Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 517–535 | Cite as

Detection and resolution of conflicting change operations in version management of process models

  • Christian Gerth
  • Jochen M. Küster
  • Markus Luckey
  • Gregor Engels
Special Section Paper

Abstract

Version management of process models requires that different versions of process models are integrated by applying change operations. Conflict detection between individually applied change operations and conflict resolution support are integral parts of version management. For conflict detection it is utterly important to compute a precise set of conflicts, since the minimization of the number of detected conflicts also reduces the overhead for merging different process model versions. As not every syntactic conflict leads to a conflict when taking into account model semantics, a computation of conflicts solely on the syntax leads to an unnecessary high number of conflicts. Moreover, even the set of precisely computed conflicts can be extensive and their resolution means a significant workload for a user. As a consequence, adequate support is required that guides a user through the resolution process and suggests possible resolution strategies for individual conflicts. In this paper, we introduce the notion of syntactic and semantic conflicts for change operations of process models. We provide a method how to efficiently compute conflicts precisely, using a term formalization of process models and consider the subsequent resolution of the detected conflicts based on different strategies. Using this approach, we can significantly reduce the number of overall conflicts and reduce the amount of work for the user when resolving conflicts.

Keywords

Business process model Version management Conflict detection Conflict resolution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. In: Proceedings of UML’03. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altmanninger K.: Models in conflict—towards a semantically enhanced version control system for models. In: Giese, H. (ed) Proceedings of MODELS’07 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5002, pp. 293–304. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bae J., Caverlee J., Liu L., Yan H.: Process mining by measuring process block similarity. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds) Proceedings of BPM’06 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 141–152. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanc, X., Mounier, I., Mougenot, A., Mens, T.: Detecting model inconsistency through operation-based model construction. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering, ICSE ’08, pp. 511–520. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brosch, P., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: Towards End-User Adaptable Model Versioning: The By-Example Operation Recorder. In: Proceedings of CVSM’09 @ ICSE, pp. 55–60. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brosch, P., Kappel, G., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M., Kargl, H., Langer, P.: Adaptable Model Versioning in Action. In: Modellierung 2010, pp. 221–236. LNI 161, GI (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cicchetti A., Di Ruscio D., Pierantonio A.: Managing model conflicts in distributed development. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds) Proceedings of MODELS’08. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 311–325. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conradi R., Westfechtel B.: Version models for software configuration management. ACM Comput. Surv. 30, 232–282 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dijkman R.M.: Diagnosing differences between business process models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds) Proceedings of BPM’08. LNCS, vol 5240, pp. 261–277. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eclipse Foundation. Atlas Model Weaver (AMW). http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/amw/ (2009)
  11. 11.
    Eclipse Foundation. EMF Compare. http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emft/?project=compare (2009)
  12. 12.
    Eder, J., Gruber, W., Pichler, H.: Transforming Workflow Graphs. In: Proceedings of INTEROP-ESA’05, vol. 2, pp. 203–214. Springer London, Genf, Switzerland (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keith Edwards, W.: Flexible conflict detection and management in collaborative applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’97, pp. 139–148. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: Proceedings of APCCM’07. CRPIT, vol. 67, pp. 71–80. Australian Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerth, C., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Language-independent change management of process models. In: Proceedings of MODELS’09. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 152–166. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerth, C., Luckey, M., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Detection of semantically equivalent fragments for business process model change management. In: Proceedings of SCC’10, pp. 57–64. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerth, C., Küster, J., Luckey, M., Engels, G.: Precise Detection of Conflicting Change Operations using Process Model Terms. In: Proceedings of MODELS’10. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 93–107. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kappel, G., Kapsammer, E., Kargl, H., Kramler, G., Reiter, T., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: Lifting metamodels to ontologies: a step to the semantic integration of modeling languages. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) Proceedings of MODELS’06. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 528–542. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A generic difference algorithm for UML models. In: Liggesmeyer, P., Pohl, K., Goedicke, M. (eds.) Proceedings of Software Engineering 2005, vol. 64, pp. 105–116. GI (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiepuszewski, B.: Expressiveness and suitability of languages for control flow modelling in workflows. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koegel, M., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., von Wesendonk, O., Helming, J.: Operation-based conflict detection. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice, IWMCP ’10, pp. 21–30. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kolovos D.S., Paige R., Polack F.: Merging models with the epsilon merging language (EML). In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds) Proceedings of MODELS’06. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 215–229. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Küster J.M., Gerth C., Engels G.: Dependent and conflicting change operations of process models. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A. (eds) Proceedings of ECMDA-FA’09. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 158–173. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Küster J.M., Gerth C., Engels G.: Dynamic computation of change operations in version management of business process models. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B. (eds) Proceedings of ECMFA’10. LNCS, vol. 6138, Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Küster J.M., Gerth C., Förster A., Engels G.: Detecting and resolving process model differences in the absence of a change log. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M. (eds) Proceedings of BPM’08. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Letkeman, K.: Comparing and merging UML models in IBM Rational Software Architect: Part 3. A deeper understanding of model merging. In: IBM Developerworks (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li C., Reichert M., Wombacher A.: On measuring process model similarity based on high-level change operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E.S.K., Olivé, A. (eds) Proceedings of ER’08. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lippe, E., van Oosterom, N.: Operation-based Merging. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments, SDE 5, pp. 78–87. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mendling J., van der Aalst W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of EPCs with OR-joins based on state and context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds) Proceedings of CAiSE’07. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mens T.: A state-of-the-art survey on software merging. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(5), 449–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murata T.: Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S.M., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: Proceedings of ICSE’07, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/(2011)
  34. 34.
    Pottinger, R., Bernstein, P.A.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB’03), vol. 29, pp. 826–873 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rinderle S., Reichert M., Dadam P.: Disjoint and overlapping process changes: challenges, solutions, applications. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds) Proceedings of CoopIS’04. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 101–120. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sadiq W., Orlowska M.E.: Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taentzer, G., Ermel, C., Langer, P., Wimmer, M.: Conflict detection for model versioning based on graph modifications. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Graph Transformations, ICGT’10, pp. 171–186. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Glabbeek, R.J.: The linear time-branching time spectrum I—the semantics of concrete, sequential processes. In: Handbook of Process Algebra, Chapter 1, pp. 3–99. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van der Aalst W.M.P., de Medeiros A.K.A., Weijters A.J.M.M.: Process equivalence: comparing two process models based on observed behavior. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds) Proceedings of BPM’09. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 129–144. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.M.W.: An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In: Proceedings of CAiSE’02. LNCS, volume 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R.M., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: CAiSE. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    van Dongen B.F., van der Aalst W.M.P., Verbeek H.M.W.: Verification of EPCs: using reduction rules and Petri nets. In: Pastor, O., e Cunha, J.F. (eds) Proceedings of CAiSE’05. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 372–386. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: Proceedings of ICSOC’07. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weber B., Rinderle S., Reichert M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds) CAiSE’07. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weidlich, M., Weske, M., Mendling, J.: Change propagation in process models using behavioural profiles. In: Proceedings of SCC’09, pp. 33–40. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Westfechtel, B.: A formal approach to three-way merging of emf models. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice, IWMCP ’10, pp. 31–41. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wombacher, A., Li, C.: Alternative approaches for workflow similarity. In: Proceedings of SCC’10, pp. 337–345. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Gerth
    • 1
  • Jochen M. Küster
    • 2
  • Markus Luckey
    • 1
  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.IBM Research-ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations