Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explication of Termination Semantics as a Security-Relevant Feature in Business Process Modeling Languages

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management Workshops (BPM 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 171))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1549 Accesses

Abstract

Some business process modeling languages offer explicit constructs for expressing time-out conditions and other termination semantics with regard to process execution. However, the use of these language elements is usually optional, and most languages allow to model business processes without any time-outs or other termination conditions at all. This leads to an underspecification of execution semantics with negative impact on execution safety and security, because it remains open how processes will behave, if some of the involved process steps terminate other than expected, or do not terminate at all. The work presented in this article motivates the obligatory use of termination semantics in business process models and newly created business process modeling languages, especially in domain-specific process modeling languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The work presented in this section has flown into the project ReSCUeIT, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) under support code no. 13N10963 – 13N10968.

References

  1. Fahland, D., Favre, C., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Analysis on demand: instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(5), 448–466 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Friedenstab, J.-P., Janiesch, C., Matzner, M., Müller, O.: Extending BPMN for business activity monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, HI, pp. 1–10 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2006). LNI, vol. 85, pp. 1–12 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Business Process Management Initiative. Business process modeling notation 2.0 (BPMN 2.0) (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.-P.: Domain Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code-Generation. Wiley, New York (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendling, J., Lassen, K.B., Zdun, U.: On the transformation of control flow between block-oriented and graph-oriented process modeling languages. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manage. (IJBPIM). Special Issue on Model-Driven Engineering of Executable Business Process Models 3(2), 96–108 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Monakova, G., Schaad, A.: Visualizing security in business processes. In: SACMAT ’11 Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pp. 147–148. ACM, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WSBPEL) Technical Committee. Web services business process execution language version 2.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html (2007)

  9. Pretschner, A., Hilty, M., Basin, D.: Distributed usage control. Commun. ACM - Priv. Secur. Highly Dyn. Syst. 49, 39–44 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schefer, S., Strembeck, M., Mendling, J., Baumgrass, A.: Detecting and resolving conflicts of mutual-exclusion and binding constraints in a business process context. In: 19th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 2011), Crete, Greece (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Simon, C., Mendling, J.: Verification of forbidden behavior in EPCS. In: Mayr, H.C., Brey, R. (eds) Modellierung 2006. LNI, vol. P-82, pp. 233–242 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 3(14), 5–51 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van Dongen, B.F., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Structural patterns for soundness of business process models. In: Proceedings of the Tenth IEEE International Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), Hong Kong, China, pp. 116–128. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., 16–20 Oct. 2006

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models. Distrib. Parallel Databases (DAPD) 27(3), 271–343 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IT Security Management, University of Siegen, Hölderlinstr. 3, 57068, Siegen, Germany

    Jens Gulden

Authors
  1. Jens Gulden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Gulden .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    Niels Lohmann

  2. Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, Korea, Republic of (South Korea)

    Minseok Song

  3. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Petia Wohed

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gulden, J. (2014). Explication of Termination Semantics as a Security-Relevant Feature in Business Process Modeling Languages. In: Lohmann, N., Song, M., Wohed, P. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2013. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 171. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06257-0_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06257-0_38

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06256-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06257-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation