Verification of Business Process Integration Options

  • Georg Grossmann
  • Michael Schrefl
  • Markus Stumptner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4102)

Abstract

We propose a meta framework architecture for supporting the behaviour based integration of two business processes. The meta level provides basic integration operators to the domain engineer to create integration options for specific domains. Based on semantic relationships between nodes of two business processes these integration options are executed and transform parts of the business processes. The outcome of the model transformation is an integrated business process. Because of the arbitrary combination of basic integration operators, a potentially infinite set of integration options may be applicable, and some of these may lead to an incorrect business process. We analyse our framework according to a set of consistency criteria and propose verification and validation mechanisms to keep the integrated model consistent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chebbi, I., Dustdar, S., Tata, S.: The view-based approach to dynamic inter-organizational workflow cooperation. Data and Knowledge Engineering 56(2), 139–173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossmann, G., Ren, Y., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior Based Integration of Composite Business Processes. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 186–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Classification of business process correspondences and associated integration operators. In: Wang, S., Tanaka, K., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W., Guan, J., Yang, D.-q., Grandi, F., Mangina, E.E., Song, I.-Y., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2004. LNCS, vol. 3289, pp. 653–666. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: A Framework for the Verification of UML Models. Examples Using Petri Nets. In: VIII Jornadas Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD 2003), pp. 325–334 (November 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Special Issue on Enterprise Modelling and System Support. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(4), 191–253 (October 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Honeywell Inc. Domain Modeling Environment (DoME), http://www.htc.honeywell.com/dome2
  7. 7.
    MetaCase. MetaEdit+ (last access 07/03/2006), http://www.metacase.com/mep/
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group (OMG). UML Superstructure Version 2.0 (August 2005) (2005-07-04), http://www.omg.org/uml
  9. 9.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn., Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: On Correctness Issues in Conceptual Modeling of Workflows. In: Proc. of ECIS 1997 (June 1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snoeck, M.: Sequence constraints in business modelling and business process modelling. Enterprise Information Systems 4, 194–201 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stumptner, M., Schrefl, M., Grossmann, G.: On the road to behavior-based integration. In: Proc. of APCCM 2004, pp. 15–22. Australian Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Loosely coupled interorganizational workflows: modeling and analyzing workflows crossing organizational boundaries. Information Management 37(2), 67–75 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Hee, K., Sidorova, L.S.N., Voorhoeve, M.: Consistency in model integration. Data and Knowledge Engineering 56(1), 4–22 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing Workflow Processes using Woflan. The Computer Journal 44(4), 246–279 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wombacher, A., Mahleko, B., Neuhold, E.: Ipsi-pf: A business process matchmaking engine. In: Int’l. IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC 2004), pp. 137–145 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodman, S.J., Palmer, D.J., Shrivastava, S.K., Wheater, S.M.: Notations for the Specification and Verification of Composite Web Services. In: Proc. of EDOC 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Grossmann
    • 1
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 1
  • Markus Stumptner
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Computing Research CentreUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations