Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Semantics of Hybrid Process Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2016 Conferences (OTM 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10033))

Abstract

In the area of business process modelling, declarative notations have been proposed as alternatives to notations that follow the dominant, imperative paradigm. Yet, the choice between an imperative or declarative style of modelling is not always easy to make. Instead, a mixture of these styles is sometimes preferable. This observation has underpinned recent calls for so-called hybrid process modelling notations. In this paper, we present a formal semantics for these. In our proposal, a hybrid process model is hierarchical, where each of its sub-processes may be specified in either an imperative or declarative fashion. The semantics we provide will allow modelling communities to build on the benefits of existing imperative and declarative modelling notations, instead of spending their energy on inventing new ones.

This work is supported in part by the Hybrid Business Process Management Technologies project (funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research) and the Computational Artifacts project (VELUX 33295, 2014–2017). The first author would like to acknowledge Søren Debois and Morten Marquard for their valuable feedback.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    http://dreyersfond.dk/en/.

References

  1. Barukh, M.C., Benatallah, B.: ProcessBase: a hybrid process management platform. In: Franch, X., Ghose, A.K., Lewis, G.A., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8831, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45391-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Carlsen, S.: Action port model: A mixed paradigm conceptual workflow modeling language. In: IFCIS, pp. 300–309 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Declarative process modeling in BPMN. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 84–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Smedt, J., Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J.: Multi-paradigm process mining: retrieving better models by combining rules and sequences. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45563-0_26

    Google Scholar 

  5. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Marquard, M., Slaats, T.: A case for declarative process modelling: Agile development of a grant application system. In: EDOCW/AdaptiveCM 2014, pp. 126–133 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_2

    Google Scholar 

  7. Debois, S., Slaats, T.: The analysis of a real life declarative process. CIDM 2015, 1374–1382 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Haisjackl, C., Barba, I., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 1–28 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES, pp. 59–73 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29320-7_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Maggi, F.M., Slaats, T., Reijers, H.A.: The automated discovery of hybrid processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 392–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_27

    Google Scholar 

  13. Markovic, I., Kowalkiewicz, M.: Linking business goals to process models in semantic business process modeling. In: EDOC, pp. 332–338 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 209–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14538-4

    Google Scholar 

  16. Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. TWEB 4(1), 3 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moody, D.L.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE TSE 35(6), 756–779 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. EDOC 2007, 287–300 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling-an academic dream or the future for bpm? BPM 2013, 307–322 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sadiq, S.W., Orlowska, M.E., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Inf. Syst. 30(5), 349–378 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Slaats, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M.: Exformatics declarative case management workflows as DCR graphs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 339–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J., Poels, G.: Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces. Bus. IS Eng. 58(1), 19–29 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: EDOC, pp. 151–160. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Flexibility as a service. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Liu, Q., Deng, K. (eds.) DASFAA 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5667, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04205-8_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Comp. Sc. R&D 23, 99–113 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Cpn tools 4: A process modeling tool combining declarative and imperative paradigms. In: BPM (Demos) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 283–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. BPMDS 2012, 167–181 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Muehlen, M.Z., Indulska, M.: Indulska.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: A representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 379–390 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Tijs Slaats

  2. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Dennis M. M. Schunselaar & Hajo A. Reijers

  3. University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Fabrizio M. Maggi

  4. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Hajo A. Reijers

Authors
  1. Tijs Slaats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis M. M. Schunselaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabrizio M. Maggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hajo A. Reijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tijs Slaats .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

    Christophe Debruyne

  2. University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

    Hervé Panetto

  3. TU Graz, Graz, Austria

    Robert Meersman

  4. La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

    Tharam Dillon

  5. Institute of Computer Languages, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    eva Kühn

  6. ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

    Declan O'Sullivan

  7. Università degli Studi di Milano Crema, Crema, Italy

    Claudio Agostino Ardagna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Slaats, T., Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A. (2016). The Semantics of Hybrid Process Models. In: Debruyne, C., et al. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2016 Conferences. OTM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10033. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48471-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48472-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation