Advertisement

Combining Quality Assurance and Model Transformations in Business-Driven Development

  • Jana Koehler
  • Thomas Gschwind
  • Jochen Küster
  • Cesare Pautasso
  • Ksenia Ryndina
  • Jussi Vanhatalo
  • Hagen Völzer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5088)

Abstract

Business-driven development is a methodology for developing IT solutions that directly satisfy business requirements. At its core are business processes, which are usually modeled by combining graphical and textual notations. During business-driven development, business process models are taken to the IT level, where they are implemented in a Service-Oriented Architecture. A major challenge in business-driven development is the semantic gap between models captured at the business and the IT level. Model transformations play a major role in bridging this gap.

This paper presents a transformation framework for IBM WebSphere Business Modeler that enables programmers to quickly develop in-place model transformations, which are then made available to users of this tool. They address various user needs such as quickly correcting modeling errors, refining a process model, or applying a number of refactoring operations. Transformations are combined with quality assurance techniques, which help users to preserve or improve the correctness of their business process models when applying transformations.

Keywords

Business Process Model Transformation Graph Transformation Business Process Execution Language Transformation Code 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Newcomer, E., Lomow, G.: Understanding SOA with Web Services. Addison Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitra, T.: Business-driven development. IBM developerWorks article. IBM (2005), http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bdd
  3. 3.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Küster, J., Ryndina, K., Vanhatalo, J., Wahler, M.: The role of visual modeling and model transformations in business-driven development. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, pp. 1–12. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brahe, S., Bordbar, B.: A Pattern-based Approach to Business Process Modeling and Implementation in Web Services. In: Proceedings of Workshop Modeling the SOA - Business perspective and model mapping, in conjunction with ICSOC (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., Weerawarana, S.: Web services description language (WSDL) (2001), http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
  6. 6.
    Jordan, D., et al.: Web services business process execution language (WSBPEL) 2.0 (2007), http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/
  7. 7.
    IBM: WebSphere Business Modeler, http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/wbimodeler
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group: Model driven architecture (2001), http://www.omg.org/mda
  9. 9.
    Mens, T., van Gorp, P., Karsai, G., Varró, D.: Applying a model transformation taxonomy to graph transformation technology. In: Karsai, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) GraMot 2005, International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformations. ENTCS, vol. 152, pp. 143–159. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mens, T., Gorp, P.V.: A Taxonomy of Model Transformation. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Systems Journal, special issue on Model-Driven Software Development 45(3), 621–645 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biermann, E., Ehrig, K., Köhler, C., Kuhns, G., Taentzer, G., Weiss, E.: Graphical Definition of In-Place Transformations in the Eclipse Modeling Framework. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ermel, C., Rudolf, M., Taentzer, G.: The AGG-Approach: Language and Tool Environment. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Applications, Languages and Tools, vol. 2, pp. 551–603. World Scientific, Singapore (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mens, T.: On the use of graph transformations for model refactoring. In: 2005 Summer School on Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering, Braga, Portugal, Departamento Informatica, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal, Technical Report TR-CCTC/DI-35, 67–98 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stürmer, I., Kreuz, I., Schäfer, W., Schürr, A.: Enhanced simulink/stateflow model transformation: The mate approach. In: Proceedings of MathWorks Automotive Conference (MAC 2007), MathWorks (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balogh, A., Németh, A., Schmidt, A., Rath, I., Vágó, D., Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: The VIATRA2 model transformation framework. In: ECMDA 2005 – Tools Track (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karsai, G., Agrawal, A., Shi, F., Sprinkle, J.: On the Use of Graph Transformation in the Formal Specification of Model Interpreters. Journal of Universal Computer Science 9(11), 1296–1321 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: AToM 3: A Tool for Multi-Formalism and Meta-Modelling. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Braun, P., Marschall, F.: BOTL - The Bidirectional Objekt Oriented Transformation Language. Technical report, Fakultät für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Technical Report TUM-I0307 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nickel, U., Niere, J., Zündorf, A.: Tool demonstration: The FUJABA environment. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Limerick, Ireland, pp. 742–745. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akehurst, D.H., Bordbar, B., Evans, M.J., Howells, W.G.J., McDonald-Maier, K.D.: SiTra: Simple Transformations in Java. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 351–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification. Final Adopted Specification ptc/05-11-01 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varró, D.: Model Transformation by Example. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Küster, J.M.: Definition and validation of model transformations. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 5(3), 233–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Varró, D., Varró-Gyapay, S., Ehrig, H., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Termination Analysis of Model Transformations by Petri Nets. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Küster, J.M., Abd-El-Razik, M.: Validation of Model Transformations - First Experiences Using a White Box Approach. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 193–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koehler, J., Vanhatalo, J.: Process anti-patterns: How to avoid the common traps of business process modeling, part 1 modeling control flow, part 2 modeling data flow. IBM WebSphere Developer Technical Journal 10(2), 10(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Giese, H., Wagner, R.: Incremental Model Synchronization with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 543–557. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow verification: Finding control-flow errors using Petri-net-based techniques. In: Business Process Management, Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, London, UK, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mendling, J., Moser, M., Neumann, G., Verbeek, H.M.W., Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Faulty EPCs in the SAP reference model. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 451–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models though SESE Decomposition. In: 5th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC), Vienna, Austria (September 2007) (to appear)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration. IBM Systems Journal 44(1), 47–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jana Koehler
    • 1
  • Thomas Gschwind
    • 1
  • Jochen Küster
    • 1
  • Cesare Pautasso
    • 1
  • Ksenia Ryndina
    • 1
  • Jussi Vanhatalo
    • 1
  • Hagen Völzer
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Zurich Research LaboratoryRüschlikonSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations