Advertisement

On the Suitability of Activity Diagrams and ConcurTaskTrees for Complex Event Modeling

  • Jens Brüning
  • Peter Forbrig
  • Enrico Seib
  • Michael Zaki
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 128)

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze and extend modeling possibilities for complex events in the semiformal business process modeling languages UML activity diagrams and ConcurTaskTrees (CTT). The goal of this paper is to provide an intuitive abstract starting point for complex event specifications in a model-based approach. The resulting models should increase the understandability of the models themselves and the discussion taking place with the developers and the stakeholders. A hierarchy concept for advanced visual event modeling is introduced to activity diagrams. In these models time, data and cardinality aspects can be expressed. A different approach for complex event modeling is proposed using hierarchical task models with CTT. We transform given temporal operators from CTT that are based on process algebra to event algebra. Some extensions for CTT-operators are used to express specific complex event models in a semiformal way.

Keywords

Business Process Modeling Complex Event Modeling Unified Modeling Language (UML) Task Modeling Requirements Engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barros, A., Decker, G., Großkopf, A.: Complex Events in Business Processes. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 29–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten, J.C.M.: A Brief History of Process Algebra. Theoretical Computer Science 138(2), 243–271 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolognesi, T., Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the ISO Specification Language LOTOS. In: van Eijk, P.H.J., Vissers, C.A., Diaz, M. (eds.) The Formal Description Technique LOTOS. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allen, J.F.: Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM 26(11), 832–843 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brüning, J., Forbrig, P.: Behaviour of flow operators connected with object flows in workflow specifications. In: BIR 2008. University of Gdansk (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brüning, J., Forbrig, P.: Modellierung von Entscheidungen und Interpretation von Entscheidungsoperatoren in einem WfMS. In: EPK 2009. CEUR-WS, vol. 554 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brüning, J., Forbrig, P.: TTMS: A Task Tree Based Workflow Management System. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 186–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brüning, J., Dittmar, A., Forbrig, P., Reichart, D.: Getting SW Engineers on Board: Task Modelling with Activity Diagrams. In: Gulliksen, J., Harning, M.B., van der Veer, G.C., Wesson, J. (eds.) EIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4940, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlson, J., Lisper, B.: A resource-efficient event algebra. Science of Computer Programming 75(12), 1215–1234 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charavarthy, S., Krishnaprasad, V., Anwar, E., Kim, S.K.: Composite Events for Active databases: Semantics, Contexts and Dtetection. In: VLDB 1994, Santiago, Chile (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, S.-K., Jeng, J.-J., Chang, H.: Complex Event Processing using Simple Rule-based Event Correlation Engines for Business Performance Management. In: CEC/EEE 2006, Palo Alto (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, R.: Business process modelling with ARIS: A Practical Guide. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Process Instantiation. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(9), 777–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decker, G., Großkopf, A., Barros, A.: A Graphical Notation for Modeling Complex Events in Business Processes. In: EDOC 2007. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dijkstra, E.: Go To Statement Considered Harmful. Communications of the ACM 11(3), 147–148, doi:10.1145/362929.362947Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopp, O., Wieland, M., Leymann, F.: External and Internal Events in EPCs: e2EPCs. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 381–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luckham, D.: The Power of Events. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mori, G., Paterno, F., Santoro, C.: CTTE: Support for Developing and Analyzing Task Models for Interactive System Design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 797–813 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) specification vers. 2.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF (accessed: May 05, 2011)
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML) version 2.3. OMG document formal/2010-05-05 (2010), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/Superstructure/PDF (accessed: May 05, 2011)
  21. 21.
    Rommelspacher, J.: Modelling Complex Events with Event-Driven Process Chains. In: SIGSAND-EUROPE 2008. LNI, vol. 129 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS – Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle, Anwendungen. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seib, E., Parzyjegla, H., Mühl, G.: Distributed Composite Event Detection in Publish/Subscribe Networks - A Case for Self-Organization. ECEASST 37 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinnig, D., Wurdel, M., Forbrig, P., Chalin, P., Khendek, F.: Practical Extensions for Task Models. In: Winckler, M., Johnson, H. (eds.) TAMODIA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4849, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(3), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The Refined Process Structure Tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laue, R., Mendling, J.: Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models. Inf. Syst. E-Business Management 8(3), 287–307 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P.: On the Suitability of UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams for Business Process Modelling. In: APCCM 2006, Australia, Hobart, CRPIT, vol. 53 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu, D., Sethi, A.: SEL, A New Event Pattern Specification Language for Event Correlation. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Communications and Networks, pp. 586–589. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolb, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Using Concurrent Task Trees for Stakeholder-centered Modeling and Visualization of Business Processes. In: Oppl, S., Fleischmann, A. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2012. CCIS, vol. 284, pp. 237–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Brüning
    • 1
  • Peter Forbrig
    • 1
  • Enrico Seib
    • 1
  • Michael Zaki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations