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.
KeywordsBPMN Deontic Logic Modality Graph Transformation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0
- 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
- 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.Broersen, J., Van der Torre, L.: Ten problems of deontic logic and normative reasoning in computer science. Tutorial for ESSLLI (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) 1.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0
- 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.Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing Compliant Business Processes from Obligations and Permissions. In: 2nd Work. on Business Processes Design (BPD) (2006)Google Scholar
- 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.Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z.: A Formal Analysis of a Business Contract Language. Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (2006)Google Scholar
- 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.Ehrig, H., Pfender, M., Schneider, H.J.: Graph Grammars: an Algebraic Approach. In: Proceedings of FOCS 1973. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1973)Google Scholar
- 18.Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data&Knowledge Engineering 55 (2005)Google Scholar