A Process-Algebraic Approach to Workflow Specification and Refinement

  • Peter Y. H. Wong
  • Jeremy Gibbons
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4829)


This paper describes a process-algebraic approach to specification and refinement of workflow processes. In particular, we model both specification and implementation of workflows as CSP processes. CSP’s behavioural models and their respective refinement relations not only enable us to prove correctness properties of an individual workflow process against its behavioural specification but also allows us to design and develop workflow processes compositionally. Moreover, coupled with CSP is an industrial strength automated model checker FDR, which allows behavioural properties of workflow models to be proved automatically. This paper details some CSP models of van der Aalst et al.’s control flow workflow patterns, and illustrates behavioural specification and refinement of workflow systems with a business process scenario.


Business Process Multiple Instance Process Algebra External Choice Exclusive Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Butler, M., Hoare, T., Ferreira, C.: A trace semantics for long-running transactions. In: Abdallah, A.E., Jones, C.B., Sanders, J.W. (eds.) Communicating Sequential Processes. LNCS, vol. 3525, pp. 133–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Creese, S.: Industrial Strength CSP: Opportunities and Challenges in Model-Checking. In: Abdallah, A.E., Jones, C.B., Sanders, J.W. (eds.) Communicating Sequential Processes. LNCS, vol. 3525, p. 292. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies, J.: The CSP Package (March 2001),
  4. 4.
    Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd. Failures-Divergences Refinement, FDR2 User Manual (1998),
  5. 5.
    Fournet, C., Hoare, T., Rajamani, S.K., Rehof, J.: Stuck-Free Conformance. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 242–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The Workflow Reference Model. Technical Report WFMC-TC-1003, Workflow Management Coalition (January 1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Josephs, M.: Models for Data-Flow Sequential Processes. In: Abdallah, A.E., Jones, C.B., Sanders, J.W. (eds.) Communicating Sequential Processes. LNCS, vol. 3525, pp. 85–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiepuszewski, B.: Expressiveness and Suitability of languages for Control Flow Modelling in Workflows. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawrence, J.: Practical Application of CSP and FDR to Software Design. In: Abdallah, A.E., Jones, C.B., Sanders, J.W. (eds.) Communicating Sequential Processes. LNCS, vol. 3525, pp. 151–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: the π-calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Using the π-Calculus for Formalizing Workflow Patterns. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 153–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stefansen, C.: SMAWL: A SMAll workflow language based on CCS. Technical Report TR-06-05, Harvard University, Mar (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stupnikov, S.A., Kalinichenko, L.A., Dong, J.S.: Applying CSP-like Workflow Process Specifications for their Refinement in AMN by Pre-existing Workflows. In: Manolopoulos, Y., Návrat, P. (eds.) ADBIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2435, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Pi Calculus Versus Petri Nets: Let Us Eat Humble Pie Rather Than Further Inflate the Pi Hype. BPTrends 3(5), 1–11 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W3C. Web Service Choreography Interface 1.0 (2002),
  21. 21.
    Welch, P.H., Barnes, F.R.M.: Mobile Barriers for occam-pi: Semantics, Implementation and Application. In: Communicating Process Architectures 2005. Concurrent Systems Engineering Series, vol. 63, pp. 289–316 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong, P.Y.H.: Towards a unified model for workflow orchestration and choreography, Transfer dissertation, Oxford University Computing Laboratory (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A Process Semantics for BPMN, submitted for publication. Extended version (2007), available at

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Y. H. Wong
    • 1
  • Jeremy Gibbons
    • 1
  1. 1.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations