4.7 Article

Efficient and Exact Query of Large Process Model Repositories in Cloud Workflow Systems

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SERVICES COMPUTING
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 821-832

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TSC.2015.2481409

关键词

Cloud workflow; business process management; exact process query; composite index; subgraph isomorphism

资金

  1. National 973 Basic Research Program of China [2014CB340404]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61170026, 61373037, 61100017]
  3. National Science and Technology Ministry of China [2012BAH25F02, 2013BAF02B01]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [2012211020203, 2042014kf0237]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As cloud computing platforms are widely accepted by more and more enterprises and individuals, the underlying cloud workflow systems accumulate large numbers of business process models. Retrieving and recommending the most similar process models according to the tenant's requirements become extremely important, for it is not only beneficial to promote the reuse of the existing model assets, but also helpful to reduce the error rate of the modeling process. Since the scales of cloud workflow repositories become bigger and bigger, developing efficient and exact query approaches is urgent. To this end, an improved two-stage exact query approach based on graph structure is proposed. In the filtering stage, the composite task index, which consists of the label, join-attribute and split-attribute of a task, is adopted to acquire candidate models, which can greatly reduce the number of process models needed to be tested by a time-consuming verification algorithm. In the verification stage, a novel subgraph isomorphism test based on task code is proposed to refine the candidate model set. Experiments are conducted on six synthetic model sets and two real model sets. The results demonstrate that the presented approach can significantly improve the query efficiency and reduce the query response time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据