Advertisement

The Semantics of Hybrid Process Models

  • Tijs SlaatsEmail author
  • Dennis M. M. Schunselaar
  • Fabrizio M. Maggi
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10033)

Abstract

In the area of business process modelling, declarative notations have been proposed as alternatives to notations that follow the dominant, imperative paradigm. Yet, the choice between an imperative or declarative style of modelling is not always easy to make. Instead, a mixture of these styles is sometimes preferable. This observation has underpinned recent calls for so-called hybrid process modelling notations. In this paper, we present a formal semantics for these. In our proposal, a hybrid process model is hierarchical, where each of its sub-processes may be specified in either an imperative or declarative fashion. The semantics we provide will allow modelling communities to build on the benefits of existing imperative and declarative modelling notations, instead of spending their energy on inventing new ones.

Keywords

Hybrid process model Semantics Petri net Declare 

References

  1. 1.
    Barukh, M.C., Benatallah, B.: ProcessBase: a hybrid process management platform. In: Franch, X., Ghose, A.K., Lewis, G.A., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8831, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45391-9_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlsen, S.: Action port model: A mixed paradigm conceptual workflow modeling language. In: IFCIS, pp. 300–309 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Declarative process modeling in BPMN. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 84–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smedt, J., 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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45563-0_26 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Marquard, M., Slaats, T.: A case for declarative process modelling: Agile development of a grant application system. In: EDOCW/AdaptiveCM 2014, pp. 126–133 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_2 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Debois, S., Slaats, T.: The analysis of a real life declarative process. CIDM 2015, 1374–1382 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haisjackl, C., Barba, I., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 1–28 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES, pp. 59–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29320-7_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_27 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Markovic, I., Kowalkiewicz, M.: Linking business goals to process models in semantic business process modeling. In: EDOC, pp. 332–338 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 209–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14538-4
  16. 16.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. TWEB 4(1), 3 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. EDOC 2007, 287–300 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling-an academic dream or the future for bpm? BPM 2013, 307–322 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadiq, S.W., Orlowska, M.E., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Inf. Syst. 30(5), 349–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J., Poels, G.: Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces. Bus. IS Eng. 58(1), 19–29 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: EDOC, pp. 151–160. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Flexibility as a service. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Liu, Q., Deng, K. (eds.) DASFAA 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5667, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04205-8_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Comp. Sc. R&D 23, 99–113 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Cpn tools 4: A process modeling tool combining declarative and imperative paradigms. In: BPM (Demos) (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. BPMDS 2012, 167–181 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muehlen, M.Z., Indulska, M.: Indulska.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: A representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 379–390 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tijs Slaats
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dennis M. M. Schunselaar
    • 2
  • Fabrizio M. Maggi
    • 3
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  4. 4.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations