Modeling Process Interactions with Coordination Processes

  • Sebastian SteinauEmail author
  • Kevin Andrews
  • Manfred Reichert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11229)


With the rise of data-centric process management paradigms, small and interdependent processes, such as artifacts or object lifecycles, form a business process by interacting with each other. To arrive at a meaningful overall business process, these process interactions must be coordinated. One challenge is the proper consideration of one-to-many and many-to-many relations between interacting processes. Other challenges arise from the flexible, concurrent execution of the processes. Relational process structures and semantic relationships have been proposed for tackling these individual challenges. This paper introduces coordination processes, which bring together both relational process structures and semantic relationships, leveraging their features to enable proper coordination support for interdependent, concurrently running processes. Coordination processes contribute an abstracted and concise model for coordinating the highly complex interactions of interrelated processes.


Process interactions Semantic relationships Many-to-many relationships Relational process structure Coordination process 



This work is part of the ZAFH Intralogistik, funded by the European Regional Development Fund and the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany (F.No. 32-7545.24-17/3/1).


  1. 1.
    Belardinelli, F., Lomuscio, A., Patrizi, F.: Verification of GSM-based artifact-centric systems through finite abstraction. In: Liu, C., Ludwig, H., Toumani, F., Yu, Q. (eds.) ICSOC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7636, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deutsch, A., Li, Y., Vianu, V.: Verification of hierarchical artifact systems. ArXiv e-prints (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eid-Sabbagh, R.-H., Dijkman, R., Weske, M.: Business process architecture: use and correctness. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 65–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahland, D., de Leoni, M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Many-to-many: some observations on interactions in artifact choreographies. In: 3rd Central-European Workshop on Services and their Composition (ZEUS), 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 705, pp. 9–15. (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hull, R., et al.: business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: 5th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-based System (DEBS) 2011, pp. 51–62. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: PHILharmonicFlows: towards a framework for object-aware process management. J. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 23(4), 205–244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 131–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: A new paradigm for the enactment and dynamic adaptation of data-driven process structures. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinau, S., Andrews, K., Reichert, M.: The relational process structure. In: Krogstie, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10816, pp. 53–67. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinau, S., Künzle, V., Andrews, K., Reichert, M.: Coordinating business processes using semantic relationships. In: 19th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), pp. 33–43. IEEE Computer Society Press (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun, Y., Xu, W., Su, J.: Declarative choreographies for artifacts. In: Liu, C., Ludwig, H., Toumani, F., Yu, Q. (eds.) ICSOC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7636, pp. 420–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C.A., Wainer, J.: Proclets: a framework for lightweight interacting workflow processes. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 10(04), 443–481 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Steinau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin Andrews
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations