Horizontal Business Process Model Integration

  • Klaus-Dieter ScheweEmail author
  • Verena Geist
  • Christa Illibauer
  • Felix Kossak
  • Christine Natschläger-Carpella
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
  • Jan Kubovy
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8980)


Modelling business processes in general is a complex endeavour, as many different aspects such as the control flow, the management of data, event and message handling, actors and interaction, exception handling, etc. have to be taken into account, all of which require different models. This paper focuses on the horizontal integration of models for control flow, message flow, event handling, interaction, actors, data and exception handling. The method is based on Abstract State Machines (ASMs), which are used to formally define the semantics of each of the individual models. Throughout the process rigorous quality assurance methods will be applied.


  1. 1.
    Abramowicz, W., Filipowska, A., Kaczmarek, M., Kaczmarek, T.: Semantically enhanced business process modelling notation. In: Hepp, M., et al. (eds.) S-BPM. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 251 (2007). CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blass, A., Gurevich, Y.: Abstract state machines capture parallel algorithms. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 4(4), 578–651 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blass, A., Gurevich, Y.: Abstract State Machines capture parallel algorithms: Correction and extension. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 9(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Börger, E.: Approaches to modeling business processes: a critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(3), 305–318 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger, E., Sörensen, O.: BPMN core modeling concepts: inheritance-based execution semantics. In: Embley, D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Handbook of Conceptual Modeling: Theory, Practice and Research Challenges, pp. 287–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Börger, E., Sörensen, O., Thalheim, B.: On defining the behavior of OR-joins in business process models. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 15(1), 3–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Börger, E., Thalheim, B.: A Method for verifiable and validatable business process modeling. In: Börger, E., Cisternino, A. (eds.) Advances in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5316, pp. 59–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Börger, E., Thalheim, B.: Modeling workflows, interaction patterns, web services and business processes: The ASM-based approach. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleischmann, A., et al.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geist, V.: Integrated Executable Business Process and Dialogue Specification. Ph.D. thesis, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gurevich, Y.: Sequential Abstract State Machines capture sequential algorithms. ACM Trans. Computat. Log. 1(1), 77–111 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kopetzky, T., Geist, V.: Workflow charts and their precise semantics using abstract state machines. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Weske, M. (eds.) Proceedings of EMISA 2012 - Der Mensch im Zentrum der Modellierung, Vienna, Austria (2012). LNI, pp. 11–24. Kllen-Verlag, Bonn (2012) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kossak, F., Illibauer, C., Geist, V.: Event-based gateways: open questions and inconsistencies. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPMN 2012. LNBIP, vol. 125, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kossak, F., et al.: A Rigorous Semantics for BPMN 2.0 Process Diagrams. Springer (2014, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Natschläger, C.: Deontic BPMN. In: Hameurlain, A., Liddle, S.W., Schewe, K.-D., Zhou, X. (eds.) DEXA 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6861, pp. 264–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Natschläger, C.: Towards a BPMN 2.0 ontology. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Natschläger, C., Geist, V., Kossak, F., Freudenthaler, B.: Optional activities in process flows. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Weske, M. (eds.) Der Mensch im Zentrum der Modellierung. LNI. Kllen-Verlag, Bonn (2012) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Natschläger, C., Kossak, F., Schewe, K.D.: BPMN to Deontic BPMN: A trusted model transformation. Journal of Software and Systems Modelling (2014, to appear)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Natschläger, C., Schewe, K.D.: A flattening approach for attributed type graphs with inheritance in algebraic graph transformation. Electron. Commun. EASST 47, 160–173 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Natschläger-Carpella, C.: Extending BPMN with Deontic Logic. Logos Verlag, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petri, C.A.: Communication with automata. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Hamburg (1966)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recker, J.C., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: A comparative analysis (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schewe, K.-D.: Horizontal and vertical business process model integration. In: Decker, H., Lhotská, L., Link, S., Basl, J., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) DEXA 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8055, pp. 1–3. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schewe, K.D., Schewe, B.: Integrating database and dialogue design. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2(1), 1–32 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ter Hofstede, A.M., et al. (eds.): Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.C., Indulska, M.: Sometimes less is more: are process modeling languages overly complex? In: Taveter, K., Gasevic, D. (eds.) 3rd International Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies and Rules for the Enterprise. IEEE, Annapolis (2007) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Verena Geist
    • 1
  • Christa Illibauer
    • 1
  • Felix Kossak
    • 1
  • Christine Natschläger-Carpella
    • 1
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
    • 1
  • Jan Kubovy
    • 2
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
    • 1
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Competence Center HagenbergHagenberg im MühlkreisAustria
  2. 2.Johannes-Kepler-University LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations