Advertisement

On Structured Workflow Modelling

  • Bartek Kiepuszewski
  • Arthur Harry Maria ter Hofstede
  • Christoph J. Bussler
Chapter

Abstract

While there are many similarities between the languages of the various workflow management systems, there are also significant differences. One particular area of differences is caused by the fact that different systems impose different syntactic restrictions. In such cases, business analysts have to choose between either conforming to the language in their specifications or transforming these specifications afterwards. The latter option is preferable as this allows for a separation of concerns. In this paper we investigate to what extent such transformations are possible in the context of various syntactical restrictions (the most restrictive of which will be referred to as structured workflows). We also provide a deep insight into the consequences, particularly in terms of expressive power, of imposing such restrictions.

Keywords

Initial Activity Parallel Structure Auxiliary Variable Expressive Power Exit Point 
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.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst and A.H.M. ter Hofstede. Verification of Workflow Task Structures: A Petri-net-based Approach. Information Systems, 2000. (to appear).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.P. Barros and A.H.M. ter Hofstede. Towards the construction of workflowsuitable conceptual modelling techniques. Information Systems Journal, 8(4):313– 337, October 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Best, R. Devillers, A. Kiehn, and L. Pomello. Concurrent bisimulations in Petri nets. Acta Informatica, 28:231–254, 1991.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.J. van Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.W. Klop, editors, Proceedings of CONCUR’90. Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extension, pages 278–297, Berlin, Germany, 1990. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.H.M. ter Hofstede and B. Kiepuszewski. Formal Analysis of Deadlock Behaviour in Workflows. Technical report, Queensland University of Technology/Mincom, Brisbane, Australia, April 1999. (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.H.M. ter Hofstede and M.E. Orlowska. On the Complexity of Some Verification Problems in Process Control Specifications. Computer Journal, 42(5):349–359, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Jablonski and C. Bussler. Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture, and Implementation. International Thomson Computer Press, London, United Kingdom, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Jančar. Decidability Questions for Bismilarity of Petri Nets and Some Related Problems. In P. Enjalbert, E.W. Mayr, and K.W. Wagner, editors, STACS 94, 11th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 775 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 581–592, Caen, France, February 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Oulsnam. Unravelling Unstructured Programs. Computer Journal, 25(3):379– 387, 1982.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Sadiq and M.E. Orlowska. Applying Graph Reduction Techniques for Identifying Structural Conflicts in Process Models. In Proceedings of the 11th Conf on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’99), pages 195–209, Hildeberg, Germany, June 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. H. Williams. Generating structured flow diagrams: the nature of unstructuredness. Computer Journal, 20(1):45–50, 1977.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bartek Kiepuszewski
    • 1
  • Arthur Harry Maria ter Hofstede
    • 2
  • Christoph J. Bussler
    • 3
  1. 1.Mincom LimitedBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Cooperative Information Systems Research CentreQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Netfish Technologies Inc.Santa ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations