Activity Diagrams Patterns for Modeling Business Processes
Conference paper
Abstract
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.
Keywords
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.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.OMG unified language superstructure specification (formal). version 2.4.1 (August 06, 2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/Superstructure/PDF/
- 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.André, É., Choppy, C., Reggio, G.: Activity diagrams patterns for modeling business processes (report version) (2013), http://lipn.fr/~andre/adp/
- 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.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.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.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.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.Erl, T.: SOA Principles of Service Design. The Prentice Hall Service-Oriented Computing Series from Thomas Erl (2007)Google Scholar
- 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.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.Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M.: Coloured Petri Nets – Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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), http://homepages.dcc.ufmg.br/~cascini/
- 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.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.Workflow Patterns Initiative. Workflow patterns home page, http://www.workflowpatterns.com
- 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