Evaluating Choreographies in BPMN 2.0 Using an Extended Quality Framework

  • Mario Cortes-Cornax
  • Sophie Dupuy-Chessa
  • Dominique Rieu
  • Marlon Dumas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 95)


The notion of choreography has emerged over the past years as a foundational concept for capturing and managing collaborative business processes. This concept has been adopted as a first-class citizen in the latest version of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN 2.0). However, it remains an open question whether or not BPMN 2.0 is actually appropriate for capturing choreographies. In this paper, we shed light into this question by extending an existing language evaluation framework in order to cover the specificities of choreographies, and applying the extended evaluation framework to BPMN 2.0. Among others, the evaluation identifies a number of issues in BPMN 2.0 that affect the perceptual discriminability of certain choreography modelling constructs. These deficiencies could potentially affect the comprehensibility of models and lead to confusion, particularly among novice users. Recommendations for addressing these deficiencies are put forward.


Choreography Quality Framework BPMN 2.0 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchestration and choreography. Computer, 46–52 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W3C: Web services choreography description language version 1.0 (ws-cdl) - w3c candidate recommendation (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ross-Talbot, S., Brown, G., Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Pi4soa technologies fundation, http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/pi4soa/wiki
  4. 4.
    Decker, G., Kirov, M., Zaha, J., Dumas, M.: Maestro for Lets Dance: An Environment for Modeling Service Interactions. BPM Demo Session, p. 32 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nitzsche, J., Van Lessen, T., Leymann, F.: Extending bpellight for expressing multi-partner message exchange patterns. In: 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 245–254. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker, G., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., Weske, M.: Interacting services: from specification to execution. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(10), 946–972 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barker, A., Walton, C., Robertson, D.: Choreographing Web Services. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 2(2), 152–166 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG: Business process model and notation (bpmn 2.0) (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
  9. 9.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Aalst, W., Ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Do process modelling techniques get better? A comparative ontological analysis of BPMN. In: Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, Australia. Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahl, T., Sindre, G.: An analytical evaluation of BPMN using a semiotic quality framework. Advanced Topics in Database Research 5 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36, 292–312 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., Oaks, P.: A critical overview of the web services choreography description language. BPTrends Newsletter 3 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ross-Talbot, S., Brown, G., Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Soa best practices: Building a soa using process governance. JBoss (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wetzstein, B., Karastoyanova, D., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., Zwink, D.: Cross-organizational process monitoring based on service choreographies. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 2485–2490. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Service Interaction Patterns. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 302–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ambler, S.: The elements of UML 2.0 style. Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moody, D.: The Physics of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 756–779 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weidlich, M., Barros, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Vertical Alignment of Process Models–How Can We Get There? In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    OASIS: Web services business process execution language v2.0 (ws-bpel 2.0) (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style: A levels-based methodology for BPM process modeling and improvement using BPMN 2.0. Cody-Cassidy Press, US (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fielding, R.: Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. PhD thesis, Citeseer (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barros, A., Decker, G., Dumas, M., Weber, F.: Correlation Patterns in Service-Oriented Architectures. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 245–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M.: Service-oriented design: A multi-viewpoint approach. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13, 337–368 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barros, A., Decker, G., Dumas, M.: Multi-staged and multi-viewpoint service choreography modelling. Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evitts, P.: A UML pattern language. New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dijkman, R., Van Gorp, P.: BPMN 2.0 Execution Semantics Formalized as Graph Rewrite Rules. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPMN 2010. LNBIP, vol. 67, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Decker, G., Kopp, O., Barros, A.: An introduction to service choreographies. Information Technology 50(2), 122–127 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Silver, B.: Bpmn model interchange: Update (2011), http://www.brsilver.com/2011/02/26/bpmn-model-interchange-update/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Cortes-Cornax
    • 1
  • Sophie Dupuy-Chessa
    • 1
  • Dominique Rieu
    • 1
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Grenoble, CNRS, LIGFrance
  2. 2.University of TartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations