Petri Net Transformations for Business Processes – A Survey

  • Niels Lohmann
  • Eric Verbeek
  • Remco Dijkman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5460)


In Process-Aware Information Systems, business processes are often modeled in an explicit way. Roughly speaking, the available business process modeling languages can be divided into two groups.Languages from the first group are preferred by academic people but shunned by business people, and include Petri nets and process algebras. These academic languages have a proper formal semantics, which allows the corresponding academic models to be verified in a formal way. Languages from the second group are preferred by business people but disliked by academic people, and include BPEL, BPMN, and EPCs. These business languages often lack any proper semantics, which often leads to debates on how to interpret certain business models. Nevertheless, business models are used in practice, whereas academic models are hardly used. To be able to use, for example, the abundance of Petri net verification techniques on business models, we need to be able to transform these models to Petri nets. In this paper, we investigate a number of Petri net transformations that already exist.For every transformation, we investigate the transformation itself, the constructs in the business models that are problematic for the transformation and the main applications for the transformation.


Business Process Business Process Management Business Process Execution Language Business Process Modeling Notation Business Process Execution Language Process 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alves, A., et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, April 11, 2007, OASIS (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.: Semantische Processmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Processketten (EPK). Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Heft 89 (in German), University of Saarland, Saarbrücken (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 1.0. OMG Final Adopted Specification, Object Management Group (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Weijland, W.P.: Process Algebra. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, vol. 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets. In: EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dehnert, J.: A Methodology for Workflow Modelling: from Business Process Modelling towards Sound Workflow Specification. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dufourd, C., Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) ICALP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1443, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massuthe, P., Reisig, W., Schmidt, K.: An operating guideline approach to the SOA. Annals of Mathematics, Computing & Teleinformatics 1(3), 35–43 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolf, K.: Does my service have partners? Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency (accepted for publication) (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Mulyar, N.: Workflow control-flow patterns: A revised view. Report BPM-06-22, BPM Center (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information & Software Technology (accepted for publication) (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong, P.Y., Gibbons, J.: A Process Semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Maibaum, T., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008), Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rittgen, P.: Modified EPCs and their Formal Semantics. Technical report 99/19, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Kindler, E.: On the Semantics of EPCs: A Vicious Circle. In: EPK 2002, Trier, Germany, GI, pp. 71–80 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: A framework for resolving the vicious circle. Data and Knowledge Engineering 56(1), 23–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Dongen, B.F., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of the SAP reference models using EPC reduction, state space analysis, and invariants. Computers in Industry 58(6), 578–601 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breugel, F.v., Koshkina, M.: Models and verification of BPEL (2006),
  22. 22.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, H.M.W., Ouyang, C., Stahl, C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Comparing and evaluating Petri net semantics for BPEL. Computer Science Report 07/23, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing interacting BPEL processes. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hinz, S., Schmidt, K., Stahl, C.: Transforming BPEL to Petri nets. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 220–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt, K.: LoLA: A low level analyser. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 465–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lohmann, N., Kleine, J.: Fully-automatic translation of open workflow net models into simple abstract BPEL processes. In: Modellierung 2008, GI. LNI, vol. P-127, pp. 57–72 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Operating guidelines for finite-state services. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4546, pp. 321–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lohmann, N., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., Reisig, W.: Analyzing BPEL4Chor: Verification and participant synthesis. In: Dumas, M., Heckel, R. (eds.) WS-FM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4937, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ouyang, C., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Breutel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Verbeek, H.M.W.: WofBPEL: A tool for automated analysis of BPEL processes. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 484–489. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Woflan 2.0: A Petri-net-based workflow diagnosis tool. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 475–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnozing workflow processes using woflan. The Computer Journal 44(4), 246–279 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Verifying workflows with cancellation regions and OR-joins: An approach based on relaxed soundness and invariants. The Computer Journal 50(3), 294–314 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rozinat, A., Wynn, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Fidge, C.: Workflow simulation for operational decision support using yawl and prom. BPM Center Report BPM-08-04, (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    CPN Group, University of Aarhus, Denmark: CPN Tools Home Page,
  36. 36.
    Wynn, M.T., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Verifying workflows with cancellation regions and OR-joins: An approach based on reset nets and reachability analysis. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 389–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Reduction rules for reset workflow nets. BPM Center Report BPM-06-25, (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Dongen, B.F., de Medeiros, A.K.A., Verbeek, H.M.W., Weijters, A.J.M.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The ProM framework: A new era in process mining tool support. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 444–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R., Hankin, C.: Principles of Program Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Weinberg, D.: Analyzing interacting WS-BPEL processes using flexible model generation. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 38–54 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Lohmann
    • 1
  • Eric Verbeek
    • 2
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Technology ManagementTechnische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations