SEKE 2012 Proceedings - Knowledge Systems Institute

ecordProblem → A → reproduceProblem => recordProblem
→ A → [recorded] → reproduceProblem; recordProblem → A
→ auditAndRecord => recordProblem → A → [recorded] →
[program statement rectified] → auditAndRecord;
recordProblem → A → communicateResult => recordProblem
→ A → [recorded] → [program statement rectified] →
communicateResult; recordProblem → A → terminate =>
recordProblem → A → [not recorded] → terminate.
A digraph [12] is deployed to visualize all the objects and
action relations constructed, as shown in Fig. 8.
INITIAL
TERMINATE
[not recorded]
T
Record Problem
[not recorded]
A
[recorded]
[recorded]
Reproduce Problem
idProblemAndResolution → D → verify Resolution → E →
[problem not solved] → idProblemAndResolution → ...
Next, the controls will be created by detecting the patterns
as described in [13], whether they appear in the digraph. For
example, if a node has more than one outgoing edges, this will
signify the insertion of a fork, a decision, or both a fork and a
decision node. A fork node will be inserted to the node which
has all outgoing edges that are normal-type without label, while
a decision node will be inserted to the node which has all
outgoing edges that are normal-type with label. In Fig. 8, a
decision node will be inserted to object A, B, and E. Based on
Fig. 8, the insertion of a decision node to object [recorded], as
shown in Fig. 9, results from applying the following process
algebra (6) to reduce the complexity.
Refer to [10] a . b + a. c = a . (b + c) (6)
then [recorded] . reproduceProblem
+ [recorded] . [problem statement rectified] =
[recorded] . (reproduceProblem+[problem statement rectified])
[cannot reproduce problem]
[can reproduce problem]
B
[duplication
of another
problem]
[not recorded]
A
[recorded]
[not recorded]
A
[recorded]
[cannot reproduce
problem]
[can reproduce
problem]
[duplication of
another problem]
[not recorded]
[recorded]
[not recorded]
[recorded]
[known
problem
and
solution]
Correct Problem
[known problem
and solution]
ID Problem and
Resolution
C
D
[else]
[problem not solved]
[problem
not solved]
Verify Resolution
E
[problem statement
rectified]
[else]
Figure 9. Example of mapping decision pattern
Considering auditAndRecord and communicateResult, they
have quite complex incoming edges providing tokens from four
nodes. The result of using the simple fork pattern is illustrated
in Fig. 10a. Process algebra is further applied to reduce the
complexity or the number of edges. That is, from Fig. 8, let s1
be C, s2 be [known problem and solution], s3 be [else], s4 be
[problem statement rectified], t1 be auditAndRecord, and t2 be
communicateResult, then s1 . (t1 || t2) + s2 . (t1 || t2) + s3 . (t1 ||
t2) + s4 . (t1 || t2) = (s1 + s2 + s3 + s4) . (t1 || t2). The result is
shown in Fig. 10b.
[problem
statement
rectified]
[known problem
and solution]
C
[else]
[problem statement
rectified]
Audit and Record
Communicate Result
F
G
Normal
Loop
Audit and Record
Communicate Result
(a)
TERMINATE
T
Figure 8. Digraph of objects and action relations
Terminate
[known problem
and solution]
C
[else]
[problem statement
rectified]
When an edge has the ancestor action node as the target of
the edge, it is considered as a lo op-type edge. Example looptype
edge existing in Fig. 8 is the edge, which has [problem not
solved] as source and idProblemAndResolution as target. It is
observed that idProblemAndResolution is simultaneously the
ancestor node and the target node on the looping path:
Audit and Record
Communicate Result
Figure 10. Example of mapping fork pattern (a) without combined fork nodes
(b) with combined fork nodes
(b)
728