Advertisement

Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Maintainability

  • Dirk Fahland
  • Jan Mendling
  • Hajo A. Reijers
  • Barbara Weber
  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Stefan Zugal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 43)

Abstract

The rise of interest in declarative languages for process modeling both justifies and demands empirical investigations into their presumed advantages over more traditional, imperative alternatives. Our concern in this paper is with the ease of maintaining business process models, for example due to changing performance or conformance demands. We aim to contribute to a rigorous, theoretical discussion of this topic by drawing a link to well-established research on maintainability of information artifacts.

Keywords

Process model maintainability declarative versus imperative modeling cognitive dimensions framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Svatoš, O.: Conceptual Process Modeling Language: Regulative Approach. In: 9th Undergraduate and Graduate Students eConf. and 14th Business & Government Executive Meeting on Innovative Cross-border eRegion, Univ. of Maribor (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boley, H.: Declarative and Procedural Paradigms - Do They Really Compete? In: Boley, H., Richter, M.M. (eds.) PDK 1991. LNCS, vol. 567, pp. 383–385. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability. In: BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21(1), 31–48 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, T.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Sutcliffe, A., Macaulay, L. (eds.) People and Computers V, Proceedings, pp. 443–460 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, T., Petre, M.: Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A Cognitive Dimensions Framework. J. Vis. Lang. Computing 7(2), 131–174 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mutschler, B., Reichert, M., Bumiller, J.: Unleashing the Effectiveness of Process-oriented Information Systems: Problem Analysis, Critical Success Factors, Implications. IEEE Trans. Sys., Man, and Cybernetics (C) 38(3), 280–291 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex – Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. J. of Intelligent Inf. Systems 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness Criteria for Dynamic Changes in Workflow Systems – A Survey. Data Knowl. Eng. 50(1), 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics. Comp. in Ind. 59(5), 420–437 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guceglioglu, A., Demirors, O.: Using Software Quality Characteristics to Measure Business Process Quality. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 374–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felleisen, M.: On the Expressive Power of Programming Languages. Science of Computer Programming 17(1-3), 35–75 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prechelt, L.: An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages. Computer 23–29 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green, T.: Conditional program statements and their comprehensibility to professional programmers. Journal of Occupational Psychology 50, 93–109 (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Green, T.: Ifs and thens: Is nesting just for the birds? Software Focus 10(5), 373–381 (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blackwell, A.: Ten years of cognitive dimensions in visual languages and computing. J. Vis. Lang. Computing 17(4), 285–287 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Cardoso, J.: On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Green, T., Blackwell, A.: A Tutorial on Cognitive Dimensions (1998), http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~thomas.green/workStuff/Papers/index.html
  21. 21.
    Siddiqi, J.I., Roast, C.R.: Viscosity as a metaphor for measuring modifiability. lEE Proc. Software Engineering. 144(4), 215–223 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lloyd, J.: Practical advantages of declarative programming. In: Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, GULP-PRODE 1994 (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kowalski, R.: Algorithm = logic + control. Commun. ACM 22(7), 424–436 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roy, P.V., Haridi, S.: Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petri, C.A.: Concepts of net theory. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science: Proc. of Symposium and Summer School, High Tatras, September 3-8, pp. 137–146. Math. Inst. of the Slovak Acad. of Sciences (1973)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holt, A.W.: A Mathematical Model of Continuous Discrete Behavior. Massachusettes Computer Associates, Inc. (November 1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On Measuring Process Model Similarity based on High-level Change Operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features -Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 66(3), 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Fahland
    • 1
  • Jan Mendling
    • 1
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 2
  • Barbara Weber
    • 3
  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 4
  • Stefan Zugal
    • 3
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of InnsbruckAustria
  4. 4.Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations