Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model fragment comparison using natural language processing techniques

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Wirtschaftsinformatik in Wissenschaft und Praxis

Part of the book series: Business Engineering ((BE))

  • 11k Accesses

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to set a common working ground for computational linguistics and the metamodelling paradigm, by integrating notions of high abstraction from both fields and thus mediating the possibility of repurposing techniques from one field to the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Referenzen

  1. Levenshtein, I. V.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 163(4):845–848 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang, K., Shasha, D.: Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM J. Comput. 18:1245–1262 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Winkler, W.: The State of Record Linkage and Current Research Problems. Statistics of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service Publication R99/04 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, P.F., deSouza, P.V., Mercer, R.L., Della Pietra, V.J., Lai, J.C.: Class-based n-gram Models of Natural Language. J. Computational Linguistics. 18(4): 467–479 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Desai, N., Mendling, J., Process compliance measurement based on behavioral profiles. In: Pernici, B. (ed.), CAISE 2010, LNCS 6051, 499–514, 2010, Springer (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.: Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behaviour. Information Systems 33(1): 64–95 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. de Medeiros, A., van der Aalst, W., Weijters, A.: Quantifying process equivalence based on observed behavior. Data Knowledge Engineering 64(1), 55–74 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On measuring process model similarity based on high-level change operations. In Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olive, A. (eds.) ER 2008, LNCS, vol. 5231, p. 248–264, Springer, Heidelberg (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dongen, B., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsene, Z., Leonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp.450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Serva, M., Petroni, F.: Indo-European languages tree by Levenshtein distance. Europhysics Letters 81 68005 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schulz, K., Mihov, S.: Fast string correction with Levenshtein automata. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 5(1): 67–85 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wojnar, A., Mlynkova, I., Dokulil, J.: Similarity of DTDs based on edit distance and semantics. In: Badica, C., Mangioni, G., Carchiolo, V., Burdescu, D. (eds.), Intelligent Distributed Computing, Systems and Applications, 207-216, Springer (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mikhaiel, R., Lin, G., Stroulia, E.: Simplicity in RNA secondary structure alignment: towards biologically plausible alignments. In: Sixth IEEE Symposium on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering. pp. 149-158 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kouylekov, M., Magnini, B.: Recognizing textual entailment with tree edit distance algorithms. In: The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge RTE-1, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Karagiannis, D., Kuhn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.), E-commerce and Web technologies, LNCS 2455, pp.451–464, Springer, Berlin (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ehrig, M. Ontology alignment – bridging the semantic gap. Springer (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  17. BOC Group. http://www.boc-group.com

  18. Gruber, T.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (5-6): 907–928 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.): Formal Concept Analysis: Foundations and Applications, LNAI 3626, Springer-Verlag (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  20. ADONIS Community Edition. http://www.adonis-community.com/

  21. The Resource Description Framework. http://www.w3.org/RDF/

  22. The SPARQL Query Language. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

  23. Levenshtein demo: http://www.miislita.com/searchito/levenshtein-edit-distance.html

  24. Zhang Shasha Python implementation. https://github.com/timtadh/zhang-shasha

  25. Tai, K.C. The tree-to-tree correction problem. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 26(3): 422–433 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chomsky, N. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory (2): 113–124 (1956) .

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Measuring similarity between ontologies. EKAW ’02 Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web, pp. 251–263, Springer (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Open Models Initiative. http://www.openmodels.at/web/omi/home

  29. Damerau, F.J.: A technique for computer detection and correction of spelling errors. Communications of the ACM 7(3): 171-176, ACM New York (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Demaine, E.D., Mozes, S., Rossman, B., Weimann, O. An optimal decomposition algorithm for tree edit distance. ACM Trans. on Algorithms 6(1): Article2 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Klein, P.N.: Computing the edit-distance between unrooted ordered trees. In European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 98), LNCS 1461, pp. 91–102, Springer (1998).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Computer Science, Knowledge Engineering Research Group, University of Vienna, Waehringerstr. 29, A-1010, Vienna, Austria

    Karagiannis Dimitris & Buchmann Robert Andrei

Authors
  1. Karagiannis Dimitris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Buchmann Robert Andrei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karagiannis Dimitris .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität St. Gallen Inst Wirtschaftsinformatik, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Walter Brenner

  2. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik und Neue Medien, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany

    Thomas Hess

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dimitris, K., Robert Andrei, B. (2014). Model fragment comparison using natural language processing techniques. In: Brenner, W., Hess, T. (eds) Wirtschaftsinformatik in Wissenschaft und Praxis. Business Engineering. Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54411-8_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54411-8_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54410-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54411-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation