Deriving Business Process Data Architecturesfrom Process Model Collections

  • Rami-Habib Eid-Sabbagh
  • Marcin Hewelt
  • Andreas Meyer
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8274)


The focus in BPM shifts from single processes to process interactions. Business process architectures were established as convenient way to model and analyze such interactions on an abstract level focusing on message and trigger relations. Shared data objects are often a means of interrelating processes. In this paper, we extract hidden data dependencies between processes from process models with data annotations and their object life cycles. This information is used to construct a business process architecture, thus enabling analysis with existing methods. We describe and validate our approach on an extract from a case study that demonstrates its applicability to real world use cases.


Data Object Data Dependency Business Process Management Start Event Trigger Relation 
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.
    Dijkman, R., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A.: The Road to a Business Process Architecture: an Overview of Approaches and their Use. Technical Report WP-350, Eindhoven University of Technology (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eid-Sabbagh, R.-H., Dijkman, R., Weske, M.: Business Process Architecture: Use and Correctness. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 65–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eid-Sabbagh, R.-H., Hewelt, M., Weske, M.: Business Process Architectures with Multiplicities: Transformation and Correctness. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 227–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mooij, A.J., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Service Interaction: Patterns, Formalization, and Analysis. In: Bernardo, M., Padovani, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) SFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5569, pp. 42–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C.A., Wainer, J.: Proclets: A Framework for Lightweight Interacting Workflow Processes. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 10(4), 443–481 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business Artifacts: A Data-centric Approach to Modeling Business Operations and Processes. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fahland, D., de Leoni, M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance Checking of Interacting Processes with Overlapping Instances. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 345–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer, A., Polyvyanyy, A., Weske, M.: Weak Conformance of Process Models with respect to Data Objects. In: Services and their Composition (ZEUS), pp. 74–80 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 37(3), 410–429 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rami-Habib Eid-Sabbagh
    • 1
  • Marcin Hewelt
    • 1
  • Andreas Meyer
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations