On the Formal Semantics of Change Patterns in Process-Aware Information Systems

  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
  • Manfred Reichert
  • Barbara Weber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5231)


Due to a turbulent market enterprises should be able to adapt their business processes in a quick and flexible way. This requires adaptive process-aware information systems (PAISs) which are able to support changes at different levels and of different process aspects. As for process modeling languages, a multitude of approaches, paradigms, and systems for realizing adaptive processes have emerged. This variety makes it difficult for PAIS engineers to choose the adequate technology. Therefore we introduced a set of commonly used process change patterns which facilitate the comparison between different approaches and tools. In this paper, we provide the formal semantics of these change patterns to ground pattern implementation and pattern-based analysis of PAISs on a solid basis. As challenge, we want to describe the formal semantics of change patterns independent of a certain process meta model. Altogether, our formalization will enable unambiguous and systematic comparison of adaptive PAISs.


Change Pattern Process Schema Design Choice Formal Semantic Execution Order 
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.
    Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: A Service-Oriented Implementation of Dynamic Flexibility in Workflows.. In: Proc. Coopis 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distributed and Parallel Databases 16, 91–116 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex – Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. JIIS 10, 93–129 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van der Aalst, W., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53, 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: CoopIS 2007, pp. 77–94 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadiq, S., Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.: A Framework for Constraint Specification and Validation in Flexible Workflows. Information Systems 30, 349–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Exception Handling Patterns in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 288–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness Criteria for Dynamic Changes in Workflow Systems – A Survey. Data and Knowledge Engineering 50, 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Support in Process-Aware Information Systems - A Pattern-Based Analysis. Technical report, CTIT (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Using the Pi-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.
    Zhang, F., D’Hollander, E.: Using Hammock Graphs to Structure Programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 231–245 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glabbeek, R.V., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Informatica 37, 229–327 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: Workflow data patterns. Technical Report FIT-TR-2004-01, Queensland Univ. of Techn. (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: Workflow resource patterns. Technical Report WP 127, Eindhoven Univ. of Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Service Interaction Patterns. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 302–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Refactoring process models in large process repositories. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
    • 1
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  • Barbara Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Ulm UniversityGermany
  2. 2.University of InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations