Transforming Process Models: Executable Rewrite Rules versus a Formalized Java Program

  • Pieter Van Gorp
  • Rik Eshuis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6395)


In the business process management community, transformations for process models are usually programmed using imperative languages (such as Java). The underlying mapping rules tend to be documented using informal visual rules whereas they tend to be formalized using mathematical set constructs. In the Graph and Model Transformation communities, special purpose languages and tools (such as GrGen) are being developed to support the direct execution of such mapping rules. As part of our ongoing effort to bridge these two communities, we have implemented a transformation from petri-nets to statecharts (PN2SC) using both approaches. By relying on technical comparison criteria and by making the solutions available for online replay, we illustrate that rule-based approaches require less specification effort due to their more declarative specification style and automatic performance optimizations. From a tool perspective, GrGen has better visualization and debugging support whereas Java tools support evolution better.


Model Transformation Graph Transformation Business Process Management Mapping Rule Reduction Rule 
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.
    Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.M., Kogut, P.A., Hart, L., Smith, J.E., Holmes III, W.S., Letkowski, J., Aronson, M.L.: Extending UML to Support Ontology Engineering for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 4th Int. UML Conference 2001, pp. 342–360 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American Magazine (May 2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Credle, R., Akibola, V., Karna, V., Panneerselvam, D., Pillai, R., Prasad, S.: Discovering the Business Value Patterns of Chemical and Petroleum Integrated Information Framework. Red Book SG24-7735-00. IBM (August 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dahms, M.: OWL2Ecore: A theoretical and practical investigation. Technical report, SAP Research, CEC Karlsruhe,
  5. 5.
    Falkovych, K., Sabou, M., Stuckenschmidt, H.: UML for the Semantic Web: Transformation-Based Approaches. In: Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, pp. 92–106 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillairet, G., Bertrand, F., Lafaye, J.-Y.: MDE for Publishing Data on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of 1st Int. Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering, TWOMDE, pp. 32–46 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horrocks, I.: OWL: A Description Logic Based Ontology Language. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 5–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klüwer, J.W., Skjæveland, M.G., Valen-Sendstad, M.: ISO 15926 templates and the Semantic Web. In: Position paper for W3C Workshop on Semantic Web in Energy Industries; Part I: Oil and Gas (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, T.-H., Chen, C.-C.: From Ontology to Semantic Web Service via Model-Driven System Development. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, National Chengchi University, Taiwan (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Motik, Patel-Schneider, Parsia: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, W3C Recommendation (October 2009),
  11. 11.
    Schreiber, G.: A UML Presentation Syntax for OWL Lite. Incomplete draft (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaught, R.L.: Alfred Tarski’s Work in Model Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 51(4), 869–882 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verhelst, F., Myren, F., Rylandsholm, P., Svensson, I., Waaler, A., Skramstad, T., Ornæs, J.I., Tvedt, B.H., Høydal, J.: Digital Platform for the Next Generation IO: A Prerequisite for the High North. In: SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: OntoDSL: An Ontology-Based Framework for Domain-Specific Languages. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Van Gorp
    • 1
  • Rik Eshuis
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations