Advertisement

Multilevel Business Artifacts

  • Christoph Schütz
  • Lois M. L. Delcambre
  • Michael Schrefl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 132)

Abstract

The representation of many real-world scenarios in conceptual models benefits from the use of multilevel abstraction hierarchies. Product models, for example, are typically grouped into product categories which, in turn, constitute the company’s range of products. Multilevel abstraction hierarchies often reflect the organizational structure of a company and the different information needs of the various departments. Current modeling techniques, however, lack extensive support for the representation of multilevel abstraction hierarchies in business process models. The explicit consideration of multilevel abstraction hierarchies in business process models might improve the alignment of processes across different organizational entities. In this paper, we introduce the concept of the multilevel business artifact (MBA) for representing multilevel abstraction hierarchies of both data and process models. An MBA encapsulates in a single object the data and process models of various levels, thereby expanding consequently the idea of business artifacts to the realm of multilevel abstraction hierarchies.

Keywords

Conceptual Modeling Multilevel Abstraction Metamodeling Object Life Cycles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 61–70. Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neumayr, B., Schrefl, M., Thalheim, B.: Modeling Techniques for Multi-level Abstraction. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520, pp. 68–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, version 2.4.1, http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
  5. 5.
    Stumptner, M., Schrefl, M.: Behavior Consistent Inheritance in UML. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 527–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Behavior-consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(1), 92–148 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group: OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF), Superstructure, version 2.4.1, http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.4.1/
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group: OMG Object Constraint Language (OCL), version 2.3.1, http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.3.1/
  9. 9.
    Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M.: Design for service compatibility – behavioural compatibility checking and diagnosis. Software and Systems Modeling (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0229-0
  10. 10.
    Kappel, G., Schrefl, M.: Object/behavior diagrams. In: 7th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 530–539. IEEE, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Weske, M.: A Semantic Approach for Business Process Model Abstraction. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 497–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., De Masellis, R., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M.H., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.N., Vaculín, R.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: Managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: 5th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems, pp. 51–62. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P.: Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) ToPNoc II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 115–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change patterns and change support features - enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering 66(3), 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Künzle, V., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Object-aware business processes: Fundamental requirements and their support in existing approaches. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 2(2), 19–46 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: A Foundational Approach for Managing Process Variability. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems – a survey. Data & Knowledge Engineering 50(1), 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schütz
    • 1
  • Lois M. L. Delcambre
    • 2
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Informatics –, Data & Knowledge EngineeringJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations