Formal Semantics and Implementation of BPMN 2.0 Inclusive Gateways

  • David Raymond Christiansen
  • Marco Carbone
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6551)


We present the first direct formalization of the semantics of inclusive gateways as described in the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) 2.0 Beta 1 specification. The formal semantics is given for a minimal subset of BPMN 2.0 containing just the inclusive and exclusive gateways and the start and stop events. By focusing on this subset we achieve a simple graph model that highlights the particular non-local features of the inclusive gateway semantics. We sketch two ways of implementing the semantics using algorithms based on incrementally updated data structures and also discuss distributed communication-based implementations of the two algorithms.


Formal Semantic Object Management Group Sequence Flow Business Process Modeling Notation Start Event 
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.
    Börger, E., Sörensen, O., Thalheim, B.: On defining the behavior of OR-joins in business process models. J. UCS 15(1), 3–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information and Software Technology 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dumas, M., Großkopf, A., Hettel, T., Wynn, M.T.: Semantics of standard process models with OR-joins. In: Chung, S. (ed.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 41–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group. BPMN 1.0: OMG final adopted specification (February 2006), (accessed May 10, 2010)
  5. 5.
    Object Management Group. Business process modeling notation (BPMN) 2.0 beta 1(August 2009), (accessed May 10, 2010)
  6. 6.
    Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: Resolving the vicious circle. Data Knowl. Eng. 56, 23–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peterson, J.L.: Petri nets. ACM Computing Surveys 9(3), 223–252 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prandi, D., Quaglia, P., Zannone, N.: Formal analysis of BPMN via a translation into COWS. In: Wang, A.H., Tennenholtz, M. (eds.) COORDINATION 2008. LNCS, vol. 5052, pp. 249–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Völzer, H.: A new semantics for the inclusive converging gateway in safe processes. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 294–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ye, J., Sun, S., Song, W., Wen, L.: Formal semantics of BPMN process models using YAWL. In: Second International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application, IITA 2008, vol. 2, pp. 70–74, 20-22 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Raymond Christiansen
    • 1
  • Marco Carbone
    • 1
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
    • 1
  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations