Activity Diagrams Patterns for Modeling Business Processes

  • Étienne AndréEmail author
  • Christine Choppy
  • Gianna Reggio
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 496)


Designing and analyzing business processes is the starting point of the development of enterprise applications, especially when following the SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) paradigm. UML activity diagrams are often used to model business processes. Unfortunately, their rich syntax favors mistakes by designers; furthermore, their informal semantics prevents the use of automated verification techniques. In this paper, (i) we propose activity diagram patterns for modeling business processes, (ii) we devise a modular mechanism to compose diagram fragments into a UML activity diagram, and (iii) we propose a semantics for the produced activity diagrams, formalized by colored Petri nets. Our approach guides the modeler task (helping to avoid common mistakes), and allows for automated verification.


Business Process Global Variable Service Orient Architecture Activity Diagram Process Participant 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    OMG unified language superstructure specification (formal). version 2.4.1 (August 06, 2011),
  2. 2.
    André, É., Choppy, C., Klai, K.: Formalizing non-concurrent UML state machines using colored Petri nets. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 37(4), 1–8 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    André, É., Choppy, C., Reggio, G.: Activity diagrams patterns for modeling business processes (report version) (2013),
  4. 4.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J.: Performance evaluation of UML design with stochastic well-formed nets. Journal of Systems and Software 80(11), 1843–1865 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger, E.: Modeling workflow patterns from first principles. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G.: Precise vs. ultra-light activity diagrams – An experimental assessment in the context of business process modelling. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) PROFES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6759, pp. 291–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook, W.R., Patwardhan, S., Misra, J.: Workflow patterns in Orc. In: Ciancarini, P., Wiklicky, H. (eds.) COORDINATION 2006. LNCS, vol. 4038, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Distefano, S., Scarpa, M., Puliafito, A.: From UML to Petri nets: The PCM-based methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 37(1), 65–79 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erl, T.: SOA Principles of Service Design. The Prentice Hall Service-Oriented Computing Series from Thomas Erl (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    France, R.B., Evans, A., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: Developing the UML as a formal modelling notation. In: Computer Standards and Interfaces: Special Issues on Formal Development Techniques, pp. 297–307. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grönniger, H., Reiß, D., Rumpe, B.: Towards a semantics of activity diagrams with semantic variation points. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 331–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M.: Coloured Petri Nets – Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kordon, F., Thierry-Mieg, Y.: Experiences in model driven verification of behavior with UML. In: Choppy, C., Sokolsky, O. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2008. LNCS, vol. 6028, pp. 181–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraemer, F.A., Herrmann, P.: Automated Encapsulation of UML Activities for Incremental Development and Verification. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 571–585. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraemer, F.A., Herrmann, P.: Reactive semantics for distributed UML activities. In: Hatcliff, J., Zucca, E. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6117, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mekki, A., Ghazel, M., Toguyeni, A.: Validating time-constrained systems using UML statecharts patterns and timed automata observers. In: VECoS, pp. 112–124. British Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peixoto, D.C., Batista, V.A., Atayde, A.P., Pereira, E.B., Resende, R.F., Pádua, C.I.: A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams. In: Simposio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (2008),
  18. 18.
    Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F.: Precise is better than light: A document analysis study about quality of business process models. In: First International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE), pp. 61–68 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G., Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G.: A precise style for business process modelling: Results from two controlled experiments. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 138–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Workflow Patterns Initiative. Workflow patterns home page,
  21. 21.
    Zhang, S.J., Liu, Y.: An automatic approach to model checking UML state machines. In: SSIRI (Companion), pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Étienne André
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christine Choppy
    • 1
  • Gianna Reggio
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, LIPNVilletaneuseFrance
  2. 2.DIBRISGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations