Advertisement

Dynamic Computation of Change Operations in Version Management of Business Process Models

  • Jochen Malte Küster
  • Christian Gerth
  • Gregor Engels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6138)

Abstract

Version management of business process models requires that changes can be resolved by applying change operations. In order to give a user maximal freedom concerning the application order of change operations, position parameters of change operations must be computed dynamically during change resolution. In such an approach, change operations with computed position parameters must be applicable on the model and dependencies and conflicts of change operations must be taken into account because otherwise invalid models can be constructed. In this paper, we study the concept of partially specified change operations where parameters are computed dynamically. We provide a formalization for partially specified change operations using graph transformation and provide a concept for their applicability. Based on this, we study potential dependencies and conflicts of change operations and show how these can be taken into account within change resolution. Using our approach, a user can resolve changes of business process models without being unnecessarily restricted to a certain order.

Keywords

Model Synchronization Version Management Model Transformation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biermann, E., Ermel, C., Taentzer, G.: Precise Semantics of EMF Model Transformations by Graph Transformation. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Csertán, G., Huszerl, G., Majzik, I., Pap, Z., Pataricza, A., Varró, D.: VIATRA: Visual Automated Transformations for Formal Verification and Validation of UML Models. In: Proceedings ASE 2002, September 2002, pp. 267–270 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Lara, J., Bardohl, R., Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Attributed graph transformation with node type inheritance. Theor. Comput. Sci. 376(3), 139–163 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Fluri, B., Würsch, M., Pinzger, M., Gall, H.: Change Distilling: Tree Differencing for Fine-Grained Source Code Change Extraction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33, 725–743 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerth, C., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Language-Independent Change Management of Process Models. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 152–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle 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 Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A Generic Difference Algorithm for UML Models. In: Liggesmeyer, P., Pohl, K., Goedicke, M. (eds.) SE 2005, Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik, LNI, vol. 64, pp. 105–116, GI (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Küster, J.M.: Definition and validation of model transformations. Software and Systems Modeling 5(3), 233–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Engels, G.: Dependent and Conflicting Change Operations of Process Models. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 158–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Engels, G.: Dynamic Computation of Change Operations in Version Management of Business Process Models. IBM Research Report RZ 3763, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory (January 2010), http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~jku/Papers/rz3763.pdf
  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., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Letkeman, K.: Comparing and merging UML models in IBM Rational Software Architect: Part 3. A deeper understanding of model merging. IBM Developerworks (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(5), 449–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Analysing refactoring dependencies using graph transformation. Software and System Modeling 6(3), 269–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2
  21. 21.
    Rekers, J., Schürr, A.: Defining and Parsing Visual Languages with Layered Graph Grammars. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 8(1), 27–55 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Malte Küster
    • 1
  • Christian Gerth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gregor Engels
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM ResearchRüschlikonSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations