Business process modeling and implementation of process supporting infrastructures are two challenging tasks that are not fully aligned. On the one hand, languages such as Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) exist to capture business processes at the level of domain analysis. On the other hand, programming paradigms and technologies such as Service-Oriented Computing (SOC) and web services have emerged to simplify the development of distributed web systems that underly business processes. BPMN is the most recognized language for specifying process workflows at the early design steps. However, it is rather declarative and may lead to the executable models which are incomplete or semantically erroneous. Therefore, an approach for expressing and analyzing BPMN models in a formal setting is required. In this paper we describe how BPMN diagrams can be represented by means of a semantically precise channel-based coordination language called Reo which admits formal analysis using model checking and bisimulation techniques. Moreover, since additional requirements may come from various regulatory/legislative documents, we discuss the opportunities offered by Reo and its mathematical abstractions for expressing process-related constraints such as Quality of Service (QoS) or time-aware conditions on process states.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F.: Business process execution language for web services. Technical report, IBM (2002),
  2. 2.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G.: Web services choreography description language (WS-CDL) version 1.0. Working draft, W3C (2004),
  3. 3.
    (OMG), O.M.G.: Business process modeling notation (BPMN) specification. Final adopted specification, OMG (2006),
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Formal semantics and analysis of BPMN process models. In: Information and Software Technology (IST) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong, P., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. Technical report, Queensland University of Technology (2007),
  6. 6.
    Wong, P., Gibbons, J.: A relative timed semantics for BPMN. Technical report, Queensland University of Technology (2007),
  7. 7.
    Recker, J., Mendling, J.: On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: Conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 521–532 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W.: Pattern-based translation of BPMN process models to BPEL web services. Int. Journal of Web Services Research (JWSR) 5(1), 42–61 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ouyang, C., Verbeek, E., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Breutel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Formal semantics and analysis of control flow in WS-BPEL. Science of Computer Programming 67(2-3), 162–198 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lohmann, N.: A feature-complete Petri net semantics for WS-BPEL 2.0. In: Dumas, M., Heckel, R. (eds.) WS-FM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4937, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucchia, R., Mazzara, M.: A pi-calculus based semantics for WS-BPEL. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 70(1), 96–118 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakajima, S.: Model-checking behavioral specification of BPEL applications. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS) 151, 89–105 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarty, L.T.: A language for legal discourse. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1989), pp. 180–189. ACM Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Y., Müller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business process models. IBM Systems Journal 46(2), 335–361 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meng, S., Arbab, F.: Web service choreography and orchestration in Reo and constraint automata. In: Proc. of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2007), pp. 346–353. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arbab, F., Chothia, T., Meng, S., Moon, Y.J.: Component connectors with QoS guarantees. In: Murphy, A.L., Vitek, J. (eds.) COORDINATION 2007. LNCS, vol. 4467, pp. 286–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arbab, F., Baier, C., de Boer, F.S., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Models and temporal logics for timed component connectors. Int. Journal on Software and Systems Modeling 6(1), 59–82 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: A channel-based coordination model for component composition. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arbab, F., Rutten, J.: A coinductive calculus of component connectors. In: Wirsing, M., Pattinson, D., Hennicker, R. (eds.) WADT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2755, pp. 34–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baier, C., Sirjani, M., Arbab, F., Rutten, J.: Modeling component connectors in Reo by constraint automata. Science of Computer Programming 61, 75–113 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghose, A.K., Koliadis, G.: Auditing business process compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giblin, C., Liu, A.Y., Müller, S., Pfitzmann, B., Zhou, X.: Regulations expressed as logical models (REALM). In: Proc. of the 18th Annual Conf. on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 37–48 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: Proc. of the Int. Enterprize Distributed Object Computing Conf. (EDOC 2006), pp. 221–232. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brunel, J., Cuppens, F., Cuppens, N., Sans, T., Bodeveix, J.P.: Security policy compliance with violation management. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Formal Methods in Security Engineering (FMSE 2007), pp. 31–40. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meng, S., Arbab, F.: On resource-sensitive timed component connectors. In: Bonsangue, M.M., Johnsen, E.B. (eds.) FMOODS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4468, pp. 301–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blechmann, T., Baier, C.: Checking equivalence for Reo networks. In: Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS) (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koehler, C., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Connector rewriting with high-level replacement systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS) 194(4), 77–92 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brandt, C., Engel, T., Braatz, B., Hermann, F., Ehrig, H.: An approach using formally well-founded domain languages for secure coarse-grained IT system modelling in a real-world banking scenario. In: Proc. of the Australasian Conf. on Information Systems (ACIS 2007), pp. 386–395 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farhad Arbab
    • 1
  • Natallia Kokash
    • 1
  • Sun Meng
    • 1
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations