Automatic Generation of Workflow-Extended Domain Models

  • Marco Brambilla
  • Jordi Cabot
  • Sara Comai
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4735)

Abstract

The specification of business processes is becoming a more and more critical aspect for organizations. Such processes are specified as workflow models expressing the logical precedence among the different business activities (i.e. the units of work). Up to now, workflow models have been commonly managed through specific subsystems, called workflow management systems. In this paper we advocate for the integration of the workflow specification in the system domain model. This workflow-extended domain model is automatically derived from the initial workflow specification. Then, model-driven development methods may depart from the extended domain model to automatically generate an implementation of the system enforcing the business processes in any final technology platform, thus avoiding the need of basing the implementation on a dedicated workflow engine.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Kumar, A.: A reference model for team-enabled workflow management systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering 38, 335–363 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bae, J., Bae, H., Kang, S.-H., Kim, Y.: Automatic Control of Workflow Processes Using ECA Rules. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16, 1010–1023 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Comai, S.: Automatic Generation of Worfklow-extended Domain Models (extended version), Available: http://www.elet.polimi.it/upload/mbrambil/WFdomainmodels/
  4. 4.
    Brambilla, M., Deutsch, A., Sui, L., Vianu, V.: The Role of Visual Tools in a Web Application Design and Verification Framework: a Visual Notation for LTL Formulae. In: Lowe, D.G., Gaedke, M. (eds.) ICWE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3579, pp. 557–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brambilla, M., Ceri, S., Fraternali, P., Manolescu, I.: Process Modeling in Web Applications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 15, 360–409 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabot, J., Raventós, R.: Conceptual Modelling Patterns for Roles. Journal on Data Semantics V, 158–184 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Incremental Evaluation of OCL Constraints. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Combi, C., Pozzi, G.: Temporal Conceptual Modelling of Workflows. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 59–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costal, D., Gómez, C., Queralt, A., Raventós, R., Teniente, E.: Facilitating the definition of general constraints in UML. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demuth, B., Hussmann, H., Loecher, S.: OCL as a Specification Language for Business Rules in Database Applications. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 104–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Domingos, D., Rito-Silva, A., Veiga, P.: Workflow Access Control from a Business Perspective. In: Proc. ICEIS, vol. 3, pp. 18–25 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Verification support for workflow design with UML activity graphs. In: Proc. ICSE 2002, pp. 166–176 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ho, W.-M., Jézéquel, J.-M., Pennaneach, F., Plouzeau, N.: A toolkit for weaving aspect oriented UML designs. In: Proc. AOSD 2002, pp. 99–105 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hur, W., Jung, J.-y., Kim, H., Kang, S.-H.: Model-Driven Approach to workflow execution. In: Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080, pp. 261–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    KlasseObjecten: Octopus OCL Tool for Precise Uml Specifications, http://www.klasse.nl/octopus/index.html
  17. 17.
    Knapp, A., Koch, N., Zhang, G., Hassler, H.: Modeling Business Processes in Web Applications with ArgoUWE. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) Proc. UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 69–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration. IBM Systems Journal 44, 47–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olivé, A.: A method for the definition of integrity constraints in object-oriented conceptual modeling languages. Data & Knowledge Engineering 58, 243–262 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG/BPMI: Business Process Management Notation v.1. OMG Adopted SpecificationGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Takemura, T., Tamai, T.: Rigorous Business Process Modeling with OCL. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    White, S.A.: Process Modeling Notations and Workflow Patterns. BPTrends (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wynn, M.T., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Achieving a general, formal and decidable approach to the OR-join in Workflow using Reset nets. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 423–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Brambilla
    • 1
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 2
  • Sara Comai
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. Da Vinci, 32. I20133 MilanoItaly
  2. 2.Estudis d’Informàtica, Multimèdia i Telecomunicació, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Rbla. del Poblenou, 156 E08018 BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations