Advertisement

Hierarchical Declarative Modelling with Refinement and Sub-processes

  • Søren Debois
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
  • Tijs Slaats
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8659)

Abstract

We present a new declarative model with composition and hierarchical definition of processes, featuring (a) incremental refinement, (b) adaptation of processes, and (c) dynamic creation of sub-processes. The approach is motivated and exemplified by a recent case management solution delivered by our industry partner Exformatics A/S. The approach is achieved by extending the Dynamic Condition Response (DCR) graph model with interfaces and composition along those interfaces. Both refinement and sub-processes are then constructed in terms of that composition. Sub-processes take the form of hierarchical (complex) events, which dynamically instantiate sub-processes. The extensions are realised and supported by a prototype simulation tool.

Keywords

Interface Event Board Meeting Industry Partner Review Report Compliance Rule 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare. Webpage (2010), http://www.win.tue.nl/declare/
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carbone, M., Hildebrandt, T., Perrone, G., Wasowski, A.: Refinement for transition systems with responses. In: FIT. EPTCS, vol. 87, pp. 48–55 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Debois, S.: DCR exploration tool v.6. IT University of Copenhagen (2014), http://www.itu.dk/research/models/wiki/index.php/DCR_Exploration_Tool
  5. 5.
    Ellson, J., Gansner, E., Koutsofios, L., North, S.C., Woodhull, G.: Graphviz - open source graph drawing tools. In: Mutzel, P., Jünger, M., Leipert, S. (eds.) GD 2001. LNCS, vol. 2265, pp. 483–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2002), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45848-4_57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groefsema, H., Bucur, D.: A survey of formal business process verification: From soundness to variability. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design, pp. 198–203 (2013), http://www.cs.rug.nl/ds/uploads/pubs/groefsema-bmsd.pdf
  7. 7.
    Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Dynamic condition response graphs for trustworthy adaptive case management. In: Demey, Y.T., Panetto, H. (eds.) OTM 2013 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 8186, pp. 166–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Safe distribution of declarative processes. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles (Invited talk). In: Bravetti, M. (ed.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maggi, F.M., Westergaard, M., Montali, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Runtime verification of LTL-based declarative process models. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mukkamala, R.R.: A Formal Model For Declarative Workflows: Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen (June 2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Towards trustworthy adaptive case management with dynamic condition response graphs. In: EDOC, pp. 127–136. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T.: From dynamic condition response structures to büchi automata. In: TASE, pp. 187–190. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Tøth, J.B.: The resultmaker online consultant: From declarative workflow management in practice to ltl. In: EDOCW, pp. 135–142. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group BPMN Technical Committee: Business Process Model and Notation, version 2.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF
  19. 19.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: On the usefulness of subprocesses in business process models. BPM Reports 1003, Eindhoven (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slaats, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M.: Exformatics declarative case management workflows as DCR graphs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 339–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vardi, M.Y.: An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In: Moller, F., Birtwistle, G. (eds.) Logics for Concurrency. LNCS, vol. 1043, pp. 238–266. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winskel, G.: Event structures. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1986. LNCS, vol. 255, pp. 325–392. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) BPMDS 2012 and EMMSAD 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren Debois
    • 1
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
    • 1
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Exformatics A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations