linked-data.pdf
On the Semantic Web, all information has to be expressed as statements
about resources, like the members of the company Example.com are Alice
and Bob or Bob's telephone number is "+1 555 262" or this Web page was
created by Alice. Resources are identified by Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986]. This modelling approach is at the heart
of Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDFPrimer]. A nice
introduction is given in the N3 primer [N3Primer].
Using RDF, the statements can be published on the Web site of the
company. Others can read the data and publish their own information,
linking to existing resources. This forms a distributed model of the
world. It allows the user to pick any application to view and work
with the same data, for example to see Alice's published address in
your address book.
https://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#semweb
So what I want to say that what you see in the HTTP response is not the resource itself, just a representation of it and its relationship to other resources.
REST does not have a constraint which tells you how verbose that response must be. It just tells you that you must use hyperlinks to connect resources and that you must use standard MIME types and document your API. At least this is how I interpret the uniform interface constraint.
I think the question is very good, because this part of the architecture is open and there were many questions in the past years which ask how to use the URIs for querying nested resources. The answer is always that REST does not cover it, the URI and URI template standards don't cover it either. There are standards like OData and Hydra, which have suggestions, but it is just up to you. Your problem is connected to it, because it asks how verbose a response to such a query can be. It is not covered as well as far as I can tell, but what is certain that it can and must contain at least hyperlinks to other resources. RDF allows describing several resources in a single document, so if we extend the RDF approach to REST, which does not say this is forbidden, then I guess we can do it.
From practical perspective for example a collection is a sort of nested resource too and if the API consumer would send a dedicated request for every collection item just to know basic things like product names, then it would be wasting resources. Normally we respond this kind of requests with a single HTTP response or multiple ones with 25-50-100 items on a page. It does not make much sense from usability and scalability perspective to give hyperlinks to the consumer for each item and force them to follow those links one by one. In fact we like to respond with the exact view model the consumer needs and design APIs this way. I think the same is true for nested properties as well. From RDF perspective these responses represent a subgraph of a massive resource graph, which are managed by the REST service and by for example RDF vocabulary maintainers like OWL, Schema.org, etc.
So to have a one sentence answer: the representation of "nested resources" is not covered by REST and as far as I know not covered by standards like HTTP and URI either, but currently it is the best practice to use them and MIME types we frequently use for REST e.g. HAL+JSON or RDF/JSON-LD support nested representations too, so I would say yes.
I am just learning BPMN 2.0 modeling language.
I have to design a call center process where an operator asks several questions to a customer.
I am wondering if I need to model a message flow between customer and operator for every question (as the exchange information) or if a message flow is only needed if real documents are exchanged (e.g. an invoice is sent).
Thanks!
Let's look at the definitions in the BPMN 2.0.1 specifications (highlighting from me):
Message: An Object that depicts the contents of a communication between two Participants. A message is transmitted through a Message Flow and has an identity that can be used for alternative branching of a Process through the Event-Based Exclusive Gateway.
Message flow: A Connecting Object that shows the flow of messages between two Participants. A Message Flow is represented by a dashed lined.
So the message is not necessarily a business document that is exchanged, but any kind of communication, including spoken exchange.
The granularity of the messages depends on what you want to show in the model:
If the question/answer is just a detail in a larger process, you may want to show one summary interaction corresponding to the questions and another in reverse direction for the answers, and consider that all the questions are asked at once and all the answers provided at once, even if this does not fully correspond to reality.
If you're interested exactly in the details of the question/answer because for example different participants are involved at different stages of the Q&A, you may well single out each question and each answer separately according to the real flow. But be careful, since too detailed flows might be difficult to maintain, so some degree of abstraction is recommended.
If your interest is in very detailed dialogue scripts between a customer and the same operator, BPMN might not be the best tool: more specialised conversation flows, job stories or intent based scripts could be more appropriate (see more about the topic in this article on chatbot requirements)
Intro
The company I work in (it is an intern-like position though, until I am done with university) recently implemented an automated warehouse solution, where goods are transported by means of autonomous shuttles. The basic functions of the shuttles are controlled by onboard electronics (microcontroller), routing through the warehouse racking is done by software solution which in turn communicates with our ERP solution. Effectively the ERP solution handles the whole warehousing.
Task
There are well documented processes for every of the four layers (operator who loads the the shuttles, shuttle itself, routing, ERP) individually. But since we kind of puzzled all four of them together to one solution (which was kind of new to all of the participating companies), there are only vague, on-the-flyish process descriptions involving all four layers available.
Now I have been tasked to come up with a solution to illustrate the processes at work.
Example
ERP signals goods in demand at assembly station A1
Warehouse operator looks at screen and starts loading boxes to be picked up by
shuttle
Warehouse operator puts in details into ERP, such as count/weight, box number,
...
Warehouse operator clears boxes for pick-up (by confirming inputs in ERP)
ERP generates transport order
ERP sends transport order to routing software
Routing software sends telegram to shuttle control
Shuttle control turns wheels and asks for directions to pick up boxes
...
Question
As mentioned, I have to graphically represent the kind of processes similar to the one shown in the (easy and not complete) example above. I need to incorporate the operator's actions as well as basic communication between shuttle, routing software and ERP.
Since I attended a course on BPMN at university it came to mind immediately. But now, after immersing myself into information about BPMN for several hours I still can't conclusively tell if BPMN helps my efforts or just further complicates the whole thing.
Is BPMN the right tool for my purpose?
Disclaimer
I am not a Business Analyst. I have looked at alternatives to BPMN (simple flowcharts, activity diagrams, ...) but they don't seem to fit.
Just putting together the existing processes for every respective layer yields no result, owing to the different and sometimes too detailed process descriptions.
Edit
The ERP is SAP ERP 6.0 EHP7 with integrated WMS component.
TL;DR: use the notation you would be implement process in, i.e. choose BPMS, not BPMN.
The notation itself means nothing unless it has proper tool for modelling and further process implementation aka BPMS. You can find dozens of comparisons (e.g. BPMN vs EPC or BPMN vs BPEL), however they won't help you unless you have clear understanding where and how you will be implement you modeled process.
Generally speaking, EPC is used for more high-level view of the process, whereas BPMN is utilized for more fine-grained view, where all technical details of communications between peers can be described. However, it depends.
I also recommend you to review this table
and answer the question to yourself whether your process changes (in)frequently or not, and whether you need separate BPM tool.
How I see it from your description: you have four participants (four layers), which are four lanes in BPMN terms, and they are collaborating/communicating with each other during the process. Generally speaking, this fits to BPMN application area, but personally I feel that you should stick your ERP tooling. I don't know which ERP you use, but every serious ERP solution includes tool for process customization. For example, SAP has Workflow,
which can widely enhance and extend existing processes within SAP. Probably, your ERP have it too.
Again, it's not clear which warehouse management system you use and if it is integrated to your ERP. It seems to be not, and it seems to be some old legacy system, because of which you start re-modelling the stuff. In this particular case it might me wiser to acquire special advanced warehouse management package (take a look at SAP's EWM features as an example) which can cover most of your requirements.
I have a system prototype, which I want to model in BPMN. That system has three layers: data layer, gui and business logic. Can I use these three layers names as BPMN swimlanes names instead of using actors or roles?
http://blog.goodelearning.com/bpmn/common-bpmn-modeling-mistakes-swimlanes/
Says swimlanes are for an organizational role (e.g. developer, analyst and manager).
As far as I understand it, the blog entry does not state that organizational roles cannot be IT systems. It even mentions content management system as one example for an organization (when discussing pools). Subsequently, a sub system of the content management system should be a perfectly valid candidate for a lane.
When it comes to technicalities, it's always good to refer to the BPMN specification. Regarding the usage of lanes, it states:
The meaning of the Lanes is up to the modeler. BPMN does not specify the usage of Lanes. (page 306, respectively 336 in PDF document)
So according to the specification, you can use these three layer names as BPMN swimlane names.
Well, your work might have finished a long ago, but you are mixing Architecture with BPMN (Process design).
Application mapping is not part of business process design and this is a common mistake done by people missing E2E purpose and scope of process modeling and how it integrates with other domains.
for Architecture you might need to use some other language more specific to it, say Archimate which handles this requirement very well and global standard for modeling architecture.
Business architecture/process architecture and process design are separate entities. we should try not to mix them.
All the best for current assignments.
I'm currently investigating the options to extract person names, locations, tech words and categories from text (a lot articles from the web) which will then feeded into a Lucene/ElasticSearch index. The additional information is then added as metadata and should increase precision of the search.
E.g. when someone queries 'wicket' he should be able to decide whether he means the cricket sport or the Apache project. I tried to implement this on my own with minor success so far. Now I found a lot tools, but I'm not sure if they are suited for this task and which of them integrates good with Lucene or if precision of entity extraction is high enough.
Dbpedia Spotlight, the demo looks very promising
OpenNLP requires training. Which training data to use?
OpenNLP tools
Stanbol
NLTK
balie
UIMA
GATE -> example code
Apache Mahout
Stanford CRF-NER
maui-indexer
Mallet
Illinois Named Entity Tagger Not open source but free
wikipedianer data
My questions:
Does anyone have experience with some of the listed tools above and its precision/recall? Or if there is training data required + available.
Are there articles or tutorials where I can get started with entity extraction(NER) for each and every tool?
How can they be integrated with Lucene?
Here are some questions related to that subject:
Does an algorithm exist to help detect the "primary topic" of an English sentence?
Named Entity Recognition Libraries for Java
Named entity recognition with Java
The problem you are facing in the 'wicket' example is called entity disambiguation, not entity extraction/recognition (NER). NER can be useful but only when the categories are specific enough. Most NER systems doesn't have enough granularity to distinguish between a sport and a software project (both types would fall outside the typically recognized types: person, org, location).
For disambiguation, you need a knowledge base against which entities are being disambiguated. DBpedia is a typical choice due to its broad coverage. See my answer for How to use DBPedia to extract Tags/Keywords from content? where I provide more explanation, and mentions several tools for disambiguation including:
Zemanta
Maui-indexer
Dbpedia Spotlight
Extractiv (my company)
These tools often use a language-independent API like REST, and I do not know that they directly provide Lucene support, but I hope my answer has been beneficial for the problem you are trying to solve.
You can use OpenNLP to extract names of people, places, organisations without training. You just use pre-exisiting models which can be downloaded from here: http://opennlp.sourceforge.net/models-1.5/
For an example on how to use one of these model see: http://opennlp.apache.org/documentation/1.5.3/manual/opennlp.html#tools.namefind
Rosoka is a commercial product that provides a computation of "Salience" which measures the importance of the term or entity to the document. Salience is based on the linguistic usage and not the frequency. Using the salience values you can determine the primary topic of the document as a whole.
The output is in your choice of XML or JSON which makes it very easy to use with Lucene.
It is written in java.
There is an Amazon Cloud version available at https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00E6FGJZ0. The cost to try it out is $0.99/hour. The Rosoka Cloud version does not have all of the Java API features available to it that the full Rosoka does.
Yes both versions perform entity and term disambiguation based on the linguistic usage.
The disambiguation, whether human or software requires that there is enough contextual information to be able to determine the difference. The context may be contained within the document, within a corpus constraint, or within the context of the users. The former being more specific, and the later having the greater potential ambiguity. I.e. typing in the key word "wicket" into a Google search, could refer to either cricket, Apache software or the Star Wars Ewok character (i.e. an Entity). The general The sentence "The wicket is guarded by the batsman" has contextual clues within the sentence to interpret it as an object. "Wicket Wystri Warrick was a male Ewok scout" should enterpret "Wicket" as the given name of the person entity "Wicket Wystri Warrick". "Welcome to Apache Wicket" has the contextual clues that "Wicket" is part of a place name, etc.
Lately I have been fiddling with stanford crf ner. They have released quite a few versions http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/CRF-NER.shtml
The good thing is you can train your own classifier. You should follow the link which has the guidelines on how to train your own NER. http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/crf-faq.shtml#a
Unfortunately, in my case, the named entities are not efficiently extracted from the document. Most of the entities go undetected.
Just in case you find it useful.