Global vs. Local Semantics of BPMN 2.0 OR-Join

  • Flavio Corradini
  • Chiara MuziEmail author
  • Barbara Re
  • Lorenzo Rossi
  • Francesco Tiezzi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10706)


Nowadays, BPMN 2.0 has acquired a clear predominance for modelling business processes. However, one of its drawback is the lack of a formal semantics, that leads to different interpretations, and hence implementations, of some of its features. This, as a matter of fact, results on process implementations using such features that do not fit with designers expectations, and that are not portable from one BPMN enactment tools to another. Among the BPMN elements particular ambiguous is the semantics of the OR-Join. Several formalisations of this element have been proposed in the literature, but none of them is derived from a direct and faithful translation of the current version of BPMN standard. In this work we instead provide direct, global and local, formalisations compliant with the OR-Join semantics reported in the BPMN 2.0 standard. In particular, the local semantics is devised to more efficiently determine the OR-Join enablement. The soundness of the approach is given by demonstrating the correspondence of the local semantics with respect to the global one.


  1. 1.
    Pastor, O.: Model-driven development in practice: from requirements to code. In: Steffen, B., Baier, C., van den Brand, M., Eder, J., Hinchey, M., Margaria, T. (eds.) SOFSEM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10139, pp. 405–410. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN V 2.0) (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suchenia, A., Potempa, T., Ligęza, A., Jobczyk, K., Kluza, K.: Selected approaches towards taxonomy of business process anomalies. In: Pełech-Pilichowski, T., Mach-Król, M., Olszak, C.M. (eds.) Advances in Business ICT: New Ideas from Ongoing Research. SCI, vol. 658, pp. 65–85. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M., Desel, J., Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: a vicious circle. In: EPK, pp. 71–79 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kunze, M., Berger, P., Weske, M.: BPM academic initiative - fostering empirical research. In: BPM Demonstration Track, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 940, pp. 1–5 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Völzer, H.: A new semantics for the inclusive converging gateway in safe processes. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 294–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., Grosskopf, A., Hettel, T., Wynn, M.: Semantics of standard process models with OR-Joins. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 41–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thalheim, B., Sorensen, O., Borger, E.: On defining the behavior of OR-Joins in business process models. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 15(1), 3–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christiansen, D.R., Carbone, M., Hildebrandt, T.: Formal semantics and implementation of BPMN 2.0 inclusive gateways. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prinz, T.M., Amme, W.: A complete and the most liberal semantics for converging OR gateways in sound processes. Complex Syst. Inf. Model. Q. 4, 32–49 (2015). Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gfeller, B., Völzer, H., Wilmsmann, G.: Faster Or-Join enactment for BPMN 2.0. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95, pp. 31–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wynn, M.T., et al.: Business process verification-finally a reality!. Bus. Process Manag. J. 15(1), 74–92 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alfresco Software Inc: Activiti v. 6.0. (2017)
  15. 15.
    Camunda services GmbH: Camunda v. 7.7.0. (2017)
  16. 16.
    Flowable: Flowable v. 6.1.0. (2017)
  17. 17.
    Red Hat: jBPM v. 7.0.0. (2017)
  18. 18.
    ProcessMaker Inc.: Process maker v. 3.2. (2017)
  19. 19.
    Signavio Inc: Signavio v. 11.2.0. (2017)
  20. 20.
    Stadust: Stadust v. 4.1.0. (2017)
  21. 21.
    Sydle: Sydle. (2017)
  22. 22.
    Szwarcfiter, J.L., Lauer, P.E.: A search strategy for the elementary cycles of a directed graph. BIT Numer. Math. 16(2), 192–204 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer. Math. 1(1), 269–271 (1959)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow verification: finding control-flow errors using petri-net-based techniques. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    Corradini, F., Fornari, F., Muzi, C., Polini, A., Re, B., Tiezzi, F.: On avoiding erroneous synchronization in BPMN processes. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2017. LNBIP, vol. 288, pp. 106–119. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Corradini, F., Muzi, C., Re, B., Rossi, L., Tiezzi, F.: Global vs. Local Semantics of BPMN 2.0 OR-Join. Technical report, Univ. Camerino (2017).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flavio Corradini
    • 1
  • Chiara Muzi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Barbara Re
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Rossi
    • 1
  • Francesco Tiezzi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyUniversity of CamerinoCamerinoItaly

Personalised recommendations