Advertisement

Declarative Process Models: Different Ways to Be Hierarchical

  • Riccardo De Masellis
  • Chiara Di Francescomarino
  • Chiara Ghidini
  • Fabrizio M. MaggiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9936)

Abstract

In the literature, hierarchical dimensions for procedural process models have been widely investigated as they provide different ways to relate, organize and classify models. Such a categorization is based on the dimensions of inheritance, behavioral equivalence, and modularization and can be used to better understand and modify models as well as handle their complexity. Unfortunately, in the context of declarative process models hierarchical dimensions have been sparsely investigated. This paper addresses such a research gap. More specifically, we study a formal semantics for the dimensions above and show how they naturally induce hierarchies on a declarative process language based on declare.

Keywords

Hierarchical process model Linear temporal logic Declare 

References

  1. 1.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Inheritance of behavior. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 47(2), 47–145 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basu, A., Blanning, R.W.: Synthesis and decomposition of processes in organizations. Inf. Syst. Res. 14(4), 337–355 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Grasso, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Monitoring business metaconstraints based on LTL and LDL for finite traces. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Montali, M.: Reasoning on LTL on finite traces: Insensitivity to infiniteness. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2014, pp. 1027–1033 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burattin, A., Maggi, F.M. Sperduti, A.: Conformance checking based on multi-perspective declarative process models. Expert Syst. Appl. (2016). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417416304390, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.040
  6. 6.
    Di Ciccio, C., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Mendling, J.: Ensuring model consistency in declarative process discovery. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9253, pp. 144–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kock Jr., N.F., McQueen, R.J.: Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: an empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations. Bus. Process Re-eng. Manag. J. 2(2), 8–22 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A knowledge-based integrated approach for discovering and repairing declare maps. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 433–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Lee, J., Pentland, B., Dellarocas, C., Wyner, G., Quimby, J., Osborn, C.S., Bernstein, A., Herman, G., Klein, M., O’Donnell, E.: Tools for inventing organizations: Toward a handbook of organizational processes. Manage. Sci. 45(3), 425–443 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE TSE 35(6), 756–779 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in process models: review and effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., Milani, F.P.: Business process variability modeling: a survey. Technical report (2013). http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61842/
  17. 17.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schönig, S., Cabanillas, C., Jablonski, S., Mendling, J.: A framework for efficiently mining the organisational perspective of business processes. Decis. Support Syst. 89, 87–97 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Sidorova, N.: Patterns for a log-based strengthening of declarative compliance models. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 327–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Configurable declare: designing customisable flexible process models. In: Meersman, R., et al. (eds.) OTM 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7565, pp. 20–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workflow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development, 1st edn. Artech House Inc., Norwood (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 66(3), 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Soundness-preserving reduction rules for reset workflow nets. Inf. Sci. 179(6), 769–790 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W.E., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Reduction rules for YAWL workflows with cancellation regions and or-joins. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(6), 1010–1020 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeising, M., Schönig, S.S., Jablonski, S.: Towards a common platform for the support of routine and agile business processes. In: CollaborateCom 2014, 94–103 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(3), 1081–1103 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo De Masellis
    • 1
  • Chiara Di Francescomarino
    • 1
  • Chiara Ghidini
    • 1
  • Fabrizio M. Maggi
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.FBK-IRSTTrentoItaly
  2. 2.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations