BPMN4TOSCA: A Domain-Specific Language to Model Management Plans for Composite Applications

  • Oliver Kopp
  • Tobias Binz
  • Uwe Breitenbücher
  • Frank Leymann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 125)


TOSCA is an upcoming standard to capture cloud application topologies and their management in a portable way. Management aspects include provisioning, operation and deprovisioning of an application. Management plans capture these aspects in workflows. BPMN 2.0 as general-purpose language can be used to model these workflows. There is, however, no tailored support for management plans in BPMN. This paper analyzes TOSCA with the focus on requirements on workflow modeling languages to come up with a strong link to the application topology with the goal to improve modeling support. To simplify the modeling of management plans, we introduce BPMN4TOSCA, which extends BPMN with four TOSCA-specific elements: TOSCA Topology Management Task, TOSCA Node Management Task, TOSCA Script Task, and TOSCA Data Object. Portability is ensured by a transformation of BPMN4TOSCA to plain BPMN. A prototypical modeling tool supports the strong link between the management plan and the TOSCA topology.


Cloud Computing Service Management Management Plans BPMN Extension. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    OASIS: Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications Version 1.0 Working Draft 07 (June 2012),
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0, OMG Document Number: formal/2011-01-03 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 – OASIS Standard (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binz, T., Breiter, G., Leymann, F., Spatzier, T.: Portable Cloud Services Using TOSCA. IEEE Internet Computing 16(03), 80–85 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kopp, O., Martin, D., Wutke, D., Leymann, F.: The Difference Between Graph-Based and Block-Structured Business Process Modelling Languages. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems 4(1), 3–13 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cardoso, J.: How to Measure the Control-flow Complexity of Web Processes and Workflows. In: Workflow Handbook 2005, pp. 199–212 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weikum, G., Vossen, G.: Transactional Information Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopp, O., Görlach, K., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F., Reiter, M., Schumm, D., Sonntag, M., Strauch, S., Unger, T., Wieland, M., Khalaf, R.: A Classification of BPEL Extensions. Journal of Systems Integration 2(4), 2–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decker, G., Overdick, H., Weske, M.: Oryx – An Open Modeling Platform for the BPM Community. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 382–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zor, S., Leymann, F., Schumm, D.: A Proposal of BPMN Extensions for the Manufacturing Domain. In: Proceedings of the 44th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: A BPMN Extension for the Modeling of Security Requirements in Business Processes. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems 90(4), 745–752 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brucker, A.D., Hang, I., Lückemeyer, G., Ruparel, R.: SecureBPMN: Modeling and Enforcing Access Control Requirements in Business Processes. In: ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stein, S., Kühne, S., Ivanov, K.: Business to IT Transformations Revisited. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 176–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leymann, F.: BPEL vs. BPMN 2.0: Should You Care? In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPMN 2010. LNBIP, vol. 67, pp. 8–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mietzner, R.: A Method and Implementation to Define and Provision Variable Composite Applications, and its usage in Cloud Computing. Dissertation, University of Stuttgart, Germany (August 2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language, UML (2011),
  18. 18.
    Machiraju, V., Dekhil, M., Wurster, K., Garg, P., Griss, M., Holland, J.: Towards generic application auto-discovery. In: IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arnold, W., Eilam, T., Kalantar, M., Konstantinou, A.V., Totok, A.A.: Pattern Based SOA Deployment. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Binz, T., Fehling, C., Leymann, F., Nowak, A., Schumm, D.: Formalizing the Cloud through Enterprise Topology Graphs. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Kopp
    • 1
  • Tobias Binz
    • 1
  • Uwe Breitenbücher
    • 1
  • Frank Leymann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Architecture of Application SystemsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations