TY - JOUR
T1 - Erratum
T2 - Process Mining to Discover Shoppers' Pathways at a Fashion Retail Store Using a WiFi-Base Indoor Positioning System(IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering(2017) 14: 4(1786–1792)Doi:10.1109/TASE.2017.2692961)
AU - Liu, Cong
AU - Zeng, Qingtian
AU - Zhou, Mengchu
N1 - Funding Information:
Manuscript received October 29, 2018; accepted May 4, 2019. Date of publication June 4, 2019; date of current version January 9, 2020. This paper was recommended for publication by Associate Editor C. Occhiuzzi and Editor M. P. Fanti upon evaluation of the reviewers’ comments. This work was supported in part by the Science and Technology Development Fund of Shandong Province of China (ZR2017MF027) and in part by the SDUST Research Fund (2015TDJH102). (Corresponding author: Qingtian Zeng.) C. Liu is with the School of Computer Science and Technology, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255000, China (e-mail: liucongchina@sdust.edu.cn).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2004-2012 IEEE.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/1
Y1 - 2020/1
N2 - In the October 2017 issue of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING [1], there are several errors, reported and corrected as follows. Comment 1: There are errors in [1, Definition 2]. Definition 2 (Petri Nets): [1] A Petri net is a process model that uses modeling formalism to represent the flow of a process. In this paper, we used a Petri net to provide information about a discovered model. A Petri net is a triplet (P, T, F), where P is a set of places and T is a set of transitions such that P × T = ø, and F is a set of directed arcs defined as a Cartesian product of P and T: F = (P × T) U (T × P). It should be revised as follows. Definition 2 (Petri Nets): A Petri net is a process model that uses a modeling formalism to represent the flow of a process. It is a triplet (P, T, F), where P is a set of places and T is a set of transitions such that P × T = ø, and F (P × T) U (T × P) is a set of directed arcs from places to transitions and from transitions to places. Note that arcs of a Petri net are defined as a subset of the Cartesian product of P and T, i.e., F (P × T) U (T × P) [2]. Comment 2: The following statement on the first line of the right column of [1, p. 1788] is wrong. "A workflow net is a derivative of the Petri net that guarantees model soundness." A workflow net is defined as a Petri net with a dedicated source place where the process starts and a dedicated sink place where the process ends. However, a workflow net cannot always be guaranteed to be sound. The soundness of a workflow net is decided by checking the boundedness and liveness properties of its corresponding short-circulated net [3]. Comment 3: [1, Fig. 1(a)] is incorrect because it fails to highlight all block structures of the process tree in Fig. 1(b). The correct one is shown in Fig. 1 of this letter. Comment 4: [1, Fig. 2] is incorrect as it does not match the presented log. The corrected one is shown in Fig. 2 of this letter. Comment 5: The following statement on the 19th line of the right column on p. 1790 is not correct. "We used an inductive miner with ProM 6.5.2 and observed that the models are completely different, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8." The process models in Figs. 7 and 8 are not completely different. On the contrary, these two models describe very similar behavior if we consider their produced languages/sequences. Here we take the incoming place of 1f-right as the initial marking and the place without outgoing arcs as the final marking for both models. More precisely, almost all possible sequences produced by the model in Fig. 7 can be replayed by the model in Fig. 8. An exceptional case is the sequence with only 1f-right, i.e., 1f-right is executed and all following steps are skipped. The behavior shown in Fig. 8 is less restrictive than that shown in Fig. 7. The reason Figs. 7 and 8 look structurally different may be due to the fact that the input event log is incomplete.
AB - In the October 2017 issue of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING [1], there are several errors, reported and corrected as follows. Comment 1: There are errors in [1, Definition 2]. Definition 2 (Petri Nets): [1] A Petri net is a process model that uses modeling formalism to represent the flow of a process. In this paper, we used a Petri net to provide information about a discovered model. A Petri net is a triplet (P, T, F), where P is a set of places and T is a set of transitions such that P × T = ø, and F is a set of directed arcs defined as a Cartesian product of P and T: F = (P × T) U (T × P). It should be revised as follows. Definition 2 (Petri Nets): A Petri net is a process model that uses a modeling formalism to represent the flow of a process. It is a triplet (P, T, F), where P is a set of places and T is a set of transitions such that P × T = ø, and F (P × T) U (T × P) is a set of directed arcs from places to transitions and from transitions to places. Note that arcs of a Petri net are defined as a subset of the Cartesian product of P and T, i.e., F (P × T) U (T × P) [2]. Comment 2: The following statement on the first line of the right column of [1, p. 1788] is wrong. "A workflow net is a derivative of the Petri net that guarantees model soundness." A workflow net is defined as a Petri net with a dedicated source place where the process starts and a dedicated sink place where the process ends. However, a workflow net cannot always be guaranteed to be sound. The soundness of a workflow net is decided by checking the boundedness and liveness properties of its corresponding short-circulated net [3]. Comment 3: [1, Fig. 1(a)] is incorrect because it fails to highlight all block structures of the process tree in Fig. 1(b). The correct one is shown in Fig. 1 of this letter. Comment 4: [1, Fig. 2] is incorrect as it does not match the presented log. The corrected one is shown in Fig. 2 of this letter. Comment 5: The following statement on the 19th line of the right column on p. 1790 is not correct. "We used an inductive miner with ProM 6.5.2 and observed that the models are completely different, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8." The process models in Figs. 7 and 8 are not completely different. On the contrary, these two models describe very similar behavior if we consider their produced languages/sequences. Here we take the incoming place of 1f-right as the initial marking and the place without outgoing arcs as the final marking for both models. More precisely, almost all possible sequences produced by the model in Fig. 7 can be replayed by the model in Fig. 8. An exceptional case is the sequence with only 1f-right, i.e., 1f-right is executed and all following steps are skipped. The behavior shown in Fig. 8 is less restrictive than that shown in Fig. 7. The reason Figs. 7 and 8 look structurally different may be due to the fact that the input event log is incomplete.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069903910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069903910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/TASE.2019.2915997
DO - 10.1109/TASE.2019.2915997
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85069903910
VL - 17
SP - 548
JO - IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering
JF - IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering
SN - 1545-5955
IS - 1
M1 - 8730480
ER -