Diagnosing and Repairing Data Anomalies in Process Models

  • Ahmed Awad
  • Gero Decker
  • Niels Lohmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 43)


When using process models for automation, correctness of the models is a key requirement. While many approaches concentrate on control flow verification only, correct data flow modeling is of similar importance. This paper introduces an approach for detecting and repairing modeling errors that only occur in the interplay between control flow and data flow. The approach is based on Petri nets and detects anomalies in BPMN models. In addition to the diagnosis of the modeling errors, a subset of errors can also be repaired automatically.


Business Process Modeling Data Flow Anomalies BPMN 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) version 1.2. Technical report, Object Management Group (OMG) (January 2009),
  2. 2.
    Alves, A., et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Technical report, OASIS (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Investigations on soundness regarding lazy activities. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Applying graph reduction techniques for identifying structural conflicts in process models. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Dongen, B.F., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Structural patterns for soundness of business process models. In: EDOC 2006, pp. 116–128. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., Sadiq, W., Foulger, C.: Data flow and validation in workflow modeling. In: ADC, pp. 207–214. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sun, S.X., Zhao, J.L., Nunamaker, J.F., Sheng, O.R.L.: Formulating the data-flow perspective for business process management. Info. Sys. Research 17(4), 374–391 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ryndina, K., Küster, J.M., Gall, H.C.: Consistency of business process models and object life cycles. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 80–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems (Cooperative Information Systems). MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M., Kondratyev, A., Lavagno, L., Yakovlev, A., England, N.R.: Petrify: a tool for manipulating concurrent specifications and synthesis of asynchronous controllers. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems 80, 315–325 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolf, K.: Generating Petri net state spaces. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4546, pp. 29–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Kees, M., Sidorova, N., Somers, L.J., Voorhoeve, M.: Consistency in model integration. Data Knowl. Eng. 56(1), 4–22 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moser, S., Martens, A., Görlach, K., Amme, W., Godlinski, A.: Advanced verification of distributed WS-BPEL business processes incorporating CSSA-based data flow analysis. In: SCC 2007, pp. 98–105. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hallé, S., Villemaire, R., Cherkaoui, O., Ghandour, B.: Model checking data-aware workflow properties with CTL-FO+. In: EDOC 2007, pp. 267–278. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lohmann, N., Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: Behavioral constraints for services. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 271–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fan, S., Dou, W.C., Chen, J.: Dual workflow nets: Mixed control/data-flow representation for workflow modeling and verification. In: Chang, K.C.-C., Wang, W., Chen, L., Ellis, C.A., Hsu, C.-H., Tsoi, A.C., Wang, H. (eds.) APWeb/WAIM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4537, pp. 433–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trčka, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Sidorova, N.: Data-flow anti-patterns: Discovering data-flow errors in workflows. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 425–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Awad
    • 1
  • Gero Decker
    • 1
  • Niels Lohmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Business Process Technology GroupHasso Plattner Institute at the University of Potsdam 
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikUniversität RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations