Linking Data and BPMN Processes to Achieve Executable Models

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Xavier Oriol
  • Montserrat Estañol
  • Ernest Teniente
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10253)


We describe a formally well founded approach to link data and processes conceptually, based on adopting UML class diagrams to represent data, and BPMN to represent the process. The UML class diagram together with a set of additional process variables, called Artifact, form the information model of the process. All activities of the BPMN process refer to such an information model by means of OCL operation contracts. We show that the resulting semantics while abstract is fully executable. We also provide an implementation of the executor.


BPMN UML Data-aware processes Artifact-centric processes 



This work has been partially supported by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (project TIN2014-52938-C2-2-R), by the Generalitat de Catalunya (through 2014 SGR 1534), and by the Sapienza project “Immersive Cognitive Environments”.


  1. 1.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML) superstructure, version 2.0. (2005).
  2. 2.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reichert, M.: Process and data: two sides of the same coin? In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P., Zhou, X., Pearson, S., Ferscha, A., Bergamaschi, S., Cruz, I.F. (eds.) OTM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7565, pp. 2–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33606-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A decade of business process management conferences: personal reflections on a developing discipline. In: Proceedings of BPM 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE-BDE 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharya, K., Caswell, N.S., Kumaran, S., Nigam, A., Wu, F.Y.: Artifact-centered operational modeling: lessons from customer engagements. IBM J. 46(4), 703–721 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hull, R.: Artifact-centric business process models: brief survey of research results and challenges. In: OTM Confederated International Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Patrizi, F., Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In: Proceedings of ICDT, pp. 252–267(2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bagheri Hariri, B., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Deutsch, A., Montali, M.: Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services. In: Proceedings of PODS, pp. 163–174 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belardinelli, F., Lomuscio, A., Patrizi, F.: Verification of agent-based artifact systems. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 51, 333–376 (2014)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Estañol, M., Sancho, M.-R., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML artifact-centric business process models. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 434–449. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franconi, E., Mosca, A., Oriol, X., Rull, G., Teniente, E.: Logic foundations of the OCL modelling language. In: Proceedings of Logics in Artificial Intelligence - 14th European Conference, JELIA 2014, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 24–26 September 2014, pp. 657–664 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fowler, M., Scott, K.: UML Distilled - Applying the Standard Object Modeling Laguage. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG: Object Constraint Language (UML), version 2.4. Object Management Group (OMG) (2014).
  16. 16.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teorey, T., Lightstone, S., Nadeau, T.: Database Modeling and Design, 4th edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML conceptual schemas with operations. In: Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML conceptual schemas with OCL constraints. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 21(2), 13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oriol, X., Teniente, E.: Incremental checking of OCL constraints with aggregates through SQL. In: 34th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, ER 2015, pp. 199–213 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borrego, D., Gasca, R.M., López, M.T.G.: Automating correctness verification of artifact-centric business process models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 62, 187–197 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with Guard-Stage-Milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fabra, J., de Castro, V., Álvarez, P., Marcos, E.: Automatic execution of business process models: exploiting the benefits of model-driven engineering approaches. J. Syst. Softw. 85(3), 607–625 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lenz, K., Oberweis, A.: Modeling interorganizational workflows with XML nets. In: HICSS-34. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foundation, T.Y.: YAWL - User Manual. Version 4.1. (2016).
  27. 27.
    Parody, L., López, M.T.G., Gasca, R.M.: Hybrid business process modeling for the optimization of outcome data. Inf. Softw. Technol. 70, 140–154 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindland, O.I., Krogstie, J.: Validating conceptual models by transformational prototyping. In: Rolland, C., Bodart, F., Cauvet, C. (eds.) CAiSE 1993. LNCS, vol. 685, pp. 165–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). doi: 10.1007/3-540-56777-1_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Greenspan, S.J., Wong, H.K.T.: Information system design at the conceptual level - the taxis project. IEEE Database Eng. Bull. 7(4), 4–9 (1984)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Xavier Oriol
    • 2
  • Montserrat Estañol
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 2
  1. 1.Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.SIRIS Lab, Research Division of SIRIS AcademicBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations