Candidate interoperability standards: An ontological overlap analysis

Data & Knowledge Engineering 62 (2007) 274–291

www.elsevier.com/locate/datak

Candidate interoperability standards: An ontologicaloverlap analysis

Peter Green a, Michael Rosemann b, Marta Indulska a,*, Chris Manning a

a University of Queensland, UQ Business School, 11 Salisbury Road, Ipswich QLD 4305, Australiab Queensland University of Technology, BPM Research Group, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia

Received 3 August 2006; accepted 3 August 2006Available online 18 September 2006

Abstract

A web service choreography standard enables a standardized description of business processes that allows not only aclear specification of the control flow, but also forms the basis for the actual process execution. Such standards are part ofthe web services stack and facilitate enterprise systems interoperability. A simple indication of the rapid growth of this areais the number of new and existing standards. However, while the list of standards is expanding, there is an obvious lack ofsound theoretical evaluation and comparison of these standards. To provide a basis for this theoretical evaluation andcomparison, we use the well-established Bunge–Wand–Weber (BWW) models, in particular the representation model.We, and other researchers, have shown the usefulness of the BWW representation model for analyzing, evaluating, andengineering techniques in the areas of traditional and structured systems analysis, object-oriented modeling, and processmodeling. In this paper, we present the BWW ontological analysis of four dominating candidate interoperability stan-dards; ebXML Business Process Specification Schema BPSS (v1.01), the Business Process Modeling Language BPML(v1.0), the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services BPEL4WS (v1.1) and the Web Service ChoreographyInterface WSCI (v.1.0). The application of the BWW representation model and the overlap analysis across the four stan-dards has resulted in several interesting findings. First, we have identified a set of ontological constructs for which repre-sentations are missing in each of the standards. This situation has allowed us to generate a number of propositions as to thepotential weaknesses of the standards in general. Second, the analysis has shown that ebXML BPSS is a ‘‘clear winner’’with respect to the ontological expressiveness and the maturity of the specification. Furthermore, the analysis has alsoallowed us to identify two sets of standards viz. ebXML BPSS and BPEL4WS, ebXML BPSS and WSCI, that, when usedtogether, provide the user with the largest available set of meaningful constructs required to implement systems interop-erability. Finally, the analysis explains which standards are complementary to each other and which standards are in factcompeting standards.� 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Enterprise interoperability standards; Ontological analysis; Ontology; BWWW model; ebXML; BPEL; BPML; WSCI

0169-023X/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.datak.2006.08.004

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Green), [email protected] (M. Rosemann), [email protected]

(M. Indulska), [email protected] (C. Manning).

mailto:[email protected]




P. Green et al. / Data & Knowledge Engineering 62 (2007) 274–291 275

1. Introduction

Enterprise systems and other software packages, together with middleware solutions such as workflowmanagement and enterprise application integration, have facilitated the integration of functions and datawithin many organizations. After more than a decade of such integration initiatives, an extension of the scopeof integration management is apparent. The integration of business processes between organizations becomesnow a major focus. The interoperability of enterprise systems or the integration of cross-organizational busi-ness processes in general, requires a clear specification of the information flow between the participating busi-ness partners. The extensible mark-up language, XML, provided a new approach to describe suchstandardized documents and systems. It also allowed the development of autonomous and modular solutionsthat can be published, identified, and accessed independently from the technological platform. This set of solu-tions is commonly termed web services.

Various XML-based standards have been developed and proposed for the area of enterprise systems inter-operability (ESI) and web services. These standards cover different layers of the web services stack [25] andrange from very technical specifications to languages for executable business processes. However, underlyingall of these candidate standards is the fact that they are attempting to emulate real-world entities as well as theways they interact to perform such useful tasks as business processes (sales, purchasing, and fulfillment)through computer systems interoperation. Accordingly, all of these standards are based on some model ofhow the real-world entities and processes are expected to operate.

Most of these standards have not been evaluated or even compared on a theoretical foundation. Softwarevendors, internal IT departments, external service providers, and IT project managers, as well as the develop-ers of these standards, however, require guidance in the development, selection, combination and applicationof these standards. Previous analyses are based on logical reasoning and analytical arguments. On this base itis difficult to strive for completeness or objectivity. A theoretical evaluation, on the other hand, is grounded ina well-developed, generally accepted model, which could be, for example, a foundational ontology.

This situation can be compared with the traditional area of Information Systems Analysis and Design(ISAD) techniques. Many modeling techniques have been developed for the description of data, functions,objects, processes, and the like. The development, evaluation, and selection of these techniques, however, havebeen difficult due to the lack of a generally accepted theoretical foundation that could serve as a benchmark.

One promising benchmark for the analysis of ISAD grammars has been the collection of ontological mod-els developed by Bunge, Wand and Weber [45–48]. Based on sound philosophical foundations, these modelsprovide a well-defined list of constructs and interrelationships that are perceived as relevant and which can beused as a platform for the analysis of such grammars. The extent to which a grammar does not cover all BWWconstructs and the extent to which the elements of a grammar go beyond the BWW models provide valuableinsights into the potential shortcomings of that grammar. Many of the most popular modeling techniqueshave now been discussed in the light of their comparability with the BWW models (see Table 2). While themajority of previous ontological analyses has been applied to conceptual modeling techniques, they can alsobe applied to models which are closer to technical specifications such as interoperability standards.

Currently, four candidate standards are perceived as dominating discussion in the web services area, viz.ebXML Business Process Specification Schema (ebXML BPSS, v1.01), the Business Process Modeling Lan-guage (BPML, v1.0), the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS, v1.1) and theWeb Service Choreography Interface (WSCI, v1.0) (see, for example, [2]). The aim of this research is to ana-lyze and evaluate each of those four standards in order to identify their potential weaknesses as well as to iden-tify the set of standards which, when used in combination, provides users with the largest available set ofmeaningful constructs required to implement systems interoperability. This research is motivated in severalways. First, in a field where a number of competing standards are being proposed, we want to provide sometheoretically based guidance to practitioners on the strengths and weaknesses of these standards. Second, in asimilar manner, we want to provide a theoretically based evaluation that can demonstrate some potential areasfor further refinement to the standard developers. Third, given that each standard may display deficiencies, wewish to investigate what combinations of the analyzed standards might be suggested to provide users with thelargest available set of meaningful constructs required to implement systems interoperability. The success ofBWW analysis of ISAD grammars and the existing analogy between the ISAD grammars and ESI standards,

276 P. Green et al. / Data & Knowledge Engineering 62 (2007) 274–291

because both are attempting to model real-world interactions (e.g. buying, selling, paying), implies that suchanalysis would be fruitful.

The study confirms that there are several weaknesses which exist across all four candidates and develops aset of propositions for future empirical testing in order to understand the relevance of the weaknesses for theESI domain. The study also identifies ebXML BPSS (v1.01) as being the most ‘mature’ standard and furtherindicates two pairs of standards, viz. ebXML BPSS and BPEL4WS (v1.1), ebXML BPSS and WSCI (v1.0),that should be used in combination to provide users with the largest available (but minimally ontologicallyoverlapping) set of meaningful constructs required to implement systems interoperability. Moreover, the anal-ysis also explains the dichotomy of complementary and competing standards.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the selected theoretical foundation for thisresearch, i.e. the Bunge–Wand–Weber models, in particular the representation model. Section 3 reviews therelated research. While this review presents prior work involving the BWW models generally, it focuses onthe research related to ESI standards. Section 4 outlines the research methodology, which is an extensionof the ‘classical’ ontological analysis. The actual outcomes of this research and the resulting propositionsare presented in Sections 5 and 6. Section 5 provides a detailed analysis of BPEL4WS (v1.1) as an exampleto show the capabilities of an ontological analysis on an individual candidate standard. Section 6 demon-strates the results of an ontological overlap analysis across the four selected candidate standards. The paperconcludes with a discussion of limitations and future work required in this area.

2. The Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological model

As grammars for Information Systems Analysis and Design have proliferated over the years [26], research-ers and practitioners alike have attempted to determine objective bases on which to compare, evaluate, anddetermine when to use these grammars (e.g., [15,23]). Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, however, itbecame increasingly apparent to many researchers that without a theoretical foundation on which to baseISAD grammar specification, incomplete evaluative frameworks of factors, features, and facets wouldcontinue to proliferate. Furthermore, without a theoretical foundation, one framework of factors, features,or facets is as justifiable as another [4].

Wand and Weber [43–48] have investigated the branch of philosophy known as ontology (or meta-physics)as a foundation for understanding the process in developing an information system. Ontology is a well-estab-lished theoretical domain within philosophy dealing with models of reality. Today however interest in, andapplicability of ontology, extends to areas far beyond meta-physics. As Gruninger and Lee [20] point out,‘‘. . . a Web search engine will return over 64,000 pages given ‘ontology’ as a keyword . . . the first few pagesare phrases such as ‘enabling virtual business’, ‘gene ontology consortium’, and ‘enterprise ontology’.’’ Thesame search carried out in July, 2006, returns over fifty six million pages. The usefulness of ontology as a the-oretical foundation for knowledge representation and natural language processing is a fervently debated topicin the artificial intelligence research community [21]. Holsapple and Joshi [22] for example, argue the impor-tance of ontology in the emergent era of knowledge-based organizations and the conduct of knowledge man-agement in those organizations. Kim [24] shows how ontology can be engineered to support the first phase ofthe evolution of the ‘semantic Web’.

Wand and Weber [44–48] and Weber [49] have taken, and extended, an ontology presented by Bunge [8]and applied it to the modeling of information systems. Their fundamental premise is that any ISAD modelinggrammar must be able to represent all things in the real world that might be of interest to users of informationsystems; otherwise, the resultant model is incomplete. If the model is incomplete, the analyst/designer willsomehow have to augment the model(s) to ensure that the final computerized information system adequatelyreflects that portion of the real world it is intended to support. The Bunge–Wand–Weber (BWW) models [44–48] consist of the representation model, the state-tracking model, and the good decomposition model. Whilethere are a number of potential ontologies to choose from, the work presented in this paper focuses on theBWW representation model. The BWW representation model defines a set of constructs that, at this time,are thought by the researchers to be necessary and sufficient to describe the structure and behavior of the realworld – the very focus of ESI standards. Furthermore, the BWW representation model has been specificallyadapted from the Bunge ontology [49] for the representational requirements of Information Systems. Table 1

Table 1Plain english definitions of the constructs of the BWW representation model

Ontological construct Explanation

Thinga A thing is the elementary unit in the BWW ontological model. The real world is made up of things. Two ormore things (composite or simple) can be associated into a composite thing

Propertya: Things possess properties. A property is modelled via a function that maps the thing into some value. Forexample, the attribute ‘‘weight’’ represents a property that all humans possess. In this regard, weight is anattribute standing for a property in general. If we focus on the weight of a specific individual, however, wewould be concerned with a property in particular. A property of a composite thing that belongs to a componentthing is called an hereditary property. Otherwise it is called an emergent property. Some properties are inherentproperties of individual things. Such properties are called intrinsic. Other properties are properties of pairs ormany things. Such properties are called mutual. Non-binding mutual properties are those properties shared bytwo or more things that do not ‘‘make a difference’’ to the things involved; for example, order relations orequivalence relations. By contrast, binding mutual properties are those properties shared by two or more thingsthat do ‘‘make a difference’’ to the things involved. Attributes are the names that we use to represent propertiesof things

In generalIn particularHereditaryEmergentIntrinsicNon-binding mutualBinding mutualAttributes

Class A class is a set of things that can be defined via their possessing a single propertyKind A kind is a set of things that can be defined only via their possessing two or more common propertiesStatea The vector of values for all property functions of a thing is the state of the thingConceivable state space The set of all states that the thing might ever assume is the conceivable state space of the thingState law A state law restricts the values of the properties of a thing to a subset that is deemed lawful because of natural

laws or human lawsLawful state space The lawful state space is the set of states of a thing that comply with the state laws of the thing. The lawful state

space is usually a proper subset of the conceivable state spaceEvent A change in state of a thing is an eventConceivable event space The event space of a thing is the set of all possible events that can occur in the thingTransformationa A transformation is a mapping from one state to another stateLawful transformation A lawful transformation defines which events in a thing are lawfulLawful event space The lawful event space is the set of all events in a thing that are lawfulHistory The chronologically-ordered states that a thing traverses in time are the history of the thingActs-on A thing acts on another thing if its existence affects the history of the other thingCoupling: binding

mutual propertyTwo things are said to be coupled (or interact) if one thing acts on the other. Furthermore, those two things aresaid to share a binding mutual property (or relation); that is, they participate in a relation that ‘‘makes adifference’’ to the things

System A set of things is a system if, for any bi-partitioning of the set, couplings exist among things in the two subsetsSystem composition The things in the system are its compositionSystem environment Things that are not in the system but interact with things in the system are called the environment of the systemSystem structure The set of couplings that exist among things within the system, and among things in the environment of the

system and things in the system is called the structureSubsystem A subsystem is a system whose composition and structure are subsets of the composition and structure of

another systemSystem decomposition A decomposition of a system is a set of subsystems such that every component in the system is either one of the

subsystems in the decomposition or is included in the composition of one of the subsystems in thedecomposition

Level structure A level structure defines a partial order over the subsystems in a decomposition to show which subsystems arecomponents of other subsystems or the system itself

External event An external event is an event that arises in a thing, subsystem, or system by virtue of the action of some thing inthe environment on the thing, subsystem, or system

Stable statea A stable state is a state in which a thing, subsystem, or system will remain unless forced to change by virtue ofthe action of a thing in the environment (an external event)

Unstable state An unstable state is a state that will be changed into another state by virtue of the action of transformations inthe system

Internal event An internal event is an event that arises in a thing, subsystem, or system by virtue of lawful transformations inthe thing, subsystem, or system

Well-defined event A well-defined event is an event in which the subsequent state can always be predicted given that the prior stateis known

Poorly defined event A poorly defined event is an event in which the subsequent state cannot be predicted given that the prior state isknown

Ontological constructs in the BWW representation model.Source: [47,49] with minor modifications.a A fundamental and core ontological construct.



presents plain English definitions of the constructs of the BWW representation model. This model has beensuccessfully used in over thirty analysis projects that spanned various representational grammars [35].

Weber [49] clarifies the two cases that may occur when an ISAD grammar is analyzed according to the rep-resentation model. After a particular ISAD grammar has been analyzed, predictions on the modelingstrengths and weaknesses of the grammar can be made according to whether some or any of these situationsarise out of the analysis.

1. Ontological incompleteness (or construct deficit) exists when there is not at least one ISAD grammaticalconstruct for each ontological construct.

2. Ontological clarity is determined by the extent to which the grammar does not exhibit one or more of thefollowing deficiencies:• Construct overload exists in an ISAD grammar if one ISAD grammatical construct represents more than

one ontological construct.• Construct redundancy exists if more than one ISAD grammatical construct represents the same ontological

construct.• Construct excess exists in an ISAD grammar when an ISAD grammatical construct is present that does

not map into any ontological construct.

3. Related research

Academic contributions related to this research can be found in the ontological analyses of ISAD gram-mars as well as in previous studies that have analyzed interoperability standards based on other frameworks.

Table 2 summarizes several important items of BWW related work. The work has almost exclusively beenfocused on business analysis modeling techniques such as DFDs, ER diagrams, object-oriented schemas, andprocess modeling grammars such as ARIS (for detailed analysis of the existing BWW related research pleasesee [19]).

With regards to the analysis and comparison of candidate interoperability standards, the related work hasbeen less comprehensive (ignoring various position papers). Van der Aalst [1] points out the increasing numberof standards being introduced and the lack of their critical evaluation. He argues that there are many matureprocess modeling techniques which are being ignored by the industry. As a result we are confronted with ‘stan-dards’ that are being driven by concrete products and commercial interests. Van der Aalst [1] concludes thatthese so called ‘standards’ should be critically evaluated in order to identify those that do not use well-estab-lished process modeling techniques.

To that end Shapiro [37] presents a comparison of XPDL, BPML and BPEL4WS. The primary objective ofthe work is to clarify the differences between the constructs across the three selected standards and identify anylimitations. While the differences are presented, the work is not based on any particular framework and lacksconcrete conclusions.

Wohed et al. [51] present a workflow pattern-based analysis of the BPEL4WS standard. The work focuseson 20 workflow patterns [3] that have been compiled from the analysis of existing workflow languages and aresaid to capture control flow dependencies expected in workflow modeling. The BPEL4WS standard is ana-lyzed with respect to its ability to model these patterns. The findings of the research show that BPEL4WSis able to model all the patterns that are supported by XLANG and WSFL (two previous standards on whichBPEL4WS is based). Moreover, BPEL4WS also provides constructs for the modeling of communication, afeature that distinguishes it from traditional workflow modeling. The standard is criticized however for thehigh level of construct overlap as well as the complexity and lack of clarity in the specification.

Van der Aalst et al. [2] present, in a similar way, a workflow pattern-based analysis of BPML and WSCI.The work concludes that BPML and WSCI offer the same functionality, while BPEL4WS provides support formore work flow patterns than BPML/WSCI.

The work presented by Van der Aalst et al. [2] and Wohed et al. [51] is similar to the research presented herein that it applies a benchmark, a list of workflow patterns, for the evaluation of candidate interoperability

Table 2Related work using the BWW models

Study Information systems analysis grammar Ontologicalcompleteness

Ontologicalclarity

Ontologicalgood decomposition

Empiricaltests

Other purpose

Traditional Structured Datacentered

O–O Process

Wand and Weber [44] X (LDFD) X (ER) X

Wand and Weber [47,48] X (ER) X

Weber [49] X X X

Weber and Zhang [50] X X X X

Green [16] X X X X X X

Parsons and Wand [29] X X X

Wand, Storeyand Weber [42]

X X

Rosemann and Green [34] X X X (Activity-based costing)

Green and Rosemann [17] X (ARIS) X X

Bodart et al. [6] X X X

Opdahl andHenderson-Sellers [27]

X (OML) X

Soffer et al. [39] X (OPM) X (ARIS) X X X (Off-the-shelfinformationsystems reqs)

Evermann and Wand [12] X (UML)Evermann and Wand [13] X (UML)Green and Rosemann [18] X (ARIS) X X X

Green and Rosemann [19] X X X (Enterpriseinteroperability)

Sia and Soh [38] X X (ERPsystems)

Burton-Jones and Meso [9] X (UML) X X

Shanks et al. [36] X X (UML class) X X

Opdahl andHenderson-Sellers [28]

X (UML) X X

Rosemann and Green [31] X X (ARIS)and (UML)

X X

Davies, Green andRosemann [11]

X X X (Otherontology)

Davies et al. [10] X X X (Otherontology)

Fettke and Loos [14] X X X (Referencemodels)

P.

Green

eta

l./

Da

ta&

Kn

ow

ledg

eE

ng

ineerin

g6

2(

20

07

)2

74

–2

91

279


standards. It clearly shows, however, an ‘activity-based’ focus as opposed to a ‘thing-based’ focus afforded bythe application of the BWW analysis [31]. We argue that activities can only be understood in the context of the‘things’ that initiate or participate in the activities. The use of workflow patterns highlights a focus on thedetails of possible control flow specifications within these standards. On the one hand, this focus allows deepinsights into the related capabilities of these standards. On the other hand, such workflow pattern-based anal-ysis excludes other non-control flow related elements that give meaning to the interoperation scenarios. Forexample, a process can be represented without explicitly specifying the participants of the process. Whilethe process specification may be correct, it is not clear to the user exactly what and whom the process shouldinvolve and how they are interrelated. Accordingly, the main contribution of applying an ontology such as theBWW representation model for the analysis, is to address this shortcoming. We feel that our analysis and theanalyses presented in [2,51] will, in combination, give a more comprehensive picture of the status of the can-didate standards in question.

4. Research methodology

The research presented in this paper can be divided into two distinct stages. The first stage involves theBWW representation mapping analysis of each of the standards in question; ebXML BPSS, BPML,BPEL4WS and WSCI. The second stage involves an ontological overlap analysis of the results obtained inthe first stage of the research. The methodology applied at each of the stages is detailed in this section.

4.1. BWW representation mapping analysis

The current practice of ontological analysis is not without its criticisms. Concerns are, amongst others,related to the lack of understandability, comparability, completeness, guidance, objectivity, adequate resultrepresentation, result classification and relevance [33]. Being mindful of these criticisms, we extended the cur-rent practice and a research methodology was developed and employed that improved the internal validity.This process was achieved through the undertaking of individual analyses by at least two members of theresearch team, followed by consensus as to the final analysis by the entire group of four researchers. Eachof the candidate standards was dealt with separately using this methodology. ebXML BPSS [40] was the firstfor analysis, followed by BPML [7], BPEL4WS [5] and WSCI [41]. Unfortunately, we were unable to make useof a BWW meta-model in this analysis, due to its EER-based specification and the UML-based ebXML spec-ification and text-based specifications of BPML, BPEL4WS, and WSCI. The use of such a meta-model wouldfurther increase the objectivity of the analysis [33] and highlights a need for a UML-based specification of theBWW meta-model, as well as more rigorous specifications of the BPML, BPEL4WS and WSCI. In the anal-ysis of each of these standards, four distinct steps were taken to arrive at the final representation modelinganalysis:

Step 1: Using the specification of the candidate standard, two researchers separately read the specificationand interpreted, selected and mapped the BWW ontological constructs to candidate grammatical con-structs to create individual first drafts of the analysis.

Step 2: The two researchers met to discuss and defend their interpretations of the representation modelinganalysis. This meeting led to an agreed second draft version of the analysis that incorporated elementsof both researchers’ first draft analyses. In order to assess the degree to which both researchers’ firstdraft analyses agreed, a ratio of the total number of agreed construct mappings to the total number ofidentified constructs from the specification (by both researchers) expressed as a percentage of map-ping agreement was recorded (see Table 3). This ratio was used as a very simple measure in orderto keep track of the mapping agreement of the researchers as the project progressed.

Step 3: The second draft version of the analysis for each of the interoperability candidate standards was thenused as a basis for defense and discussion in a meeting between the first two researchers and theremaining researchers. Each of the standards was dealt with individually in separate meetings as eachof the second draft analyses were finalized. The outcomes of these meetings were the final results foreach of these standards.

Table 3Summary of Stage 1 mapping agreement between both researchers

Standard Construct mapping agreed uponby both researchers

Total number of specificationconstructs identified

Step 1 mapping conference (%)

ebXML BPSS 43 51 84BPML 36 46 78BPEL4WS 30 47 63WSCI 39 49 79


Step 4: The final analysis for each of the candidate standards became the basis for the development of prop-ositions as to the language’s ontological completeness – that is, the degree to which the ontologicalconstructs mapped to the constructs defined in each standard – and the ontological clarity – thatis, construct overload, construct redundancy and construct excess.

Steps one through four of this methodology have been based predominantly on a representation mapping.An interpretation mapping (target grammar to representation model) is also possible but problematic becauseof the lack of experience in the use of these candidate standards in real world situations. Such experience isrequired to provide a basis on which to ‘‘interpret’’ the potential meanings of a target grammar construct.

Based on the representation mapping analysis, the figures in Table 3 may reflect, to a certain extent, theclarity of the specification for each of the standards and they provide first insights into the potential ambiguityof the standards. Based on our own experiences with the specifications of the four standards, we speculate thatorganizations may have difficulty in understanding the specification for the BPEL4WS standard.

4.2. Ontological overlap analysis

Once the individual representation modeling analyses were completed for each of the candidate interoper-ability standards, a minimal ontological overlap (MOO) analysis [16,49] of the suite proceeded, with particularfocus on the maximal ontological completeness (MOC) [16,49]. The key proposition of MOO and MOC is thatdevelopers will use intuitively the combination of grammars that together have the least ontological overlapbut provide all required modeling constructs. When a set of standards is analyzed using the BWW represen-tation mapping, there may be ontological constructs for which there is no representation in any of the targetstandards. Accordingly, full ontological completeness cannot be achieved irrespective of the number of stan-dards used in combination. Therefore, MOC, in particular, refers to the ‘maximum’ level of representationcompleteness obtained in that set of standards.

We argue that developers will use intuitively grammars that together have the least amount of constructoverlap. If there is a high level of overlap between the grammars then the use of the proposed combinationbecomes more difficult because two or more constructs can potentially model the same meaning, thus leadingto ambiguity and confusion as to which construct from which grammar is the most appropriate to describe thesystem (MOO hypothesis). It is also suggested that developers will utilize the law of parsimony – that is, theleast number of grammars for the most explanatory power to describe the systems that they seek to design.Therefore, in assessing theoretically whether candidate standards might be used in combination, a balancemust be achieved between MOC and MOO, whilst aiming to obey the law of parsimony.

5. BWW representation mapping analysis

The BWW representation analysis methodology described in the previous section was applied to each of thestandards in question. Due to space constraints we are unable to present each analysis here, however to dem-onstrate the process of performing a representation mapping, we present the reasoning behind the results ofthe mapping of the BWW representation model constructs to the BPEL4WS specification constructs. Themapping results are summarized in Table 4.

While there are a number of ontological constructs that we could not map to BPEL4WS constructs (theimplications will be discussed later), here we discuss the reasoning behind the identified construct mappings.

Table 4Summary of representation mapping analysis of the BPEL4WS specification [5]

Ontological construct BPEL4WS construct

ThingProperty Name

In generalIn particularHereditaryEmergentIntrinsic Correlation setNon-binding mutualBinding mutual Service linkAttributes Names of properties

Class PartnerKindState A set of variables with value assignmentsConceivable state spaceState lawLawful state spaceEvent Message, Reply, Create Instance (on Activity), WaitConceivable event spaceTransformation Event Handler, Compensate, Compensation Handler, Fault Handler, Receive,

Assign, Throw, Terminate, Alarm Event (onAlarm), Message Event (onMessage)Lawful transformation While, Switch

Stability condition ExpressionLawful event spaceHistoryActs-on RoleCoupling: Service Link

Binding mutualProperty

System Business Process InstanceSystem composition PartnersSystem environmentSystem structure PartnersSubsystemSystem decompositionLevel structureExternal event MessageStable stateUnstable stateInternal event Reply, Create Instance (on Activity), WaitWell-defined event Create Instance (on Activity),Poorly defined event Message, Reply


First, the elementary notion in the BWW model is a thing. While we will only discuss identified mappings here,a thing, being a fundamental construct, deserves mention despite the lack of construct mapping. TheBPEL4WS specification does not feature an equivalent construct for a thing, instead the focus is on classesof things. The lack of mapping in this case however may be due to the nature of interoperability standardsthat are more activity-oriented than thing-oriented.

The mapping of properties reveals that general properties can be modeled in BPEL4WS. For example, theName construct represents the name of a business process, thus representing the general property of the busi-ness process. An emergent property is mapped to the BPEL4WS Correlation Set construct. The CorrelationSet construct is a group of properties that together serve to identify an application-level conversation withina business process instance. For example, the correlation set would commonly include identifying properties ofthings, such as CustomerID, OrderID, VendorID, and the like. It is the combination of such properties thatdetermines the identification of a particular business process instance conversation. The BWW attribute was


also found to have a mapping. While there is no single construct to represent the ontological construct of attri-

bute, it can be represented through the names of properties used throughout the BPEL4WS specification.The BWW class construct is mapped to the Partner construct. Partners in BPEL4WS are services with

which a business process interacts. The common property possessed by the BPEL4WS partners is the typeof service they provide (e.g. Buyer, Invoice Provider, Seller, etc.), thus modeling sets of things with a singlecommon property; i.e. a class. The next ontological construct that was found to have a mapping to aBPEL4WS construct is the state construct. While there is no single construct for a state in the BPEL4WS spec-ification, according to the specification, the state of a business process includes the messages that areexchanged as well as the intermediate data used in the composition of the messages. Variables are used to storemessages that constitute a state of a business process, thus the state of a business process is represented by a setof variables with value assignments.

The mapping of the event and transformation ontological constructs was problematic due to the lack of asingle BPEL4WS construct to represent those constructs. There are several BPEL4WS constructs that havebeen identified as modeling events and transformations. In fact, the BPEL4WS constructs: Message, Reply,Create Instance (on Activity) and Wait all represent events that can arise through a business process. The Mes-sage construct, for example, may be used to request the beginning of a new business process interaction thusdefining an event arising in a business process. Similarly, a Reply also models a message sending activity thatmay or may not accept the request for interaction. The Create Instance construct creates a new instance of aprocess. The event is triggered after the activity that has the Create Instance definition occurs. Finally, theWait construct allows a business process to specify a delay for a certain period of time or until a particulardeadline. A typical use of this construct is to invoke automatically an operation at a specified time or deadline,thus representing an event at the given time. Using similar reasoning, the transformation ontological constructhas been mapped to the Event Handler, Compensate, Compensation Handler, Fault Handler, Receive,Assign, Throw, Terminate, Alarm Event and Message Event BPEL4WS constructs. Each of the handlersor actions is responsible for the mapping from an initial state to a subsequent state, therefore being consistentwith the BWW transformation construct definition. For example, the Terminate activity maps the state of anobject from ‘processing’ to a state that reflects it is no longer processing. The Alarm Event and Message Eventconstructs, while having misleading names, also represent transformations. The Alarm Event is a transforma-tion that occurs due to a raised alarm. Likewise, the Message Event is a transformation that occurs due to theoccurrence of an external event – the receipt of a message.

A BWW lawful transformation can be mapped to the While, and Switch BPEL4WS constructs. Each ofthese activity types execute a set of activities based on a value of a predefined condition. If the condition eval-uates to true then the particular set of activities is executed. Thus the execution only ever occurs if the con-dition deems it to be legal. The BPEL4WS Expression construct models the stability condition that isrequired to evaluate if a set of activities should be executed.

The acts-on and coupling BWW constructs each have a mapping to BPEL4WS constructs. A thing is said toact-on another thing if its existence affects the history of the other thing. The BPEL4WS Role construct spec-ifies how one partner acts-on another partner by specifying the roles the partners play in an interaction. Thisspecification is consistent with the BWW acts-on construct definition. Furthermore, the coupling or mutual

binding property construct is represented by the Service Link BPEL4WS construct that defines the existenceof a relationship between two partners.

A Business Process Instance in BPEL4WS involves a number of partners interacting with each other toaccomplish a common goal – a system. For example, an instance of a ticket booking business process involvesa traveler, a travel agent and the airline, working together in order to obtain a ticket booking that meets thetraveler’s requirements. Such a scenario fits in with the BWW definition of a system being a set of things cou-pled together. Furthermore, a mapping also exists for the system composition and system structure BWW con-structs. Both of the constructs map to the BPEL4WS Partners construct (differentiated from the BPEL4WSPartner construct) resulting in a case of construct overload. The Partners construct defines all the partners thatare taking part in a particular business process instance, thus defining all things within the system (system com-

position). The Partners construct also defines what the roles of the individual partners are, therefore also mod-eling the couplings that exist among the things in the system (system structure).


Mappings have also been identified for the internal events and external events constructs (based on the iden-tified event mappings), as well as well-defined events and poorly defined events constructs.The BPEL4WS Mes-sage construct is seen as an external event as it defines the message being sent by a partner which is an externalinput to the subsystem of the receiving organization. Reply, Create Instance (on Activity) and Wait are alldeemed to be internal events because they arise within the business process. Create Instance (on Activity)and Wait are both also considered to be well-defined events because given the initial state, the subsequent stateis always deterministic (e.g. an instance is created). Reply and Message on the other hand are considered to bepoorly defined events because there is no guarantee of the message being sent due to, for example, networkerrors.

Finally, no mapping to the ontology constructs was found for the Empty, Message Properties, MessageDefinitions, Sequence, Flow, Scope, and Pick grammatical constructs. These grammatical constructs are clas-sified as ‘‘excess’’ from the point of view of the BWW ontology.

By analyzing the results of the above mapping, and the mapping of each of the remaining specifications, wecan generate a set of propositions from which hypotheses can be operationalized and tested. The derivation ofsuch a set of hypotheses is obtained by focusing on the ontological constructs that were not found to have amapping to constructs in the chosen specification. Accordingly, an example of one such proposition derivedfrom the analysis of BPEL4WS is:

Prop. Because there is no representation for thing, the specification will lack focus as it may not be clear, forexample, who the participants in a process are. The lack of representation for a thing can also cause confusionwhen some instances of a class (things) participate in a relationship and other instances do not – optionality.As Bodart et al. [6] point out, the use of optionality that results from the focus on classes (rather than perhaps

Table 5Summary of the representation mapping analysis of ebXML BPSS v1.01 [40], BPML v1.0 [7], BPEL4WS v1.1 [5] and WSCI v1.0specifications

Ontological construct ebXML BPSS construct BPML construct BPEL4WS construct WSCI construct

ThingProperty X X X X

Class X X X X

KindState X X X X

Conceivable state space X

State law X

Event X X X X

Conceivable event spaceLawful event space X

Transformation X X X X

Lawful transformation X X X X

Lawful state space X

History X

Acts-on X X

Coupling X X X

System X X X

System composition X X

System environmentSystem structure X X

Subsystem X

System decompositionLevel structureExternal event X X X X

Stable state X

Unstable state X

Internal event X X X X

Well-defined event X X X X

Poorly defined event X X X X


mandatory sub-classes) may result in superficial understanding rather than deep understanding of thespecification.

The generation of a set of hypotheses is the final step in the BWW representation analysis of BPEL4WS.Along similar lines, the mapping was performed based on the specifications of ebXML BPSS, BPML andWSCI. For each standard a set of propositions was also developed. While the analyses and the propositionsgenerated are not discussed here, the summary of the analyses is shown in Table 5. The results of the analysisof the ebXML BPSS standard have been presented in [30].

6. Overlap analysis and propositions

The overlap analysis of the four selected candidate interoperability standards produces three separate setsof outcomes. First, it identifies ontological constructs missing across all four candidate standards. The iden-tification of the missing constructs allows us to generate a number of propositions with respect to the potentialweaknesses of the standards in general. Second, the analysis identifies the candidate standard with the mostontologically complete specification. Third, the analysis also enables the identification of combinations ofstandards that together provide users with the largest available set of meaningful constructs required to imple-ment systems interoperability.

With regard to the first set of results, visual analysis of Table 5 clearly shows that there are several onto-logical constructs that do not have a mapping to a construct in any of the four candidate standards. From thissituation, we are able to draw a number of conclusions as to what representation capabilities are missingacross the four analyzed standards. There are six ontological constructs in total that do not have a mappingto a construct in any of the standards. These are thing, kind, conceivable event space, system environment, sys-

tem decomposition and level structure. Accordingly, irrespective of the combination of standards used, wewould hypothesize that users attempting to implement interoperation systems using these standards wouldexperience the following problems:

• P1. It is expected that there will be a lack of focus of the specification because there is no representation forthing and therefore it may not be clear what entities are involved in a given situation that is being modelled.The specification will also cause confusion when some instances of a class (things) participate in a relation-ship and other instances do not – optionality. As Bodart et al. [6] point out, the use of optionality thatresults from the focus on classes (rather than perhaps mandatory sub-classes) may result in superficialunderstanding rather than deep understanding of the specification. Moreover, the implication of the lackof mapping of the kind construct is the inability to model subtypes. This deficiency may cause problemsif the developers of the standards want to specify activities for sub-classes of participating objects (e.g.wholesale buyers versus retail buyers).

• P2. Because there is no representation for system environment, the users have no clear separation of the sys-tem and things outside the system. The inability to identify things external to the system means that it isalso very difficult, if not impossible, to identify the set of all entities which can generate significant external

events that spawn new business process interactions. This deficiency can lead to difficulties in the applica-tion of these standards for cross-organizational business processes and the related collaborative processmodeling.

• P3. Because there are no representations for system decomposition or level structure, it is difficult to modelthe way the system is divided into specific sub-parts. The lack of representation for these constructs there-fore adds to the complexity of the specification as the inability of a user, particularly a novice user, to breakthe system down into smaller parts significantly impacts the user’s understanding of the system as well asthe understanding of the interactions within the system.

• P4. The lack of the conceivable event space construct mapping suggests that users will not be able to modelall possible events. While the absence of a construct for conceivable event space is not as critical as that forlawful event space, the construct does, however, help the user understand how different laws and businessrules restrict the space of all possible events.


The above four propositions will be further empirically tested in order to gain an understanding if all ofthese, of which of these, are problematic for the domain of ESI.

With regard to the second major result set, analysis of the results summarized in Table 5 also allows us toidentify the standard with the most complete specification with respect to the BWW representation model.Clearly, ebXML BPSS models the most ontological constructs – mappings for 20 ontological constructs tothe ebXML BPSS specification constructs were found. The BPML specification was found only to have map-pings for ten ontological constructs, while BPEL4WS as well as WSCI were found to have mappings for 15ontological constructs each. Accordingly, we would speculate that implementing organizations would find agreater range of meaning and real-world representation for system interoperability in the ebXML BPSS stan-dard than in any of the other analyzed standards.

Finally, with regard to the third set of results, because none of the four analyzed candidate standards hasbeen found to model all 23 ontological constructs specified by the MOC principle, users will implement a com-bination of these standards in order to achieve the greatest explanatory power (i.e. MOC). Therefore startingwith one standard, users will incorporate additional standards, one by one, until they are able to model allrequired ontological constructs. It is therefore important to be able to select a combination of these standardssuch that maximum ontological completeness is obtained and construct overlap is minimized. Moreover, par-simony would dictate that the set be achieved using the minimum number of standards required. The overlapanalysis of the constructs across the four standards is used to generate such combination recommendations.

Based on the results shown in Table 5, a cross-reference table was generated (Table 6). It provides a sum-mary of the expressiveness of different combinations of the candidate standards. The grammars and therespective number of existing ontological construct mappings are shown in the top row as well as the left handside column of the table. The first value in each of the cells in the table represents the amount of overlap for theparticular pair of grammars. For example, if the user starts by using ebXML BPSS and then also uses theBPEL4WS standard (to gain the ability to model the system structure, system composition and acts-on con-structs), then the user will be confronted with an overlap of twelve ontological constructs. Likewise, if the userstarts by using WSCI and decides to also use BPEL4WS, then they will be confronted by an overlap of 15constructs.

The second value in each of the cells in the table represents the total number of unique ontological con-structs that can be represented by the particular combination of the two grammars. Again, using ebXMLBPSS in combination with BPEL4WS results in the ability to model 23 ontological constructs. Recall thatthe calculated MOC count is also 23. Therefore the combination of ebXML BPSS and BPEL4WS allows

Table 6Summary of the overlap analysis of constructs in the ebXML BPSS v1.01 [40], BPML v1.0 [7], BPEL4WS v1.1 [5] and WSCI v1.0 [41]specifications

ebXML BPSS(20 constructs)

BPML (10 constructs) BPEL4WS (15 constructs) WSCI (15 constructs)

ebXML BPSS (20 constructs) 10 overlap 12 overlap 12 overlap20 constructs 23 constructs 23 constructs10 ebXML BPSS 8 ebXML BPSS 8 ebXML BPSS0 BPML 3 BPEL4WS 3 WSCI

BPML (10 constructs) 10 overlap 10 overlap 10 overlap20 constructs 15 constructs 15 constructs10 ebXML BPSS 0 BPML 0 BPML0 BPML 5 BPEL4WS 5 WSCI

BPEL4WS (15 constructs) 12 overlap 10 overlap 15 overlap23 constructs 15 constructs 15 constructs8 ebXML BPSS 0 BPML 0 BPEL4WS3 BPEL4WS 5 BPEL4WS 0 WSCI

WSCI (15 constructs) 12 overlap 10 overlap 15 overlap23 constructs 15 constructs 15 constructs8 ebXML BPSS 0 BPML 0 BPEL4WS3 WSCI 5 WSCI 0 WSCI


implementers to model the maximum number of ontological constructs. On the other hand, the combinationof WSCI and BPEL4WS allows for the representation of only 15 constructs, meaning that another standardmust also be used in order to model the remaining eight constructs that are missing from the WSCI/BPEL4WSstandard combination.

The third and fourth values in each cell represent the contribution of each of the standards to the expres-siveness of the pair. Again referring to the ebXML BPSS and BPEL4WS combination, analysis shows thatwhile twelve constructs are found to be overlapping, ebXML BPSS contributes eight additional constructswhile BPEL4WS only contributes three constructs. On the other hand, the analysis of the WSCI andBPEL4WS combination shows that there is a complete overlap of the constructs and neither of the two gram-mars contributes any additional constructs (meaning that the use of the two standards in combination isunwarranted).

The analysis of Table 6 presents a number of interesting propositions. First, there are two combinations ofgrammars that provide maximal ontological completeness modeling the 23 available constructs, ebXML BPSSand BPEL4WS, as well as ebXML BPSS and WSCI. While obtaining MOC is crucial to maximize expressive-ness, it is the balance between MOC and MOO that is deemed to be ideal. Construct overlap in general isundesirable because of the resulting redundancy of constructs and the additional complexity. Therefore, givena choice of two pairs of grammars, each pair providing maximal ontological completeness, the ‘better’ pair isthat with a smaller construct overlap. However, the comparison of the level of overlap between ebXML BPSSand BPEL4WS as opposed to ebXML BPSS and WSCI shows that the combination of ebXML BPSS andWSCI has the same level of construct overlap as the combination of ebXML BPSS and BPEL4WS. Therefore,according to the ontology-based analysis, there are two different combinations of grammars that can be usedto satisfy MOC while satisfying the MOO hypothesis. In other words, ebXML BPSS in combination withBPEL4WS, or conversely ebXML BPSS in combination with WSCI, can be used in order to achieve the great-est expressive power while minimizing the implications of overlapping constructs. For example, sinceBPEL4WS does not have a representative grammatical construct for state law, business rules can be specifiedusing ebXML (which has a representative construct for state law), rather than being specified in separate textdocuments and attached to models. Furthermore, the law of parsimony states that the smallest number ofgrammars is sought to satisfy MOC, therefore any other combinations of grammars (three or more grammarsused together) are eliminated from being candidates.

Second, the amount of construct overlap observed across the four candidate standards may be indicative ofa number of issues. We argue that pairs in which neither of the participating standards contributes uniqueconstructs represent pairs of competing standards that are not meant to be used in combination (there isno added benefit of using the second standard). Additionally, pairs in which each standard contributes at leastone construct, and where a high level of overlap is observed, are seen to be representing pairs of competingstandards that are designed to address different perceptions of what is required to be represented in systemsinteroperability. Finally, pairs of constructs in which only one standard contributes unique constructs are seento represent complementary standards.

By that reasoning, referring to Table 6, we see that the pairs ebXML BPSS + BPEL4WS and ebXMLBPSS + WSCI, represent pairs of competing standards that have slightly different foci. Furthermore, sincethe ebXML BPSS standard is capable of expressing 20 of the 23 MOC constructs, it is therefore not surprisingthat in each combination of ebXML BPSS with another standard, it is ebXML BPSS that contributes most ofthe meaningful capabilities. Interestingly, ebXML BPSS’s ability to represent four of the eight constructs that itcontributes to the ebXML BPSS/BPEL4WS combination stems from its focus on business rules – a point that iscritical in business process management, yet overlooked in the BPML, BPEL4WS and WSCI specifications.

Moreover, it is also clear that BPEL4WS and WSCI are two competing standards with the same focusbecause there is a complete overlap of constructs between the two standards (neither BPEL4WS nor WSCIcontribute unique constructs to the pair).

The combinations of BPML with each of the remaining selected standards represent combinations of com-plementary standards because in each combination there is only one standard that adds uniquely to the com-bination. On that basis, the analysis shows each remaining standard to be complementary to BPML becauseBPML is missing some core constructs for the purpose of defining interactions. In fact, BPML and WSCIare meant to be used in combination. BPML models the business processes behind each service whereas WSCI

Table 7Summary of the overlap analysis of ebXML BPSS v1.01 [40], BPEL4WS v1.1 [5] and BPML/WSCI v1.0 [7,41] amalgamated

ebXML BPSS (20 constructs) BPEL4WS (15 constructs) BPML/WSCI (15 constructs)

ebXML BPSS (20 constructs) 12 overlap 12 overlap23 constructs 23 constructs8 ebXML BPSS 8 ebXML BPSS3 BPEL4WS 3 WSCI/BPML

BPEL4WS (15 constructs) 12 overlap 15 overlap23 constructs 15 constructs8 ebXML BPSS 0 BPEL4WS3 BPEL4WS 0 WSCI/BPML

BPML/WSCI (15 constructs) 12 overlap 15 overlap23 constructs 15 constructs8 ebXML BPSS 0 BPEL4WS3 WSCI/BPML 0 WSCI/BPML


adds the capability to define the interactions between the services. In view of that fact, we combine the BPMLand WSCI standards and present the overlap results in Table 7. Interestingly, however, the amount of overlapbetween BPML and WSCI, together with the fact that only WSCI uniquely contributes constructs to theBPML/WSCI pair, would imply that WSCI can perform the task that BPML was designed to perform. At thistime, however, we cannot verify this implication due to the lack of maturity of the BPML and WSCI standards.

From Table 7 it appears that the BPML/WSCI standard combination is indeed in competition with theBPEL4WS standard and has the same focus (neither of the standards adds uniquely to the combination).The combination of BPML/WSCI is also in competition with ebXML BPSS, however has a slightly differentfocus (each of the standards adds uniquely to the combination). As explained previously, the BPEL4WS gram-mar can be used to express 15 ontological constructs. From the analysis of Table 7 however, we see that thecombination of BPML and WSCI grammars can also only model fifteen ontological constructs; the same con-structs modeled by BPEL4WS. On the surface it appears that both would be equally suitable if users onlyrequired the ability to model those 15 constructs. However the law of parsimony states that the minimumrequired number of grammars should be chosen in order to minimize confusion. Therefore, clearly, BPEL4WSor WSCI alone would be a better choice over the BPML/WSCI combination. Of course, in order to achievemaximal ontological completeness, ebXML BPSS would still have to be used.

7. Conclusions and future work

This paper presented the results of a BWW representation model ontology-based analysis of four dominat-ing ESI candidate standards. The presented research demonstrates the wide application of the BWW modelfrom the evaluation and comparison of Information Systems Analysis and Design techniques to the area ofESI standards. The deliverables provide valuable and new insights into the level of maturity of the currentstandards. We found that ebXML BPSS was a ‘clear winner’ in terms of ontological expressiveness, andthe maturity and clarity of the constructs in its specification.

As part of this research, we also analyzed the ontological overlap of competing and complementary stan-dards. Such a perspective is of significance as it may often be the case that these standards will be used in com-bination. We found two sets of standards that, when used together, provide the implementer with minimaloverlap while maximizing the number of real-world concepts that users would need in order to implement sys-tem interoperability for business processes. These two sets are ebXML BPSS and BPEL4WS, and ebXMLBPSS and WSCI. Moreover, our overlap analysis would support the fact that BPML and WSCI are seenas complementary standards while BPEL4WS, BPML/WSCI, and ebXML BPSS are perceived in the marketas competing standards.

Irrespective of which standards are combined, there remain certain ontological constructs that cannot berepresented, viz., thing, kind, system environment, system decomposition, level structure, and conceivable event

space. Accordingly, in implementing one (or more) of these standards, we expect that users will:


• Suffer confusion as to which instances of a class participate in a relationship and which do not – they willnot be able to achieve a deep understanding of certain constructs in the grammar;

• Not be able to identify the set of all entities that can generate significant external events that would spawnimportant new process interactions; and

• Experience difficulties with the complexity of all the specifications because none of the standards providemeans to reduce complexity by allowing users to decompose interoperation processes using the constructscontained in their respective specifications.

The innovation of this research is not only the application of the BWW model in a new domain, i.e. enter-prise system interoperability standards, but also an extended methodology for the application of this ontolog-ical model. The explicit consideration of two independent evaluations – one evaluation of each of thecandidate standards individually, and a second that examined the combinations of standards that minimizedontological overlap while maximizing expressiveness – increased the overall quality of the ontological analysis.

While we have made every effort to increase the validity of our analysis, viz., using independent analyzersand using different levels of review of the analysis, limitations in the work remain. Most notably, the level ofgranularity in the definition of certain constructs in the standards was significantly different from that of theontological constructs. So, while two or more constructs (across different standards) might be representing thesame ontological construct generally, the manner in which they were intended to be used or executed obvi-ously was not the same. The implications of the difference between ontological meaning, and use or execution,will be investigated further in subsequent work into refining the research methodology.

As part of our future work in this area, we are working in three directions. First, we will conduct empiricalstudies with users of these standards in order to explore further the derived propositions. The propositionsformed the first step for future work on a specialized BWW model for the ESI domain. The specializationhas been predicted as necessary by Rosemann et al. [32]. It is possible, for example, that some of the ontolog-ical constructs, for example transformation, may need to be further specialized for the ESI domain. Second, wewill combine our research with the related work of van der Aalst et al. [2] and Wohed et al. [51] who are usingworkflow patterns as a benchmark. Third and finally, we aim to further develop the research methodologywith the goal of having a comprehensive scoring model and weightings for the identified ontological shortcom-ings. Thus far, all BWW constructs are treated as equal in an ontological analysis. Therefore, the lack of rep-resentation for a history of state changes carries the same importance as the lack of representation for atransformation (for example). This clearly is not the case, particularly within the ESI domain, therefore fur-ther work is necessary in order to develop a weighted model on which to base such analyses in this domain. Aweighted model would therefore enable us to make future BWW-based analyses in this domain more relevant.Such findings may also ultimately alter the results of the MOO/MOC based choices of standards to be used incombination, as some of the missing constructs may be found to not be necessary.

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by a cooperative research grant from SAP Corporate Research, the Centre for Infor-mation Technology Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, and the UQ Business School, TheUniversity of Queensland.

References

[1] W.M.P.v.d. Aalst, Don’t go with the flow: Web services composition standards exposed, in: IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2003.[2] W.M.P.v.d. Aalst et al., Pattern Based Analysis of BPML (and WSCI), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbene, 2002.[3] W.M.P.v.d. Aalst et al., Workflow Patterns, Faculty of IT, Queensland University of Technology, 2002.[4] J.P. Bansler, K. Bodker, A reappraisal of structured analysis: design in an organizational context, ACM Transactions on Information

Systems 11 (2) (1993) 165–193.[5] BEA Systems, et al., Business Process Execution Language for Web Services v1.1. v1.1 ed., 2003.[6] F. Bodart et al., Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests, Information Systems

Research 12 (4) (2001) 384–405.[7] BPMI.org, Business Process Modeling Language, 2002.


[8] M. Bunge, Treatise on basic philosophy, Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, vol. 3, Reidel, Boston, 1977.[9] A. Burton-Jones, P. Meso, How good are these UML diagrams? An empirical test of the Wand and Weber good decomposition

model, in: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, 2002, Barcelona.[10] I. Davies et al., Using meta models for the comparison of ontologies, in: Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and

Design Workshop, 2003, Klagenfurt.[11] I. Davies, P. Green, M. Rosemann, Facilitating an ontological foundation of information systems with meta models, in: 13th

Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2002, Melbourne.[12] J. Evermann, Y. Wand, Towards ontologically based semantics for UML constructs, in: 20th International Conference on

Conceptual Modeling (ER 2001), Springer, Yokohama, 2001.[13] J. Evermann, Y. Wand, Ontology Based Object-Oriented Domain Modelling: Fundamental Concepts. Requirements Engineering,

published online 13 January 2005.[14] P. Fettke, P. Loos, Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge–Wand–Weber-Model, in: 9th Americas Conference on

Information Systems, 2003. Tampa.[15] N. Gorla, H.-C. Pu, W.O. Rom, Evaluation of process tools in systems analysis, Information and Software Technology 37 (2) (1995)

119–126.[16] P.F. Green, Use of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in combination in upper CASE tools – an ontological

evaluation, in: 2nd CaiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design,Barcelona, 1997.

[17] P.F. Green, M. Rosemann, Integrated process modelling: an ontological evaluation, Information Systems 25 (2) (2000) 73–87.[18] P.F. Green, M. Rosemann, Perceived ontological weaknesses of process modeling techniques: further evidence, in: 10th European

Conference on Information Systems, Poland, 2002.[19] P.F. Green, M. Rosemann, Usefulness of the BWW ontological models as a ‘‘Core’’ theory of information systems, in: Information

Systems Foundations: Building the Theoretical Base, Canberra, 2002.[20] M. Gruninger, J. Lee, Ontology: applications and design, Communications of the ACM 45 (2) (2002) 39–41.[21] N. Guarino, C. Welty, Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean, Communications of the ACM 45 (2) (2002) 61–65.[22] C.W. Holsapple, K.D. Joshi, A collaborative approach to ontology design, Communications of the ACM 45 (2) (2002) 42–47.[23] G.M. Karam, R.S. Casselman, A cataloging framework for software development methods, IEEE Computer (February) (1993) 34–46.[24] H.M. Kim, Predicting how the Semantic Web will evolve, Communications of the ACM 45 (2) (2002) 48–54.[25] H. Kreger, Fulfilling the Web-Services promise, Communications of the ACM 6 (46) (2003) 29–34.[26] T.W. Olle et al., Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for Understanding, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, 1991.[27] A.L. Opdahl, B. Henderson-Sellers, Grounding the OML metamodel in ontology, Journal of Systems and Software 57 (2) (2001) 119–143.[28] A.L. Opdahl, B. Henderson-Sellers, Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model, Software and Systems

Modeling Journal 1 (1) (2002) 43–67.[29] J. Parsons, W. Wand, Using objects in systems analysis, Communications of the ACM 40 (12) (1997) 104–110.[30] J. Recker et al., Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN, in: 16th Australasian

Conference on Information Systems, Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, Sydney, Australia, 2005.[31] M. Rosemann, P. Green, Developing a meta model for the Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological constructs, Information Systems 27 (2)

(2002) 75–91.[32] M. Rosemann, P. Green, M. Indulska, A reference methodology for conducting ontological analyses, in: H. Lu et al. (Eds.),

Conceptual Modeling – ER 2004, Springer, Shanghai, China, 2004, pp. 110–121.[33] M. Rosemann, P. Green, M. Indulska, Towards an enhanced methodology for ontological analyses, in: 16th International Conference

on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Riga, 2004.[34] M. Rosemann, P.F. Green, Integrating multi-perspectives into ontologies, in: 21st International Conference on Information Systems,

Brisbane, 2000.[35] M. Rosemann et al., A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars, in: E. Dubois, K.

Pohl (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering – CAiSE 2006, Springer, Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg,pp. 447–461.

[36] G. Shanks et al., Representing part-whole relationships in conceptual modelling: an empirical evaluation, in: 23rd InternationalConference on Information Systems, Barcelona, 2002.

[37] R. Shapiro, A comparison of XPDL, BPML, and BPEL4WS, 2002.[38] S.K. Sia, C. Soh, Severity assessment of ERP-organization misalignment: honing in on ontological structure and context specificity,

in: 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, 2002.[39] P. Soffer et al., Modelling off-the-shelf information system requirements. An ontological approach, Requirements Engineering 6 (3)

(2001) 183–199.[40] UN/CEFACT and OASIS, ebXML Business Process Specification Schema, 2001.[41] W3C, Web Service Choreography Interface, 2002.[42] Y. Wand, V.C. Storey, R. Weber, An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modelling, ACM Journal 24 (4)

(1999) 494–528.[43] Y. Wand, R. Weber, A model of control and audit procedure change in evolving data processing systems, The Accounting Review

LXIV (1) (1989) 87–107.[44] Y. Wand, R. Weber, An ontological evaluation of systems analysis and design methods, in: E.D. Falkenberg, P. Lindgreen (Eds.),

Information System Concepts: An In-depth Analysis, North-Holland, 1989, pp. 79–107.


[45] Y. Wand, R. Weber, Mario Bunge’s ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts, in: P. Weingartner, G.J.W.Dorn (Eds.), Studies on Mario Bunge’s Treatise, Rodopi, Atlanta, 1990, pp. 123–149.

[46] Y. Wand, R. Weber, An ontological model of an information system, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16 (11) (1990)1281–1291.

[47] Y. Wand, R. Weber, On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars, Journal of InformationSystems 3 (4) (1993) 217–237.

[48] Y. Wand, R. Weber, On the deep structure of information systems, Information Systems Journal 5 (1995) 203–223.[49] R. Weber, Ontological Foundations of Information Systems, Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and

New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.[50] R. Weber, Y. Zhang, An analytical evaluation of NIAM’s grammar for conceptual schema diagrams, Information Systems Journal 6

(2) (1996) 147–170.[51] P. Wohed et al., Pattern Based Analysis of BPEL4WS, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2002.

Peter F. Green is Professor of Electronic Commerce and Business Information Systems cluster leader in the UQBusiness School at the University of Queensland. He has qualifications in Computer Science, Accounting, and aPhD in Commerce (Information Systems) from the University of Queensland. Dr Green is a CharteredAccountant and a Member of the Australian Computer Society. Dr Green has worked during his career as theSystems Support Manager at the South-East Queensland Electricity Board (SEQEB), for a Chartered Accoun-tancy firm, and a Queensland government department. Peter has researched, presented, and published widely onsystems analysis and design, conceptual modelling, information systems auditing, and eCommerce. Dr Green’spublications have appeared in such internationally refereed journals as Information Systems, IEEE Transactions

on Knowledge & Data Engineering, Data & Knowledge Engineering, Journal of Database Management, and theAustralian Journal of Information Systems.

Michael Rosemann has worked after his MBA (1992) for seven years at the Department of Information Systems,
University of Munster, Germany, where he received his PhD in 1995. Michael is now co-leader of the BusinessProcess Management Group at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Michael’s researchinterests are Business Process Management and Enterprise Systems. He is the Chief Investigator of a number ofresearch projects funded by the Australian Research Council and SAP Research. Michael published more than 40 journal publications, 60 conference publications and 35 book chapters. He is the author and editor of five booksand a member of the Editorial Board of seven journals.
Marta Indulska is a Lecturer at the UQ Business School, The University of Queensland. She obtained her PhD inComputer Science, in the research area of Information Systems, at the University of Queensland, in 2004. Marta’smain research areas are Business Process Management and Ontology. She has published and presented her workat numerous international conferences. Her work has also been published by journals such as IEEE Transactions

on Knowledge & Data Engineering, and Data & Knowledge Engineering. Her teaching focuses on topics in Elec-tronic Commerce and Information Systems.

Chris Manning has been a member of faculty at the UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Australia,since 2001. He received his PhD in information systems and knowledge management in 2006 from Monash
University, Australia. Chris’ research interests centre on the knowledge-based organization, IT governance, andbusiness intelligence. He is an author of knowledge management and business intelligence courses in CPAAustralia’s accreditation and continuing education programs and has published at international conferences andpractitioner journals on these topics. Prior to his current portfolio of activities in academia and consulting, Chrisacquired 10 years of operational and strategic management experience in Australia’s mining, education, and IT sectors.

Documents

Candidate interoperability standards: An ontological overlap analysis