Tracking Interoperability and Data Quality: A Methodology with BPMN 2.0 Extensions and Performance Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting. I would suggest the authors include updated references in the introduction section.  Section 2 is interesting to include a table summarizing the main studies and authors in the topic.  Several studies discuss about BPMN and I did not identify these studies in the literature review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "Addressing Data Interoperability Issues Using Extended BPMN Data Objects: A Novel Approach." Your thorough assessment has undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. Below, we address each of your points in turn.

Reviewer 1:

1. We have updated the references in the introduction section to ensure they reflect the most current literature in the field.
2. A table summarizing the main studies and authors in the topic has been included in Section 2 for improved clarity and reference.
3. We have carefully reviewed the literature review to ensure that studies discussing BPMN are adequately represented.

Once again, we extend our appreciation for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our work, and we believe that the revisions made address the concerns raised. We remain committed to further improving the clarity, rigor, and relevance of our research.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, three different definitions are presented, each indicated as coming from the same source (lines 118, 115, and 48). Furthermore, in lines 48 and 115, while the definitions are similar, a divergence is noted due to the omission of the term 'component' in one of them. The purpose of introducing three definitions needs to be clarified.

In line 159, the authors point out a research gap in the area of graphical representation of interoperability in diagrams. In this section, it is necessary to more effectively explain why, for example, communication events between pools in BPMN notation are considered insufficient.

Figures 2 and 3 can be presented together.

Illustrating the patterns of activity aggregation within a process through concrete examples could significantly enhance understanding of the discussions in section 3.3.2. Additionally, it is advisable to address the potential issues of information loss that may arise from aggregating activities in a process.

The article exhibits minor formatting inconsistencies, such as the absence of bullet points in lines 655-661 and truncated text at line 422.

Lastly, the approach to citing literature throughout the article requires standardization for consistency and clarity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "Addressing Data Interoperability Issues Using Extended BPMN Data Objects: A Novel Approach." Your thorough assessment has undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. Below, we address each of your points in turn.

1. The purpose behind presenting three definitions from the same source has been clarified to avoid confusion.
2. We have provided further explanation in Section 3.3.2, including concrete examples to illustrate patterns of activity aggregation within a process and addressing potential issues of information loss.
3. Minor formatting inconsistencies have been rectified throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency and readability.

Once again, we extend our appreciation for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our work, and we believe that the revisions made address the concerns raised. We remain committed to further improving the clarity, rigor, and relevance of our research.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Authors proposed in this manuscript an approach, to identify and address data interoperability issues. Authors provided also to improve data quality. The proposed approach extended the BPMN data object to represent interoperability issues using two concepts, namely dataInteroperabilityBarrier and dataInteroperabilityResolved. Note that the authors provided a tool to support the proposed approach.

 

The topic addressed in the manuscript is interesting. It is relevant to the readers of the journal.  However, the way in which authors deal with the topic considerably limit the theoretical and practical impact of the research. This submission does not propose advances to the field of data interoperability management.

I would like to note that the manuscript is very difficult to read and understand. The English must be revisited. The authors must also perform a proofreading before submitting their manuscript. This would make the review process easier.

 

I found many major concerns while reviewing this manuscript. I would like to mention the issues that led me to reject the submission:

 

1.      It is unclear what objectives guided the design of the approach. This can make it challenging for readers to understand the motivation behind the research and its theoretical and practical contributions especially since they want to deal with interoperability issues that have been widely addressed in the software literature. Authors must clearly motivate their work. Why yet another method?

 

2.      The presentation of the approach lacks concise guidance on its application given a lack of a clear specification of the set of steps to follow.

 

3.       My main concern is regarding the approach itself. Why the authors propose to solve system-level data interoperability issues at the process level? What is the rational behind that? Authors argued that “business process modeling is an interesting tool for the representation of business systems and then of interoperability problems.” This is wrong. Business process models describe business processes. They should in no way represent or attempt to resolve system problems. Systems are designed, developed, and maintained to support business processes, not the opposite. The process describes the real world. The issues at the system level remain at the system level and must be resolved at the system level. Also, the authors must explain that their work is only relevant when the process is supported by more than one system.

 

4.      The approach is not evaluated. Authors must evaluate their approach to support the claims made in the manuscript. A comprehensive evaluation is needed to assess the effectiveness of the approach. Authors must also assess the efficiency of the method as they claim that non-technical user car perform it.

 

5.      The approach itself is questionable. In fact, how to resolve data interoperability issues at the process level when the structure of the latter is not available at the process level (real world).

 

6.      The authors claim that interoperability problem may lead to non-added-value tasks at the process level. I do not agree as the business process describes how to perform business activities, not system activities.

 

7.      The Literature Review section does not highlight work in data interoperability issues. This section must focus on the main problem addressed in the manuscript. It  needs significant rework.

 

8.      Authors must address the following questions. Does the order matter when resolving the incompatibilities? In other words, which interoperability issue should be processed first? Could the changes (to solve the interoperabilities) triggers new interoperabilities issues as data may be shared/reused? Should this be done in an iterative fashion?

 

9.      The presented case study is also offending. It is based on a very simple case with a trivial process.

 

10.  ARIS is not a business process modeling language.

 

11.  The activity 5 (Weigh packages) of Figure 09 is performed by a human actor using a system. It is not a BPMN service task, it is a user-type task. 

Based on the comments above, I found that this manuscript has serious flaws. I recommend rejecting the manuscript. Authors must take the time to rethink and redesign a their approach.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is very difficult to read and understand. The English must be revisited. The authors must also perform a proofreading before submitting their manuscript. This would make the review process easier.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "Addressing Data Interoperability Issues Using Extended BPMN Data Objects: A Novel Approach." Your thorough assessment has undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. Below, we address each of your points in turn.

1. The manuscript title has been revised to better reflect the representation of interoperability, addressing your concern regarding the objectives of the approach.
2. We have added a new paragraph in Section 2.2 to provide concise guidance on the application of our approach.
3. Clarification has been provided regarding why our approach targets system-level data interoperability issues at the process level, along with explanations on the relevance of business process modeling in representing such problems.
4. While a comprehensive evaluation of the approach has been challenging due to its novelty, we have emphasized the need for further evaluation and provided insights into potential metrics and methodologies.
5. The distinction between system-level and process-level activities has been clarified, and adjustments have been made to reflect this in the manuscript.
6. Additional papers addressing data interoperability issues have been included in the literature review section, along with reworked content focusing on the main problem addressed in the manuscript.
7. Perspectives on future research directions have been added to address unanswered questions and limitations of the current study.

Once again, we extend our appreciation for your thorough review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our work, and we believe that the revisions made address the concerns raised. We remain committed to further improving the clarity, rigor, and relevance of our research.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this new version of the manuscript, the authors have managed all my comments and they have improved the manuscript in a way that can be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is difficult to read and understand. The English must be revisited. The authors must perform a proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We did several improvements regarding the English of the paper.

Please find the updated version.

Best regard,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf