From Business Process Models to Web Services Orchestration: The Case of UML 2.0 Activity Diagram to BPEL

  • Man Zhang
  • Zhenhua Duan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5364)


The Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL) has emerged as the de facto standard for implementing business processes. At the same time, Model Driven Architecture (MDA) is being applied to the field of business process engineering by separating business logic from the underlying platform technology. However, due to the challenge of mapping graph-oriented modeling languages to block-structured ones and the informal description of UML 2.0 Activity Diagram (AD) and BPEL, transforming AD models to executable BPEL code is not trivial. This paper proposes an approach to transform AD to BPEL and paves the way for further general transformation between graph-oriented and block-structured process modeling languages.


Business Process Activity Diagram Business Process Management Business Process Model Business Process Execution Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (April 11, 2007),
  2. 2.
    Hauser, R., Koehler, J.: Compiling Process Graphs into Executable Code. In: Karsai, G., Visser, E. (eds.) GPCE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3286, pp. 317–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure (8/8/05),
  4. 4.
    Ambühler, T.: UML 2.0 Profile for WS-BPEL with Mapping to WS-BPEL. Universität Stuttgart (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pajunen, L., Ruokonen, A.: Modeling and generating mobile business process. In: Proc. ICWS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.: On Structured Workflow Modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration. IBM Systems Journal 44(1), 47–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhao, W., Hauser, R., Bhattacharya, K., Bryant, B.R., Cao, F.: Compiling business processes: untangling unstructured loops in irreducible flow graphs. IJWGS 2(1), 68–91 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendling, J., Lassen, K.B., Zdun, U.: Transformation strategies between block-oriented and graphoriented process modelling languages. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006. Band 2, pp. 297–312 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View. BPM Center Report BPM-06-22, (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hauser, R., Friess, M., Küster, J.M., Vanhatalo, J.: An incremental approach to the analysis and transformation of workflows using region trees. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C: Applications and reviews 38(3) (May 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through sese decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R.: Untangling Unstructured Cyclic Flows – A Solution Based on Continuations. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 121–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Man Zhang
    • 1
  • Zhenhua Duan
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer Theory & TechnologyXidian UniversityXi’AnP.R. China

Personalised recommendations