WebWorkFlow: An Object-Oriented Workflow Modeling Language for Web Applications

  • Zef Hemel
  • Ruben Verhaaf
  • Eelco Visser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5301)


Workflow languages are designed for the high-level description of processes and are typically not suitable for the generation of complete applications. In this paper, we present WebWorkFlow, an object-oriented workflow modeling language for the high-level description of workflows in web applications. Workflow descriptions define procedures operating on domain objects. Procedures are composed using sequential and concurrent process combinators. WebWorkFlow is an embedded language, extending WebDSL, a domain-specific language for web application development, with workflow abstractions. The extension is implemented by means of model-to-model transformations. Rather than providing an exclusive workflow language, WebWorkFlow supports interaction with the underlying WebDSL language. WebWorkFlow supports most of the basic workflow control patterns.


Process Expression Textual Language Domain Object Event Handler Business Process Modeling Notation 
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.
    Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Comai, S.: Automatic generation of workflow-extended domain models. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 375–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brambilla, M., Ceri, S., Fraternali, P., Manolescu, I.: Process modeling in web applications. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(4), 360–409 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bravenboer, M., Visser, E.: Concrete syntax for objects. Domain-specific language embedding and assimilation without restrictions. In: Schmidt, D.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programing, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2004), Vancouver, Canada, October 2004, pp. 365–383. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F.: Business process execution language for web services, version 1.1. Technical report, IBM (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Uml activity diagrams as a workflow specification language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eder, J., Groiss, H., Liebhart, W.: The Workflow Management System Panta Rhei. In: Advances in Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Istanbul, Turkey, August, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Groenewegen, D., Visser, E.: Declarative access control for WebDSL: Combining language integration and separation of concerns. In: Schwabe, D., Curbera, F. (eds.) International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE 2008), July 2008. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hemel, Z., Kats, L.C.L., Visser, E.: Code generation by model transformation. In: Gray, J., Pierantonio, A., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 183–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The Workflow Reference Model. Workflow Management Coalition, Document Number TC00-1003 - Issue 1.1 edn. (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kats, L.C.L., Bravenboer, M., Visser, E.: Mixing source and bytecode. A case for compilation by normalization. In: Kiczales, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programing, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2008), Nashville, Tenessee, USA, October 2008. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, J.A., Palaniswami, D., Sheth, A.P., Kochut, K.J., Singh, H.: Webwork: Meteor2‘s web-based workflow management system. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 10(2), 185–215 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Recker, J., Strategy, M.: Process Modeling in the 21 stCentury. In: BPTrends, pp. 1–8 (May 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mulyar, N.: Workflow control-flow patterns: A revised view. Technical report, (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: Workflow Data Patterns. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 353–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: Workflow resource patterns. BETA Working Paper Series, pp. 216–232 (January 2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hofstede, A.H.M.T., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Visser, E.: WebDSL: A case study in domain-specific language engineering. In: Lammel, R., Saraiva, J., Visser, J. (eds.) GTTSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5235. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    WfMC. Terminology and glossary, 3rd edn. Document Number WFMC-TC-1011, Workflow Management Coalition (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    White, S.: Introduction to BPMN. In: IBM Cooperation (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zef Hemel
    • 1
  • Ruben Verhaaf
    • 1
  • Eelco Visser
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering Research GroupDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations