Advertisement

Towards a Methodology for Semantic Business Process Modeling and Configuration

  • Ingo Weber
  • Jörg Hoffmann
  • Jan Mendling
  • Jörg Nitzsche
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4907)

Abstract

This paper discusses potential benefits from adding semantics to Business Process Management from a methodological point of view, with a focus on the Modeling and Configuration phases. For this purpose, in each of these phases the established activities are examined and new activities are suggested: Firstly, we suggest combining existing control flow validation techniques with semantic process validation techniques. Second, discovery and composition techniques can be used to find implementations, e.g. services (or combinations of services), for the implementation of process activities at modeling time. The discovered implementations allow for mapping the process steps to the IT infrastructure according to several strategies during process configuration, which helps clearly separating modeling from configuration concerns. Furthermore, a new way of testing executable process models is suggested.

Keywords

Business Process Model Check Business Process Management Executable Process Business Process Modelling Notation 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Hepp, M., Hinkelmann, K., Karagiannis, D., Klein, R., Stojanovic, N. (eds.): Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Business Process and Product Lifecycle Management (SBPM 2007), Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Dept. of the Treasury, CIO Council: Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.0 (2000) [Retrieved September 4, 2007], http://www.eaframeworks.com/TEAF/teaf.doc
  3. 3.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow - Concepts and Techniques. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.): Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Hee, K., Sidorova, N., Somers, L., Voorhoeve, M.: Consistency in model integration. Data & Knowledge Engineering 56, 4–22 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frederiks, P.J.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Information modeling: The process and the required competencies of its participants. Data & Knowledge Engineering 58, 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fantini, P., Savoldelli, A., Milanesi, M., Carizzoni, G., Koehler, J., Stein, S., Angeli, R., Hepp, M., Roman, D., Brelage, C., Born, M.: SUPER Deliverable D2.2: Semantic Business Process Life Cycle (August 6, 2007) (2007), http://www.ip-super.org/res/Deliverables/M12/D2.2.pdf
  8. 8.
    Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M. (eds.): Preparation of Process Modeling. Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes, pp. 41–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-friendly Semantic Annotation in Business Process Modeling. In: Hf-SDDM 2007: Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking, at WISE 2007, Nancy, France (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markovic, I., Pereira, A.C.: A formal framework for reuse in business process modeling. In: Workshop on Advances in Semantics for Web services (semantics4ws), at BPM 2007, Brisbane, Australia (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing Workflow Processes using Woflan. The Computer Journal 44, 246–279 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging The Gap Between Business Models And Workflow Specifications. International J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 13, 289–332 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and Verification of EPCs with OR-Joins Based on State and Context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wynn, M.T., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Achieving a General, Formal and Decidable Approach to the OR-Join in Workflow Using Reset Nets. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 423–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pistore, M., Traverso, P., Bertoli, P.: Automated composition of web services by planning in asynchronous domains. In: 15th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society Press, Providence (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Atluri, V.: The Specification and Enforcement of Authorization Constraints in Workflow Management Systems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nitzsche, J., van Lessen, T., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: BPEL for Semantic Web Services (submitted, 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alves, A., Arkin, A., Askary, S., Barreto, C., Bloch, B., Curbera, F., Ford, M., Goland, Y., Guízar, A., Kartha, N., Liu, C.K., Khalaf, R., König, D., Marin, M., Mehta, V., Thatte, S., van der Rijn, D., Yendluri, P., Yiu, A.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language version 2.0. Committee specification, OASIS (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the Translation between BPMN and BPEL: Conceptual Mismatch between Process Modeling Languages. In: Latour, T., Petit, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 521–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendling, J., Lassen, K., Zdun, U.: On the transformation of control flow between block-oriented and graph-oriented process modeling languages. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., Breutel, S., ter Hofstede, A.: Translating standard process models to BPEL. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 417–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nitzsche, J., van Lessen, T., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: WSMO/X in the Context of Business Processes: Improvement Recommendations. International Journal of Web Information Systems (2007) ISSN: 1744-0084Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haller, A., Cimpian, E., Mocan, A., Oren, E., Bussler, C.: WSMX – a semantic service-oriented architecture. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2005), Orlando, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, Z., Sun, W., Du, B.: Bpel4ws unit testing: Framework and implementation. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chappell, D.A.: Enterprise Service Bus. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abramowicz, W., Filipowska, A., Kaczmarek, M., Kaczmarek, T.: Semantically enhanced Business Process Modelling Notation. In: [1]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Weber
    • 1
  • Jörg Hoffmann
    • 2
  • Jan Mendling
    • 3
  • Jörg Nitzsche
    • 4
  1. 1.SAP Research KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.DERIUniversity of InnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.BPM ClusterQueensland University of TechnologyAustralia
  4. 4.Institute of Architecture of Application SystemsUniversity of StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations