Dependent and Conflicting Change Operations of Process Models

  • Jochen M. Küster
  • Christian Gerth
  • Gregor Engels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5562)


Version management of models is common for structural diagrams such as class diagrams but still challenging for behavioral models such as process models. For process models, conflicts of change operations are difficult to resolve because often dependencies to other change operations exist. As a consequence, conflicts and dependencies between change operations must be computed and shown to the user who can then take them into account while creating a consolidated version. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of dependencies and conflicts of change operations for process models and provide a method how to compute them. We then discuss different possibilities for resolving conflicts. Using our approach it is possible to enable version management of process models with minimal manual intervention of the user.


Change Sequence Graph Transformation Critical Pair Version Management Change Operation 
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.
  2. 2.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bottoni, P., Schürr, A., Taentzer, G.: Efficient Parsing of Visual Languages based on Critical Pair Analysis and Contextual Layered Graph Transformation. In: VL 2000, pp. 59–60. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: Managing Model Conflicts in Distributed Development. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 311–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corradini, A., Montanari, U., Rossi, F., Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Löwe, M.: Algebraic Approaches to Graph Transformation Part I: Basic Concepts and Double Pushout Approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, vol. 1, pp. 163–245. World Scientific, Singapore (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dijkman, R.: A Classification of Differences between Similar Business Processes. In: EDOC 2007, pp. 37–50. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Ehrig, H., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamental theory for typed attributed graph transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Parisi-Presicce, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 161–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: A research roadmap. In: Briand, L.C., Wolf, A.L. (eds.) International Conference on Software Engineering, ISCE 2007, Workshop on the Future of Software Engineering, FOSE 2007, Minneapolis, MN, USA, May 23-25, pp. 37–54 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: Detection of conflicting functional requirements in a use case-driven approach: a static analysis technique based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings ICSE 2002, pp. 105–115. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., Taentzer, G.: Confluence of Typed Attributed Graph Transformation. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A Generic Difference Algorithm for UML Models. In: Liggesmeyer, P., Pohl, K., Goedicke, M. (eds.) Software Engineering 2005, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, 8.-11.3.2005 in Essen. LNI, vol. 64, pp. 105–116. GI (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R., Polack, F.: Merging Models with the Epsilon Merging Language (EML). In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Küster, J.M.: Definition and validation of model transformations. Software and Systems Modeling 5(3), 233–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Engels, G.: Dependent and Conflicting Change Operations of Process Models. IBM Research Report RZ 3727, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory (2009),
  16. 16.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Detecting and Resolving Process Model Differences in the Absence of a Change Log. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambers, L., Ehrig, H., Taentzer, G.: Sufficient Criteria for Applicability and Non-Applicability of Rule Sequences. ECEASST 10 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Letkeman, K.: Comparing and merging UML models in IBM Rational Software Architect: Part 3. A deeper understanding of model merging. IBM Developerworks (2005),
  19. 19.
    Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(5), 449–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R., D’Hondt, M.: Detecting and resolving model inconsistencies using transformation dependency analysis. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Analysing refactoring dependencies using graph transformation. Software and System Modeling 6(3), 269–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group (OMG). The Unified Modeling Language 2.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rinderle, S., Jurisch, M., Reichert, M.: On Deriving Net Change Information From Change Logs - The DELTALAYER-Algorithm. In: Kemper, A., et al. (eds.) BTW 2007. LNI, vol. 103, pp. 364–381. GI (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Disjoint and Overlapping Process Changes: Challenges, Solutions, Applications. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 101–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG: A Graph Transformation Environment for Modeling and Validation of Software. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and More Focused Control-Flow Analysis for Business Process Models Through SESE Decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen M. Küster
    • 1
  • Christian Gerth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gregor Engels
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Zurich Research LaboratoryRüschlikonSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations