Extending UN/CEFACT’s modeling methodology by a UML profile for local choreographies

Original Article
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

UN/CEFACT’s modeling methodology (UMM) is a UML profile for specifying global choreographies of inter-organizational e-business systems. As we outline in this paper, the practical use of UMM is limited to bi-lateral business collaborations, since it does not support nested business transactions. This means UMM does not support multi-party business collaborations. UN/CEFACT argues that UMM serves as model capturing the agreements and commitments between business partners. These agreements and commitments are always on a bi-lateral basis. However, a business partner in the middle of a supply chain must establish multiple agreements and commitments with multiple partners. It is the local choreography of a business partner that binds the various bi-lateral models leading to a multi-party choreography. Unfortunately, UN/CEFACT does not give any guidance on how to model the local choreographies. We close this gap by extending UMM by a UML profile for local choreographies.

Keywords

Business process modeling Inter-organizational systems Conceptual modeling Standards Unified modeling language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews T, Curbera F, Dholakia H, Goland Y, Klein J, Leymann F, Liu K, Roller D, Smith D, Thatte S, Trickovic I, Weerawarana S (2003) Business process execution language for web services, version 1.1. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-bpel/
  2. Barros AP, Dumas M, Oaks P (2005) Standards for Web Service choreography and orchestration: status and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the business process management (BPM) workshops, pp 61–74Google Scholar
  3. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (2005) The unified modeling language user guide, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  4. Decker G, Kopp O, Leymann F, Weske M (2007) Bpel4chor: Extending bpel for modeling choreographies. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international conference on Web Services (ICWS 2007). IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 296–303Google Scholar
  5. Dietrich J, Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Liegl P, Schuster R, Zapletal M (2006) Un/cefact’s modeling methodology (umm), umm meta model—foundation module. Technical specification, V1.0. http://www.unece.org/cefact/umm/UMM_Foundation_Module.pdf
  6. Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Kim J-H (2006a) Choreography of ebxml business collaborations. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 4(3):221–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Liegl P, Schuster R, Zapletal M (2006b) Un/cefact’s modeling methodology (umm): a uml profile for b2b e-commerce.. In: Advances in conceptual modeling—theory and practice, ER 2006 workshops. LNCS, vol 4231. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  8. Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Zapletal M (2006c) Registering umm business collaboration models in an ebxml registry. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international conference on E-commerce technology (CEC 2006)/3rd IEEE international conference on enterprise computing (EEE 2006). IEEE Computer Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Liegl P, Schuster R, Zapletal M (2007a) Deriving executable bpel from umm business transactions. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC 2007). IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 178–186Google Scholar
  10. Hofreiter B, Huemer C, Liegl P, Schuster R, Zapletal M (2007b) Umm add-in: a uml extension for un/cefact’s modeling methodology. In: Service-oriented computing—ICSOC 2007, fifth international conference. LNCS, vol 4749. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 618–619Google Scholar
  11. ISO (1995) Open-edi reference model. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC30 ISO Standard 14662Google Scholar
  12. Kavantzas N, Burdett D, Ritzinger G, Fletcher T, Lafon Y, Barreto C (2005) Web services choreography description language, version 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/
  13. Khalaf R (2007) From RosettaNet PIPs to BPEL processes: a three level approach for business protocols. Data Knowl Eng 61(1):23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korherr B, List B (2006) Extending the uml 2 activity diagram with business process goals and performance measures and the mapping to bpel. In: Advances in conceptual modeling—theory and practice, ER 2006 workshops. LNCS, vol 4231. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 7–18Google Scholar
  15. Kraemer D, Yendluri P (2002) Realizing the benefits of implementing rosettanet implementation framework (rnif), version 2.0. http://www.rosettanet.org/cms/export/sites/default/RosettaNet/Downloads/whitePapers/RNIF2finalv3.pdf
  16. Kramler G, Kapsammer E, Kappel G, Retschitzegger W (2005) Towards using uml 2 for modelling web service collaboration protocols. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on interoperability of enterprise software and applications (INTEROP-ESA’05)Google Scholar
  17. Lee RM (2000) Documentary petri nets: a modeling representation for electronic trade procedures. In: Business process management: models, techniques, and empirical studies. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenz K, Oberweis A (2003) Inter-organizational business process management with xml nets. In: Petri net technology for communication-based systems. LNCS, vol 2472. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 243–263Google Scholar
  19. Leymann F, Roller D, Schmidt M-T (2002) Web services and business process management. IBM Syst J New Dev Web Serv E-commerGoogle Scholar
  20. Ling S, Loke SW (2002) Advanced petri nets for modelling mobile agent enabled interorganizational workflows. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international conference on engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS 2002). IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 245–252Google Scholar
  21. List B, Korherr B (2005) A uml 2 profile for business process modelling. In: ER 2005 workshops proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  22. Peltz C (2003) Web services orchestration and choreography. IEEE Comput 36(10):46–52Google Scholar
  23. Penker M, Eriksson H-E (2000) Business modeling with UML: business patterns at work. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Piccinelli G, Emmerich W, Zirpins C, Schütt K (2002) Web service interfaces for inter-organisational business processes: an infrastructure for automated reconciliation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC 2002). IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 285–292Google Scholar
  25. Stitzer A, Crawford M (2003) Core components technical specification—part 8 of the ebxml framework, version 2.01. http://www.unece.org/cefact/ebxml/CCTS_V2-01_Final.pdf
  26. UN/CEFACT (2003) Un/cefact—ebxml business process specification schema, version 1.10. http://www.untmg.org/dmdocuments/BPSS_v110_2003_10_18.pdf
  27. van der Aalst Wil MP (1999) Interorganizational workflows: an approach based on message sequence charts and petri nets. Syst Anal Model Simul 34(3):335–367Google Scholar
  28. van der Aalst Wil MP (2002) Inheritance of interorganizational workflows to enable business-to-business. Electron Commer Res 2(3):195–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van der Aalst Wil MP, Weske M (2001) The p2p approach to interorganizational workflows. In: Advanced information systems engineering, 13th international conference, CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol 2068. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 140–156Google Scholar
  30. White SA (2006) Business process modeling notation specification 1.0. http://www.omg.org/docs/dtc/06-02-01.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Distributed and Multimedia SystemsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of Technology SydneyBroadwayAustralia

Personalised recommendations