Advertisement

Enabling Business Process Interoperability Using Contract Workflow Models

  • Jelena Zdravkovic
  • Vandana Kabilan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3760)

Abstract

Business transactions are governed by legally established contracts. Contractual obligations are to be fulfilled by executing business processes of the involved parties. To enable this, contract terms and conditions need to be semantically mapped to process concepts and then analyzed for compliance with existing process models. To solve the problem, we propose a methodology that, using a layered contract ontology, deduces contract requirements into a high-level process description named Contract Workflow Model (CWM). By applying a set of transformation rules, the CWM is then compared for compliance with existing, executable process models. By the use of its concepts, the methodology enables comprehensive identification and evolution of requirements for interoperability of processes of the contracting parties.

Keywords

Business Process Business Process Management Business Process Model Business Process Execution Language Contract Obligation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Daskalopulu, A., Sergot, M.: The Representation of Legal Contracts. AI and Society, vol. 11(1,2). Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffel, M., et al.: Electronic Contracting with COSMOS - How to Establish, Negotiate and Execute Electronic Contracts on the Internet. In: Proceedings of the Int. Workshop EDOC 1998, San Diego (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, R.: Toward Open Electronic Contracting. The International Journal of Electronic Markets 8(3) (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan, Y.H., Thoen, W.: A Logical Model of Directed Obligations and Permissions to Support Electronic Contracting. The International Journal of Electronic Markets 10(1) (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karlapalem, K., Dani, A., Krishna, R.: A Framework for Modeling Electronic Contracts. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kabilan, V., Johannesson, P., Rugaimukamu, D.M.: Business Contract Obligation Monitor-ing through use of Multi-Tier Contract Ontology. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM-WS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2889, pp. 690–702. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grosof, B., Poon, T.: SweetDeal: Representing Agent Contracts with exception using XML rules, Ontologies and process descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, Hungary. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alonso, G., et al.: WISE: Business-to-Busibness E-Commerce. In: Proceedings of 9th International Workshop on Research Issues and Data Engineering, Sidney, Australia. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grefen, P., et al.: CrossFlow: Cross-organizational Workflow Management in Dynamic Virtual Enterprises. International Journal of Computer Systems 15(5) (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angelov, S., Grefen, P.: Support for B2B E-Contracting – The Process Perspective. In: IFIP Conference Proceedings of 5th Int. Conf. on Information Technology for Balanced Automation Systems in Manufacturing and Services (BASYS 2002), Mexico, p. 229. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of Interorganizational Workflows to Enable Business-to-Business E-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 2(3). Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ICC International contract for sale of goods. ICC books (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramberg, J.: ICC Guide to INCOTERMS 2000. Understanding and Practical Use; International Chamber of Commerce (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IEEE’s Suggested Upper Merged Ontology, http://suo.ieee.org
  15. 15.
    Kabilan, V., Zdravkovic, J., Johannesson, P.: Use of Multi-Tier Contract Ontology to deduce Contract Workflow Models for Enterprise Interoperability. In: Proceedings of 2nd INTEROP-EMOI open workshop on Enterprise Models and Interoperability collocated with CAISE 2005, Porto (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kabilan, V.: Contract Workflow Model Patterns Using BPMN. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2005), co located with Caise 2005, Porto (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    White, S.: Business Process Modeling Notation, version 1.0. Business Management Initiative (May 2004), http://www.bpmi.org
  18. 18.
    BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP and Siebel. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL) (June 9, 2004), http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-bpel/
  19. 19.
    Jablonski, S.: A Software Architecture for Workflow Management Systems. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 1998), Vienna, Austria, August 1998, pp. 739–744. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rausch-Scott, S.: TriGSflow – Workflow Management Based on Active Object-Oriented Database Systems and Extended Transaction Mechanisms. PhD Thesis, Univ. at Linz (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernstein, P., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Data-base Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garcia-Molina, H.: Modeling Long-Running Activities as Nested Sagas. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 14(1), 14–18 (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Basten, T.: Inheritance in Workflows. An Approach to Tackling Problems Related to Change. Theoretical Computer Science 270(1-2), 125–203 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Groote, J.F., Vaandrager, F.: An Efficient Algorithm for Branching Bisimulation and Stuttering Equivalence. In: Proceedings 17th ICALP. LNCS, vol. 443, pp. 626–638. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelena Zdravkovic
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vandana Kabilan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of GävleGävleSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm University, and Royal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations