Precise Detection of Conflicting Change Operations Using Process Model Terms

  • Christian Gerth
  • Jochen M. Küster
  • Markus Luckey
  • Gregor Engels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6395)


Version management of process models requires that changes can be resolved by applying change operations. Conflict detection is an important part of version management and the minimization of the number of detected conflicts also reduces the overhead when resolving changes. As not every syntactic conflict leads to a conflict when taking into account model semantics, a computation of conflicts solely on the syntax leads to an unnecessary high number of conflicts. In this paper, we introduce the notion of syntactic and semantic conflicts for change operations of process models. We provide a method how to efficiently compute conflicts, using a term formalization of process models. Using this approach, we can significantly reduce the number of overall conflicts and thereby reduce the amount of work for the user when resolving conflicts.


Interest Rate Graph Transformation Execution Trace Business Process Model Version Management 
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.
    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
  2. 2.
    Altmanninger, K.: Models in Conflict - Towards a Semantically Enhanced Version Control System for Models. In: Giese, H. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5002, pp. 293–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brosch, P., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: Towards End-User Adaptable Model Versioning: The By-Example Operation Recorder. In: ICSE Workshop on CVSM, pp. 55–60. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)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.
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Gerth, C., Luckey, M., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Detection of Semantically Equivalent Fragments for Business Process Model Change Management. In: SCC 2010, pp. 57–64. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Business Machines Corp (IBM). IBM WebSphere Business Modeler,
  9. 9.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A Generic Difference Algorithm for UML Models. In: Liggesmeyer, P., Pohl, K., Goedicke, M. (eds.) Software Engineering 2005, GI. LNI, vol. 64, pp. 105–116 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiepuszewski, B.: Expressiveness and Suitability of Languages for Control Flow Modelling in Workflows. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Engels, G.: Dynamic Computation of Change Operations in Version Management of Business Process Models. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 201–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Letkeman, K.: Comparing and merging UML models in IBM Rational Software Architect: Part 3. A deeper understanding of model merging. In: IBM Developerworks (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10, 707 (1966)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28(5), 449–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Analysing refactoring dependencies using graph transformation. Software and System Modeling 6(3), 269–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murata, T.: Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S.M., Zave, P.: Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications. In: ICSE 2007, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN),
  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)CrossRefGoogle 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glabbeek, R.J.v.: The Linear Time-Branching Time Spectrum I - The Semantics of Concrete, Sequential Processes. In: Handbook of Process Algebra, ch. 1, pp. 3–99. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.M.W.: An Alternative Way to Analyze Workflow Graphs. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Gerth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jochen M. Küster
    • 2
  • Markus Luckey
    • 1
  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornGermany
  2. 2.IBM Research - ZurichRüschlikonSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations