Advertisement

UML Activity Diagrams as a Workflow Specification Language

  • Marlon Dumas
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2185)

Abstract

If UML activity diagrams are to succeed as a standard in the area of organisational process modeling, they need to compare well to alternative languages such as those provided by commercial Workflow Management Systems. This paper examines the expressiveness and the adequacy of activity diagrams for workflow specification, by systematically evaluating their ability to capture a collection of workflow patterns. This analysis provides insights into the relative strengths and weaknesses of activity diagrams. In particular, it is shown that, given an appropriate clarification of their semantics, activity diagrams are able to capture situations arising in practice, which cannot be captured by most commercial Workflow Management Systems. On the other hand, the study shows that activity diagrams fail to capture some useful situations, thereby suggesting directions for improvement.

Keywords

Activity Diagram Compound State Outgoing Transition Wait State Discriminator Pattern 
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.
    J.Ø. Aagedal and Z. Milosevic. ODP enterprise language: An UML perspective. In Proc. of The 3rd International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, Mannheim, Germany, 1999. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst. The application of Petri nets to workflow management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 8(1):21–66, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. P. Barros, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, and B. Kiepuszewski. Advanced workflow patterns. In Proc. of the 5th IFCIS Int. Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Eilat, Israel, September 2000. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. H. M ter Hofstede, B. Kiepuszewski, and A. Barros. Workflow patterns. Technical Report WP 47, BETA Research Institute, 2000. Accessed March 2001 from http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns.
  5. 5.
    E. Börger, A. Cavarra, and E. Riccobene. An ASM semantics for UML activity diagrams. In Proc. of the International Conference on Algebraic Methodologyand Software Technology(AMAST), Iowa City, IO, USA, May 2000. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Casati, S. Ceri, B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi. Conceptual modeling of workflows. In Proc. of the 14th International Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modelling Conference (OOER’95), pages 341–354. Springer Verlag, December 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Eshuis and R. Wieringa. A formal semantics for UML activity diagrams-Formalising workflow models. Technical Report CTIT-01-04, University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Fowler and K. Scott. UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language (Second Edition). Addison Wesley, Readings MA, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Harel and A. Naamad. The statemate semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(4):293–333, October 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Kiepuszewski, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, and C. Bussler. On structured workflow modelling. In Proc. of the Int. Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Stockholm, Sweden, June 2000. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Leymann and D. Roller. Production Workflow: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Muth, D. Wodtke, J. Weissenfels, A. K. Dittrich, and G. Weikum. From centralized workflow specification to distributed workflow execution. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(2), March 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The precise UML group. Home page. http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/puml/.
  14. 14.
    UML Revision Task Force. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.4 (final draft). February 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Schader and A. Korthaus. Modeling business processes as part of the BOOSTER approach to business object-oriented systems development based on UML. In Proc. of The Second International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC). IEEE Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Object Management Group. UML Extensions for Workflow Process Definition, RFP-bom/2000-12-11. Accessed on June 2001 from ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/bom/00-12-11.pdf.
  18. 18.
    The Workflow Management Coalition. The Workflow Reference Model. http://www.aiim.org/wfmc/standards/docs/tc003v11.pdf, accessed on January 2001.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlon Dumas
    • 1
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 1
  1. 1.Cooperative Information Systems Research CentreQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations