Checking Business Process Models for Compliance – Comparing Graph Matching and Temporal Logic

  • Dennis M. RiehleEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)


Business Process Compliance Management (BPCM) is an integral part of Business Process Management (BPM). A key objective of BPCM is to ensure and maintain compliance of business processes models with certain regulations, e.g. governmental laws. As legislation may change fast and unexpectedly, automated techniques for compliance checking are of great interest among researchers and practitioners. Two dominant concepts in this area are graph-based pattern matching and pattern matching based on temporal logic. This paper compares these two approaches by implementing four compliance patterns from literature with both approaches. It discusses what requirements both approaches have towards business process models and shows how to meet them. The results show that temporal logic is not able to fully capture all four patterns.


Process querying Pattern matching Compliance patterns Graph matching GMQL Temporal logic CTL 



The research leading to these results received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 645751 (RISE_BPM).


  1. 1.
    Dijkman, R., Rosa, M.L., Reijers, H.A.: Managing large collections of business process models - current techniques and challenges. Comput. Ind. 63, 91–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Dietrich, H.-A., Steinhorst, M., Eggert, M.: Business process compliance checking – applying and evaluating a generic pattern matching approach for conceptual models in the financial sector. Inf. Syst. Front., 1–47 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Papazoglou, M.: Formalizing and appling compliance patterns for business process compliance. Softw. Syst. Model., 1–28 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Höhenberger, S., Riehle, D.M., Delfmann, P.: From legislation to potential compliance violations in business processes-simplicity matters. In: European Conference on Information Systems, Istanbul, Turkey (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polyvyanyy, A.: Business process querying. In: Sakr, S., Zomaya, A. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Big Data Technologies. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Ouyang, C., Barros, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process querying: enabling business intelligence through query-based process analytics. Decis. Support Syst. 100, 41–56 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: a language to query business processes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, St. Goar, Germany, pp. 115–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Störrle, H.: VMQL: a visual language for ad-hoc model querying. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 22, 3–29 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Ouyang, C., La Rosa, M., Song, L., Wang, J., Polyvyanyy, A.: APQL: a process-model query language. In: Song, M., Wynn, M.T., Liu, J. (eds.) AP-BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 159, pp. 23–38. Springer, Cham (2013). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delfmann, P., Steinhorst, M., Dietrich, H.-A., Becker, J.: The generic model query language GMQL – conceptual specification, implementation, and runtime evaluation. Inf. Syst. 47, 129–177 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deutch, D., Milo, T.: A structural/temporal query language for Business Processes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 78, 583–609 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Methods. Technology. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Dijon, France, pp. 1532–1539 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., Schwittay, S.: Generalizability and applicability of model-based business process compliance-checking approaches - a state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. BuR - Bus. Res. 5, 221–247 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q and temporal logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Becker, J., Clever, N., Holler, J., Shitkova, M.: Icebricks - business process modeling on the basis of semantic standardization. In: International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 394–399 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jannaber, S., Riehle, D.M., Delfmann, P., Thomas, O., Becker, J.: Designing a framework for the development of domain-specific process modelling languages. In: Maedche, A., vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A. (eds.) DESRIST 2017. LNCS, vol. 10243, pp. 39–54. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK),” (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riehle, D.M., Jannaber, S., Karhof, A., Thomas, O., Delfmann, P., Becker, J.: On the de-facto standard of event-driven process chains: how EPC is defined in Literature. In: Modellierung 2016, 2–4 März 2016, Karlsruhe, pp. 61–76. Köllen Druck + Verlag, Bonn (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cuntz, N., Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: efficient calculation and simulation. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 398–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Valmari, A.: The state explosion problem. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1491, pp. 429–528. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). Scholar
  25. 25.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    BMJV: Wertpapierhandelsgesetz (WpHG) (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Delfmann, P., Höhenberger, S.: Supporting business process improvement through business process weakness pattern collections. In: Proceedings of the 12. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück, Germany, pp. 378–392 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Research Center for Information SystemsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations