BPMN 2.0 Execution Semantics Formalized as Graph Rewrite Rules

  • Remco Dijkman
  • Pieter Van Gorp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 67)


This paper presents a formalization of a subset of the BPMN 2.0 execution semantics in terms of graph rewrite rules. The formalization is supported by graph rewrite tools and implemented in one of these tools, called GrGen. The benefit of formalizing the execution semantics by means of graph rewrite rules is that there is a strong relation between the execution semantics rules that are informally specified in the BPMN 2.0 standard and their formalization. This makes it easy to validate the formalization. Having a formalized and implemented execution semantics supports simulation, animation and execution of BPMN 2.0 models. In particular this paper explains how to use the formal execution semantics to verify workflow engines and service orchestration and choreography engines that use BPMN 2.0 for modeling the processes that they execute.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Object Management Group: Business process model and notation beta 1 for version 2.0. Technical Report dtc/2009-08-14, Object Management Group, Needham, MA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Workflow Management Coalition: Process definition interface – XML process definition language version 2.1a. Technical Report WFMC-TC-1025, Workflow Management Coalition, Hingham, MA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Workflow Management Coalition: XPDL implementations (June 2010), (accessed May 21, 2010)
  4. 4.
    Rozenberg, G. (ed.): Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, vol. I. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jakumeit, E., Buchwald, S., Kroll, M.: GrGen.NET. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, STTT (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heckel, R.: Tutorial introduction to graph transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) ICGT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5214, pp. 458–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habel, A., Pennemann, K.h.: Correctness of high-level transformation systems relative to nested conditions† Mathematical. Structures in Comp. Sci. 19(2), 245–296 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Gorp, P., Mazanek, S., Rensink, A.: Transformation Tool Contest – Awards (2010),
  9. 9.
    Van Gorp, P.: BPMN semantics: online virtual machine (2010),
  10. 10.
    Budinsky, F., Brodsky, S.A., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong, P.Y., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Maibaum, T., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wong, P.Y., Gibbons, J.: Formalisations and applications of BPMN. Science of Computer Programming (2009) (in Press, Corrected Proof)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in bpmn. Information and Software Technology (IST) 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prandi, D., Quaglia, P., Zannone, N.: Formal analysis of BPMN via a translation into COWS. In: Lea, D., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) COORDINATION 2008. LNCS, vol. 5052, pp. 249–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raedts, I., Petkovic, M., Usenko, Y., van der Werf, J., Groote, J., Somers, L.: Transformation of BPMN models for behaviour analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Modelling, Simulation, Verification and Validation of Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 126–137. INSTICC Press (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dumas, M., Grosskopf, A., Hettel, T., Wynn, M.: Semantics of standard process models with or-joins. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 41–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takemura, T.: Formal semantics and verification of BPMN transaction and compensation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing, pp. 284–290. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, pp. 407–426 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prandi, D., Quaglia, P.: Stochastic COWS. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 245–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remco Dijkman
    • 1
  • Pieter Van Gorp
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations