Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models

  • Conference paper
Book cover Business Process Management (BPM 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 6336))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Compatibility of two process models can be verified using common notions of behaviour inheritance. However, these notions postulate 1:1 correspondences between activities of both models. This assumption is violated once activities from one model are refined or collapsed in the other model or in case there are groups of corresponding activities. Therefore, our work lifts the work on behaviour inheritance to the level of complex 1:n and n:m correspondences. Our contribution is (1) the definition of notions of behaviour compatibility for models that have complex correspondences and (2) a structural characterisation of these notions for sound free-choice process models that allows for computationally efficient reasoning. We show the applicability of our technique, by applying it in a case study in which we determine the compatibility between a set of reference process models and models that implement them.

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 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dijkman, R., Dumas, M.: Service-oriented design: a multi-viewpoint approach. IJCIS 13(4), 337–368 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of business processes: A journey visiting four notorious problems. In: Ehrig, H., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G., Weber, H. (eds.) Petri Net Technology for Communication-Based Systems. LNCS, vol. 2472, pp. 383–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guth, V., Oberweis, A.: Delta-analysis of petri net based models for business processes. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Applied Informatics, pp. 23–32 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Basten, T., Aalst, W.: Inheritance of Behavior. JLAP 47(2), 47–145 (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(1), 92–148 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Weske, M.: Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models. Technical report 11-2010, Hasso Plattner Institute, http://bpt.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/pub/Public/MatthiasWeidlich/bc_r.pdf

  7. Aalst, W.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lohmann, N.: A feature-complete Petri net semantics for WS-BPEL 2.0. In: Dumas, M., Heckel, R. (eds.) WS-FM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4937, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information & Software Technology 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(7), 437–447 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Aalst, W.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hack, M.: Decidability Questions for Petri Nets. PhD thesis, M.I.T. (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Valmari, A.: The state explosion problem. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 429–528. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kiepuszewski, B., Hofstede, A., Aalst, W.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inf. 39(3), 143–209 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Aalst, W.: Workflow verification: Finding control-flow errors using petri-net-based techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) BPM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Kovalyov, A., Esparza, J.: A polynomial algorithm to compute the concurrency relation of free-choice signal transition graphs. In: WODES. The Institution of Electrical Engineers, pp. 1–6 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement based on Behavioural Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (2010) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Documentair structuurplan, http://model-dsp.nl/ (accessed: February 20, 2009)

  21. Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S.M., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: ICSE, pp. 54–64. IEEE CS (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Käärik, R.: Aligning business process models. In: EDOC, pp. 45–53 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The ICoP framework: Identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. van Glabbeek, R.J., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Inf. 37(4/5), 229–327 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Aceto, L., Hennessy, M.: Adding action refinement to a finite process algebra. Inf. Comput. 115(2), 179–247 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Quartel, D., Pires, L.F., van Sinderen, M.: On architectural support for behavior refinement in distributed systems design. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 6(1), 1–30 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vogler, W.: Behaviour preserving refinement of petri nets. In: Tinhofer, G., Schmidt, G. (eds.) WG 1986. LNCS, vol. 246, pp. 82–93. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Brauer, W., Gold, R., Vogler, W.: A survey of behaviour and equivalence preserving refinements of petri nets. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) APN 1990. LNCS, vol. 483, pp. 1–46. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Dijkman, R.M.: Similarity search of business process models. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 23–28 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Wombacher, A.: Evaluation of technical measures for workflow similarity based on a pilot study. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 255–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Sokolsky, O., Kannan, S., Lee, I.: Simulation-based graph similarity. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 426–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso-Plattner-Institute, University of Potsdam, Germany

    Matthias Weidlich & Mathias Weske

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Remco Dijkman

Authors
  1. Matthias Weidlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Remco Dijkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathias Weske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IBM Research, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Drive, 10532, Hawthorne, NY, USA

    Richard Hull

  2. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099, Berlin, Germany

    Jan Mendling

  3. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Englerstraße 11, Gebäude 11.40, 76131, Karlsruhe,, Germany

    Stefan Tai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Weske, M. (2010). Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6336. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15618-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15618-2_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-15617-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-15618-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation