Advertisement

Abstract

The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) is maintained by the Object Management Group (OMG) and a widely-used standard for process modeling. A drawback of BPMN, however, is that modality is implicitly expressed through the structure of the process flow. All activities are implicitly mandatory and whenever something should be optional, a gateway or event is used to split the process flow and offer the possibility to execute the task or to do nothing. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the whole process to identify mandatory, optional and alternative activities.

The paper addresses this issue and extends BPMN with deontic logic to explicitly highlight modality. After a detailed study of modality expressed through various BPMN elements, an approach based on path exploration is introduced to support the deontic analysis. The result is an algebraic graph transformation from BPMN to Deontic BPMN diagrams, reducing the structural complexity and allowing better readability by explicitly highlighting the deontic classification. The understandability of Deontic BPMN is studied by means of a preliminary survey.

Keywords

BPMN Deontic Logic Modality Graph Transformation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0
  2. 2.
    Åqvist, L.: Deontic Logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 8, pp. 147–264. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis, D.: Semantic Analyses For Dyadic Deontic Logic. In: Stenlund, S. (ed.) Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis. D.Reidel Publishing Company(1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wieringa, R.J., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Applications of Deontic Logic in Computer Science: A Concise Overview. In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broersen, J., Van der Torre, L.: Ten problems of deontic logic and normative reasoning in computer science. Tutorial for ESSLLI (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) 1.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0
  8. 8.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Declarative Process Modeling with Business Vocabulary and Business Rules. In: Proc. of Object-Role Modeling, ORM (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing Compliant Business Processes from Obligations and Permissions. In: 2nd Work. on Business Processes Design (BPD) (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padmanabhan, V., Governatori, G., Sadiq, S., Colomb, R., Rotolo, A.: Process Modelling: The Deontic Way. In: Asia-Pacific Conf. on Conceptual Modeling (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z.: A Formal Analysis of a Business Contract Language. Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling Control Objectives for Business Process Compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghose, A.K., Koliadis, G.: Auditing Business Process Compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weigand, H., Verharen, E., Dignum, F.P.M.: Interoperable transactions in business models: A structured approach. In: Constantopoulos, P., Vassiliou, Y., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M., Gnesi, S., Fantechi, A.: A deontic logical framework for modelling product families. In: 4th Int. Work. on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrig, H., Pfender, M., Schneider, H.J.: Graph Grammars: an Algebraic Approach. In: Proceedings of FOCS 1973. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1973)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data&Knowledge Engineering 55 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D.: On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Natschläger
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbHAustria

Personalised recommendations