From Artifacts to Activities

  • Niels LohmannEmail author
  • Karsten Wolf


We consider services as units in interorganizational business processes. Following trends in the business process management community, we switch from an activity-centric description of processes to artifact-centric descriptions. In the interorganizational setting, unique problems arise. For instance, an artifact hub that is crucial for present-day enactment of artifact-centric processes, can hardly be shared between different organizations since the stored information may be subject to trade secrets. We propose a solution that involves the translation of an artifact-centric model into an activity-centric model. In this course, we consider artifacts as entities that may be sent around between organizations. The location of an artifact may imply access restrictions for one or the other organization. We propose both a formal model and algorithms to show the effectiveness of our approach.


Business Process Goal State Regular Language Business Process Model Controller Synthesis 
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.


  1. 1.
    Aalst, WMPvd, Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C.A., Wainer, J.: Proclets: a framework for lightweight interacting workflow processes. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 10(4), 443–481 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalst, W.M.P.v.d., Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: From public views to private views—correctness-by-design for services. In: WS-FM 2007, LNCS 4937, pp. 139–153. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aalst, W.M.P.v.d., Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Multiparty contracts: agreeing and implementing interorganizational processes. Comput. J. 53(1), 90–106 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aalst, W.M.P.v.d., Mans, R.S., Russell, N.C.: Workflow support using proclets: divide, interact, and conquer. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 16–22 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aalst, W.M.P.v.d., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: WS-FM 2006, LNCS 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alistair Barros, M.D., ter Hofstede, A.: Service interaction patterns. In: BPM 2005, vol. LNCS 3649, pp. 302–318. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: a language to query business processes. In: EMISA 2007, LNI P-119, pp. 115–128. GI (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Visually specifying compliance rules and explaining their violations for business processes. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 22(1), 30–55 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ball, T., Chaki, S., Rajamani, S.K.: Parameterized verification of multithreaded software libraries. In: TACAS 2001, LNCS 2031, pp. 158–173. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben-Ari, M., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of branching time. In: POPL ’81, pp. 164–176. ACM (1981)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Toumani, F.: Representing, analysing and managing Web service protocols. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(3), 327–357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C.E., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: BPM 2007, LNCS 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G.: Contract based multi-party service composition. In: FSEN 2007, LNCS 4767, pp. 207–222. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Hull, R., Su, J.: Artifact-centric workflow dominance. In: ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009, LNCS 5900, pp. 130–143. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carmona, J., Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M.: Genet: A tool for the synthesis and mining of petri nets. In: ACSD 2009, pp. 181–185. IEEE Computer Societey (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Kondratyev, A., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A.: Petrify: A tool for manipulating concurrent specifications and synthesis of asynchronous controllers. Trans. Inf. and Syst. E80-D(3), 315–325 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. In: BPM 2011, LNCS 6896, pp. 396–412. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Emerson, E.A., Kahlon, V.: Reducing model checking of the many to the few. In: CADE 2000, LNCS 1831, pp. 236–254. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fahland, D., de Leoni, M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Behavioral conformance of artifact-centric process models. In: BIS 2011, LNBIP 87, pp. 37–49. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fritz, C., Hull, R., Su, J.: Automatic construction of simple artifact-based business processes. In: ICDT 2009, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 361, pp. 225–238. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerede, C.E., Su, J.: Specification and verfication of artifact behaviors in business process models. In: ICSOC 2007, LNCS 4749, pp. 181–192. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing compliant business processes with obligations and permissions. In: BPM Workshops 2006, LNCS 4103, pp. 5–14. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hariri, B.B., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Masellis, R.D., Felli, P.: Foundations of relational artifacts verification. In: BPM 2011, LNCS 6896, pp. 379–395. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Havelund, K., Roşu, G.: Testing linear temporal logic formulae on finite execution traces. Technical Report 01.08, RIACS (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M.H., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P., Vaculín, R.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: WS-FM 2010, LNCS 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Masellis, R.D., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M.H., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.N., Vaculín, R.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: DEBS 2011, pp. 51–62 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hull, R., Narendra, N.C., Nigam, A.: Facilitating workflow interoperation using artifact-centric hubs. In: ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009, pp. 1–18 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knuplesch, D., Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Pfeifer, H., Dadam, P.: On enabling data-aware compliance checking of business process models. In: ER 2010, LNCS 6412, pp. 332–346. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    König, D., Lohmann, N., Moser, S., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Extending the compatibility notion for abstract WS-BPEL processes. In: WWW 2008, pp. 785–794. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Küster, J.M., Ryndina, K., Gall, H.: Generation of business process models for object life cycle compliance. In: BPM 2007, LNCS 4714, pp. 165–181. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li, D., Wu, Q.: Translating artifact-based business process model to BPEL. In: CSEE (2), Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 215, pp. 482–489. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu, G., Liu, X., Qin, H., Su, J., Yan, Z., Zhang, L.: Automated realization of business workflow specification. In: ICSOC/ServiceWave Workshops, LNCS 6275, pp. 96–108. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lohmann, N.: Why does my service have no partners? In: WS-FM 2008, LNCS 5387, pp. 191–206. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lohmann, N.: Compliance by design for artifact-centric business processes. In: BPM 2011, LNCS 6896, pp. 99–115. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lohmann, N.: Compliance by design for artifact-centric business processes. Inf. Syst. 38,  606–618 (2012) (Accepted for publication in March 2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lohmann, N., Kleine, J.: Fully-automatic translation of open workflow net models into simple abstract BPEL processes. In: Modellierung 2008, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), vol. P-127, pp. 57–72. GI (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Behavioral constraints for services. In: BPM 2007, LNCS 4714, pp. 271–287. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lohmann, N., Nyolt, M.: Artifact-centric modeling using BPMN. In: ICSOC 2011 Workshops, LNCS, vol. 7221, pp. 54–65. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lohmann, N., Weinberg, D.: Wendy: a tool to synthesize partners for services. In: PETRI NETS 2010, LNCS 6128, pp. 297–307. Springer (2010).
  43. 43.
    Lohmann, N., Wolf, K.: Artifact-centric choreographies. In: ICSOC 2010, LNCS 6470, pp. 32–46. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lohmann, N., Wolf, K.: Realizability is controllability. In: WS-FM 2009, LNCS 6194, pp. 110–127. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lohmann, N., Wolf, K.: Decidability results for choreography realization. In: ICSOC 2011, LNCS 7084, pp. 92–107. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.W., Governatori, G.: Compliance aware business process design. In: BPM 2007 Workshops, LNCS 4928, pp. 120–131. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Massuthe, P., Serebrenik, A., Sidorova, N., Wolf, K.: Can I find a partner? Undecidablity of partner existence for open nets. Inf. Process. Lett. 108(6), 374–378 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ngamakeur, K., Yongchareon, S., Liu, C.: A framework for realizing artifact-centric business processes in service-oriented architecture. In: DASFAA 2012, LNCS 7238, pp. 63–78. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Version 2.0, Object Management Group (2011).
  50. 50.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: FOCS 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE (1977)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pnueli, A.: In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In: Logics and models of concurrent systems, volume F-13 of NATO Advanced Summer Institutes, pp. 123–144. Springer (1985)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ryndina, K., Küster, J.M., Gall, H.: Consistency of business process models and object life cycles. In: MoDELS Workshops, LNCS 4364, pp. 80–90. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sackmann, S., Kähmer, M., Gilliot, M., Lowis, L.: A classification model for automating compliance. In: CEC/EEE 2008, pp. 79–86. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sadiq, S.W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: BPM 2007, LNCS 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stahl, C.: Service substitution—a behavioral approach based on Petri nets. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät II; Eindhoven University of Technology (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stahl, C., Massuthe, P., Bretschneider, J.: Deciding substitutability of services with operating guidelines. LNCS T. Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency 2(5460), 172–191 (2009)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wolf, K.: LNCS Trans. Petri Nets Other Models Concurr. Does my service have partners? 5460(2), 152–171 (2009)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yongchareon, S., Liu, C., Zhao, X.: An artifact-centric view-based approach to modeling inter-organizational business processes. In: WISE 2011, LNCS 6997, pp. 273–281. Springer (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations