Declarative Process Modeling in BPMN

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Fabrizio Maria MaggiEmail author
  • Marco Montali
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9097)


Traditional business process modeling notations, including the standard Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), rely on an imperative paradigm wherein the process model captures all allowed activity flows. In other words, every flow that is not specified is implicitly disallowed. In the past decade, several researchers have exposed the limitations of this paradigm in the context of business processes with high variability. As an alternative, declarative process modeling notations have been proposed (e.g., Declare). These notations allow modelers to capture constraints on the allowed activity flows, meaning that all flows are allowed provided that they do not violate the specified constraints. Recently, it has been recognized that the boundary between imperative and declarative process modeling is not crisp. Instead, mixtures of declarative and imperative process modeling styles are sometimes preferable, leading to proposals for hybrid process modeling notations. These developments raise the question of whether completely new notations are needed to support hybrid process modeling. This paper answers this question negatively. The paper presents a conservative extension of BPMN for declarative process modeling, namely BPMN-D, and shows that Declare models can be transformed into readable BPMN-D models.


BPMN Declarative process modeling Declare 


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - Research and Development 23 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, A., Sakr, S.: On efficient processing of BPMN-Q queries. Computers in Industry 63(9) (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carmona, J.: Projection approaches to process mining using region-based techniques. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 24(1) (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Grasso, M., Maggi, F., Montali, M.: Monitoring business metaconstraints based on LTL and LDL for finite traces. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Giacomo, G., Vardi, M.Y.: Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces. In: 23rd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). AAAI (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J.: Multi-paradigm process mining: retrieving better models by combining rules and sequences. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information & Software Technology 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Masellis, R.D., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath, F., Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Noi Sukaviriya, P., Vaculín, R.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: 5th ACM Int. Conf. on Distributed Event-Based Systems (DEBS). ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maggi, F.M., Slaats, T., Reijers, H.A.: The automated discovery of hybrid processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 392–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marin, M., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: Data centric BPM and the emerging case management standard: a short survey. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 24–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative Specification and Verification of Service Choreographies. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Modeling Notation Version 2.0. Tech. rep., Object Management Group Final Adopted Specification (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In: EDOC 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prescher, J., Di Ciccio, C., Mendling, J.: From declarative processes to imperative models. In: 4th Int. Symp. on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA). (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems - Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.: Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. In: Forum at the CAiSE 2008 Conf., vol. 344. (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Westergaard, M.: Better algorithms for analyzing and enacting declarative workflow languages using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 283–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 2
  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marco Montali
    • 3
  1. 1.Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  2. 2.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations