J. Lee, G. Yost and the PIF Working Group, The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework, 1994, http://ccs.mit.edu/pifmain.html  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....into common categories. Many of the special purpose ontologies in Ontolingua are very detailed, often because their specification was originally designed to stand alone. These ontologies were written in some other language, and later ported to Ontolingua. The Process Interchange Framework (PIF) [Lee et al. 1994] is one such ontology. 4.5 Ontologies from Ontolingua Ontolingua [Gruber, 1993] is a set of tools for analyzing and translating ontologies, based on the principle that common frameworks lead to increased compatibility. The web based software provided at the Knowledge Systems Laboratory ....

Jintae Lee, Gregg Yost, and The PIF Working Group. The PIF process interchange format and framework, December 1994. Available on the World Wide Web at http://ccs.mit.edu/pifmain.html.

....described as Abstract Data Types, and provides active database additional features like transactions and triggers. The technology selected is abstract data types and abstract syntax tree, which are supposed to support the process language semantics. The Process Interchange Format (PIF) work [LYtPW96] is an interesting attempt made by the Business and Work Flow community to define a common internal representation between language heterogeneous systems. For each system, a single translator must be written for converting a process description expressed in that system native formalism into and ....

J. Lee, G. Yost, and the PIF WorkGroup. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical report, PIF WorkGroup, 1996.

....performed to translate a BMS message into a token in a SLANG petrinet. However there is no explicit meta model nor any common or interoperability model. The Workflow Process Definition Interface (WPDL) from the Workflow Management Coalition [27] 28] and the Process Interchange Format (PIF) work [31] are interesting attempts made by the business re engineering and workflow community to define a common internal representation for language heterogeneous systems. For each system, a single translator must be written for translating a process description expressed in that system s native formalism ....

J. Lee, G. Yost, and the PIF WorkGroup. The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework. Technical report, PIF WorkGroup, 1996. http:// ccs.mit.edu/Pifmain.html.

....we know that the students are capable of comparing and contrasting a wide range of systems. The interoperability benefit: Inter operability among systems with di#erent modeling methods, paradigms, languages and software tools can be achieved with ontologies that act as an inter lingua [16]. The browsing searching benefit: The meta knowledge within an ontology can assist an intelligent search engine with processing a query. For example, if a query returns no results, then the ontology could be used to automatically generalize the query to find nearest partial matches. The systems ....

J. Lee, M. Gruninger, Y. Jin, T. Malone, A. Tate, G Yost, and other members of the PIF working group, "The PIF process interchange format and framework", Knowledge Engineering Review 13(1) (1998) 91--120.

....activities to higher level business processes. We will then give an in depth example of using the latter ontology as an interlingua for enabling manufacturing process information exchange between two di#erent applications. 3.2. 1 PIF The goal of the Process Interchange Format (PIF) project [21] was the development of an interchange format to support the automatic exchange of process descriptions among a wide variety of business process modelling and support systems, such as workflow tools, process simulation systems, business process reengineering tools, and process repositories. Rather ....

J. Lee, Gruninger, Y. M., Jin, T. Malone, Tate, and G. A., Yost. The pif process interchange format and framework. Knowledge Engineering Review, 2:1--30, 1998.

.... mapping transitions directly onto rules [33] Finally, Amber (and most process modeling or programming languages) is considerably more sophisticated than standard process modeling notations such as IDEF [17] or the process interchange formats being developed for workflow management systems [27, 29] although one future direction would be to develop translators from PAL to a standard process interchange format and vice versa. PAL incorporates an object oriented data definition sublanguage for defining classes whose members represent process state and product artifacts (design documents, ....

Jintae Lee, Gregg Yost, and the PIF Working Group. The PIF process interchange format and framework, December 1994. http://www-sloan.mit.edu/ccs/pifmain.html.

....the use of models and systems to define the way the organization performs work. In particular, a work procedure in a workflow system is defined by a workflow model composed of a set of discrete work steps with explicit specifications of how a unit of work flows among the different steps (e.g. see [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]) Whereas the situated work approach explicitly omits step definition and inter step coordination, workflow explicitly includes it. Besides assisting in the coordination and execution of a procedure, workflow models have also been used to describe how the procedure performs the work, and to ....

....(also called an activity or task) to another. Thus, a workflow language contains constructs to define a set of steps to represent units of work, a sequential computation language to provide an interpretation for each step, and a coordination language to define how the work flows among the steps [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 26]. In workflow modeling languages, the modeling domain determines the nature of the computation language, though the same coordination language can be used across different modeling domains. 2.1.1. Computation Languages for Modeling The fundamental purpose of a representation computation language ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Jintae Lee, Gregg Yost, and the PIF Working Group. The PIF process interchange format and framework. Technical report, University of Hawaii Information and Computer Science Department, February 1996.

....use of the knowledge. 2.1.4 Supporting Technologies A great variety of technologies exist that can support ontology applications. These include, but are not limited to: 1) Ontology representation languages (e.g. UML, Express, Ontolingua, XML) 2) Knowledge interchange languages: e.g. KIF, PIF(Lee et al. 1995), CDIF) 3) Translation tools: e.g. Ontolingua translators, CDIF tools, StepTools, lots ) and 4) Distributed Objects: e.g. CORBA 7 , COM) 2.1.5 Maturity Level We indicate the degree to which applications and the supporting technologies using a given scenario are mature. At one ....

....such as part of, or similar subject matter. Close inspection of the implicit taxonomy of Yahoo reveals that there is no consistent specific meaning of the relationship. At the other extreme, are rigorously formal and carefully axiomatized ontologies such as TOVE (Gruninger Fox, 1995) and PIF (Lee et al. 1995). The meaning captured in an ontology varies both in the amount being represented and the degree of formality of the representation. The amount of meaning (an attribute of the ontology itself) is directly related to restricting the possible interpretations which serves the primary purpose of ....

Lee, J., Yost, G., & Group, P. W. (1995). The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical Report 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science.

....Occasionally, where the domain extends beyond what was covered in the EO, substantially new concepts will be introduced. To make re use of such extensions possible by others who may not wish to adopt all of the additional terms, we anticipated using a mechanism similar to partially shared views [11, 12], with the Enterprise Ontology serving as the core shared by all. In summary, the main intended uses for the Enterprise Ontology were: enhance communication between humans, for the benefit of integration . serve as stable basis for understanding and specifying the requirements for end user ....

....at our web site; also, we received dozens of private email messages requesting information about the Ontology, or the lisp code to work with. In addition, some members of the Enterprise Ontology development team also participated in the following projects: Process Interchange Format (PIF) [12] . Work Flow Management Coalition (WfMC) 14] Object Management Working Group Core Planning Representation [15] These projects were primarily concerned with the activity related concepts in the EO, but there were more general issues as well such as roles and states of a#airs which were ....

J. Lee, G. Yost, and PIF Working Group. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical Report 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science, 1995.

.... Coalition (WfMC) specifications (WfMC Members 1994) Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) Genesereth and Fikes 1996) Microsoft Project TM 08 13 98 Requirements for Specifying Manufacturing Engineering and Business Processes 4 (Microsoft 1994) Process Interchange Format and Framework (PIF) (Lee et al. 1996); and SDEF (Standard Data Exchange Format) East 1995) 2 2.3 Collaboration To ensure a comprehensive set of process specification requirements, active participation of practitioners and researchers has been encouraged. Several mechanisms were established to allow colleagues to be kept informed ....

LEE, J., ET AL., 1996, The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework, University of Hawaii, http://soa.cba.hawaii.edu/pif/, May 1996.

....to serve as an interlingua to integrate multiple process related applications throughout the manufacturing life cycle. This project is working has worked closely with other efforts, such as A Language for Process Specification (ALPS) Project [2] the Process Interchange Format (PIF) Project [3], the Toronto Virtual Enterprise (TOVE) Project [4] and the Enterprise Ontology Project [5] ALPS was a research project at NIST which identified information models to facilitate process specification and to transfer this information to process control. PIF is an interchange format based upon ....

J. LEE, et al, "The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework" to appear in Knowledge Engineering Review 13(1), Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.

.... Plan Representation (CPR) Project [7] In addition, the PSL project is in close collaboration with various projects (those which involve numerous companies or academic institutions) such as Shared Planning and Activity Representation (SPAR) Project [8] the Process Interchange Format (PIF) Project [9], and the WorkFlow Management Coalition (WfMC) 10] ALPS was a NIST research project whose goal was to identify information models to facilitate process specification and to transfer this information to process control. The PSL project, which could be viewed as a spin off of the ALPS project, has ....

Lee, J., et al, The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework, to appear in Knowledge Engineering Review, 1998, Vol. 13, No. 1, Cambridge Univ. Press.

.... Plan Representation (CPR) Project [7] In addition, the PSL project is in close collaboration with various projects (those that involve numerous companies or academic institutions) such as Shared Planning and Activity Representation (SPAR) Project [8] the Process Interchange Format (PIF) Project [9], and the WorkFlow Management Coalition (WfMC) 10] ALPS was a NIST research project whose goal was to identify information models to facilitate process specification and to transfer this information to process control. The 6 PSL project, which could be viewed as a spin off of the ALPS project, ....

Lee, J., et al, "The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework," The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 13(1), pp. 91-120, Special Issue on "Putting Ontologies to Use" (eds. Uschold, M. and Tate, A.), Cambridge University Press.

....besides. We do not want to enter here into a comparative analysis of the above formalisms; we prefer to underline that their differences are not relevant from the representation point of view (the process models created in any of the above formalisms share a core part of the process representation (Lee et al. 1996)) but from ther point of view of their computational power. Process models have been implemented within workflow management systems and other tools as a means of standardizing and automating the action flow (or, in some equivalent sense, the information and or document flow) of cooperative ....

.... 1993) the Spark Project at DEC, the Virtual Design Team project at Stanford University, the Enterprise Modeling project at the University of Toronto and more recently within the activities devoted to planning, workflow and enterprise process modeling at the AIAI of the University of Edinburgh (Lee et al. 1996). PIF aims to define a universal format to help automatically exchange process descriptions among a wide variety of business process modeling and support systems such as workflow 18 software, flow charting tools, process simulation systems and process repositories. PIF, therefore is not another ....

Lee, Jintae, G. Yost, and the PIF Working Group (1996): The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework.

....to define the semantics of these concepts, because it is the responsibility of each PSS to execute the process. This approach was followed by the workflow management coalition when defining the WPDL [22] 35] 36] 37] Workflow Process Definition Language) or the PIF (Process Interchange Format) [27]. WPDL is a language in which process concepts are represented, but since there is no semantics, this language is not executable. The state based architecture have the following positive characteristics: It allows PSS with overlapping functionalities to collaborate, Collaborating PSSs do ....

J. Lee, G. Yost, and the PIF WorkGroup. The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework. Technical report, PIF WorkGroup, 1996. http://ccs.mit.edu/Pifmain.html.

....use of the knowledge. 2.1.4 Supporting Technologies A great variety of technologies exist that can support ontology applications. These include, but are not limited to: Ontology representation languages (e.g. UML, Express, Ontolingua, XML) Knowledge interchange languages: e.g. KIF, PIF[7], CDIF) Translation tools: e.g. Ontolingua translators, CDIFtools, StepTools, lots ) Distributed Objects: e.g. CORBA, COM) 2.1.5 Maturity Level We indicate the degree to which applications and the supporting technologies using a given scenario are mature. At one extreme a ....

....various relationships such as part of, or similar subject matter. Close inspection of the implicit taxonoomy of Yahoo reveals that there is no consistent specific meaning of the relationship. At the other extreme, are rigorously formal and carefully axiomatized ontologies such as TOVE [4] and PIF [7]. The meaning captured in an ontology varies both in the amount being represented and the degree of formality of the representation. The amount of meaning (an attribute of the ontology itself) is directly related to restricting the possible interpretations which serves the primary purpose of ....

J. Lee, G. Yost, and PIF Working Group. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical Report 180, MITCenter for Coordination Science, 1995.

....concepts involved and their inter relationships, and then consider each individually in more detail. Basic components of scheduling models and their relationships Like several contemporary process modeling and ontology development efforts (Uschold et al. 1996; Gruninger Fox 1994; Le Pape 1994; Lee, Yost, Group 1994; Tate 1996; Smith 1989) the OZONE scheduling ontology adopts an activity centered modeling viewpoint. Scheduling is defined as a process of feasibly synchronizing the use of RESOURCES by ACTIVITIES to satisfy DEMANDS over time, and application problems are described in terms of this abstract ....

Lee, J.; Yost, G.; and Group, P. W. 1994. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical Report Working Paper No. 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science.

....By convention, we use capitalization to distinguish specific concepts that are included. 4. 1 Basic components of OZONE scheduling models and their relationships Like several contemporary process modeling and ontology development efforts [Uschold et al. 1996, Gruninger Fox, 1994, Le Pape, 1994, Lee, Yost, Group, 1994, Tate, 1996, Smith, 1989] the OZONE ontology adopts an activitycentered modeling viewpoint and is biased towards constraint based scheduling generation. Scheduling is defined as a process of feasibly synchronizing the use of RESOURCES by ACTIVITIES to satisfy DEMANDS over time, and application ....

Lee, J.; Yost, G.; and Group, P. W. 1994. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical Report Working Paper No. 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science.

....on a single process description paradigm, such as flowcharts or System Dynamics charts. However, recent work at MIT s Center for Coordination Science has attempted to create means of integrating various process definition tools by developing the first version of a Process Interchange Format (PIF) [17], a canonical process representation language. Although this format is likely to prove too restrictive to be used as a common meta model when supporting management problem solving interventions in general, it could be applicable to process oriented interventions. Generic management interventions ....

Jintae Lee, Gregg Yost, and the PIF Working Group. The PIF Process Interchange Format and framework. Working Paper 180, MIT Sloan School of Management, Center for Coordination Science, MIT, USA, December 1994. Available on-line on http://ccs.mit.edu/1994wp.html.

....whether there is any fundamental difference between workflow and process is a matter of some debate [63] but we blur the distinction in this paper. In any case, heterogeneous federation based on Mentor would probably be quite similar to the ProcessWall model. Process interchange formats [47, 45] support translation of a logically single process model into the different representations of distinct process systems, but do not provide any means for collaboration and interoperability during the process enactment by those systems. Thus there is no true federation in the sense addressed by ....

Jintae Lee, Gregg Yost, and the PIF Working Group. The PIF process interchange format and framework, December 1994. http://www-sloan.mit.edu/ccs/pifmain.html.

....intended for business applications, not a process centered environment oriented towards software engineering; whether there is any fundamental difference between workflow and process is a matter of some debate, 2 but we blur the distinction in this paper. Common process interchange formats [45, 43] support translation of a logically single process model into the different representations of distinct process systems, but do not provide any means for collaboration and interoperability during the process enactment by those systems. Thus there is no true federation in the sense addressed by ....

Jintae Lee, Gregg Yost, and the PIF Working Group. The PIF process interchange format and framework, December 1994. http://www-sloan.mit.edu/ccs/pifmain.html.

....be extendible, allowing the incorporation of new classes of constraints and the specialisation of concepts and constraints for a particular problem. AIAI TR 191 Ontologies Page 14 One approach to extendibility is the notion of partially shared views [24] in the Process Interchange Format Project [25] (see x 7.1.1) There is a core PIF ontology which all translators operate with. In addition, there are different extensions of this core ontology which not all ontologies may share. In PIF, these extensions are captured by partially shared views, so that ontologies that have a partially shared ....

....tools. In this section, we will focus on two projects that address this problem of inter operability. 7.1. 1 Process Interchange Format To assist inter operability, ontologies can be used as inter lingua in conjunction with translators (figure 2) The goal of the Process Interchange Format project [25] is to support AIAI TR 191 Ontologies Page 35 the exchange of business process models among different process representations. Tools inter operate by translating between their native format and PIF. The project pursues the above goals by developing PIF (an inter lingua to unify heterogeneous ....

J. Lee, G. Yost, and PIF Working Group. The pif process interchange format and framework. Technical Report 180, MIT Center for Coordination Science, 1995.

....protect specifications against conceptual errors. However, we are aware of no system which deploys ontological axioms to check for such errors. This paper describes our early efforts in building this kind of system in the process modelling domain, using the Process Interchange Format(PIF) ontology[5]. The aim of PIF is to develop an interchange format to help automatically exchange process descriptions among a variety of business modelling and support systems. The benefit of using PIF is that it acts as an interlingua among a variety of systems, reducing the number of translators needed from ....

....way(by giving Prolog goals) but this would not include checks against the ontological axioms. To include these we need to look at the other elements of the diagram. The right path starts with the transformation of the ontology s axioms to First Order Predicate Cal 1 PIF examples can be found in [5] and in [11] 2 The axiomatisation was proposed in [9] culus(FOPC) We then translate automatically this axiomatisation to Normal Form using standard LloydTopor transformations [8] Finally the translated axioms are stored in a database of constraints expressed as Prolog clauses. The two paths ....

J. Lee, M. Gruninger, Y. Jin, T. Malone, A. Tate, and G. Yost. The PIF Process Interchange Format and framework, version 1.1. Technical report working paper no 194, MIT center for Coordination Science, 1996.

No context found.

J. Lee, G. Yost and the PIF Working Group, The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework, 1994, http://ccs.mit.edu/pifmain.html

No context found.

Lee, J., Gruninger, M., Jin, Y., Malone, T., Tate, A. and Yost, G. The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework, version 1.1., Standard, MIT Center for Coordination Science, 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC