Relaxed Compliance Notions in Adaptive Process Management Systems
The capability to dynamically evolve process models over time and to migrate process instances to a modified model version are fundamental requirements for any process-aware information system. This has been recognized for a long time and different approaches for process schema evolution have emerged. Basically, the challenge is to correctly and efficiently migrate running instances to a modified process model. In addition, no process instance should be needlessly excluded from being migrated. While there has been significant research on correctness notions, existing approaches are still too restrictive regarding the set of migratable instances. This paper discusses fundamental requirements emerging in this context. We revisit the well-established compliance criterion for reasoning about the correct applicability of dynamic process changes, relax this criterion in different respects, and discuss the impact these relaxations have in practice. Furthermore, we investigate how to cope with non-compliant process instances to further increase the number of migratable ones. Respective considerations are fundamental for further maturation of adaptive process management technology.
KeywordsProcess Schema Loop Iteration Process Instance Change Operation Semantic Constraint
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Ellis, C., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: COOCS 1995, pp. 10–21 (1995)Google Scholar
- 6.Kradolfer, M., Geppert, A.: Dynamic workflow schema evolution based on workflow type versioning and workflow migration. In: CoopIS 1999, pp. 104–114 (1999)Google Scholar
- 8.Sadiq, S., Marjanovic, O., Orlowska, M.: Managing change and time in dynamic workflow processes. IJCIS 9, 93–116 (2000)Google Scholar
- 10.Weske, M.: Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In: HICSS-34 (2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Dehnert, J., Zimmermann, A.: On the suitability of correctness criteria for business process models. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 386–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
- 14.Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
- 15.Rinderle, S.: Schema Evolution in Process Management Systems. PhD thesis, Ulm University (2004)Google Scholar
- 18.Mulyar, N., Schonenberg, M., Mans, R., Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.: Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility (extended version). Technical Report BPM-07-11, Brisbane/Eindhoven: BPMcenter.org (2007)Google Scholar