Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
texts making use of indentions, or texts which are of low quality is not possible
at the moment and presents opportunities for further research.
While the evaluation conducted in this thesis evinced encouraging results
different lines of research could be pursued in order to enhance the quality or
scope of our process model generation procedure. As shown the occurrence of
meta-sentences or noise in general is one of the severest problems affecting the
generation results. Therefore, we could improve the quality of our results by
adding further rules and heuristics to identify such noise. Another major source
of problems was the syntax parser we employed. As an alternative, semantic
parsers like [39] could be investigated.
References
1. Herbst, J., Karagiannis, D.: An inductive approach to the acquisition and adapta-
tion of workflow models. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI, pp. 52-57 (1999)
2. Frederiks, P., Van der Weide, T.: Information modeling: the process and the
required competencies of its participants. Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(1),
4-20 (2006)
3. Scheer, A.: ARIS-business process modeling. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
4. Reijers, H., Limam, S., Van Der Aalst, W.: Product-based workflow design. Journal
of Management Information Systems 20(1), 229-262 (2003)
5. Gruber, T.: Automated knowledge acquisition for strategic knowledge. Machine
Learning 4(3), 293-336 (1989)
6. Blumberg, R., Atre, S.: The problem with unstructured data. DM Review 13, 42-49
(2003)
7. White, M.: Information overlook. EContent(26:7) (2003)
8. OMG, eds.: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0 (June 2010)
9. Freund, J., Rucker, B., Henninger, T.: Praxishandbuch BPMN. Hanser (2010)
10. Melcuk, I.: Dependency syntax: theory and practice, New York (1988)
11. Marcus, M., Marcinkiewicz, M., Santorini, B.: Building a large annotated corpus
of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2), 330 (1993)
12. de Marneffe, M., Manning, C.: The Stanford typed dependencies representation.
In: Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, pp. 1-8
(2008)
13. Baker, C., Fillmore, C., Lowe, J.: The berkeley framenet project. In: 17th Int. Conf.
on Computational Linguistics, pp. 86-90 (1998)
14. Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: A lexical database for english. CACM 38(11), 39-41 (1995)
15. Achour, C.B.: Guiding scenario authoring. In: 8th European-Japanese Conference
on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases, pp. 152-171. IOS Press, Amster-
dam (1998)
16. Li, J., Wang, H., Zhang, Z., Zhao, J.: A policy-based process mining framework:
mining business policy texts for discovering process models. ISEB 8(2), 169-188
17. Yue, T., Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: An Automated Approach to Transform Use Cases
into Activity Diagrams. Modelling Foundations and Appl., 337-353 (2010)
18. Fliedl, G., Kop, C., Mayr, H., Salbrechter, A., Vohringer, J., Weber, G., Winkler,
C.: Deriving static and dynamic concepts from software requirements using sophis-
ticated tagging. Data & Knowledge Engineering 61(3), 433-448 (2007)
19. Kop, C., Mayr, H.: Conceptual predesign-bridging the gap between requirements
and conceptual design. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Requirements Eng. p. 90 (1998)
