Reflections on a Decade of Interorganizational Workflow Research

Chapter

Abstract

The Public-To-Private (P2P) approach presented at CAiSE in 2001 provides a correctness-by-construction approach to realize interorganizational workflows. A behavioral inheritance notion is used to ensure correctness: organizations can alter their private workflows as long as these remain subclasses of the agreed-upon public workflow. The CAiSE‘01 paper illustrates the strong relationship between business process management and service-orientation. Since 2001, there is a trend from the investigation of individual process orchestrations to interacting processes, i.e., process choreographies. In this paper, we reflect on the original problem statement and discuss related work.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst. Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer-Verlag, 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst. Service Mining: Using Process Mining to Discover, Check, and Improve Service Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst and T. Basten. Life-cycle Inheritance: A Petri-net-based Approach. In P. Azéma and G. Balbo, editors, Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997, volume 1248 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 62–81. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst and T. Basten. Inheritance of Workflows: An Approach to Tackling Problems Related to Change. Theoretical Computer Science, 270(1–2):125–203, 2002.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, M. Dumas, C. Ouyang, A. Rozinat, and H.M.W. Verbeek. Conformance Checking of Service Behavior. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 8(3):29–59, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, N. Lohmann, P. Massuthe, C. Stahl, and K. Wolf. Multiparty Contracts: Agreeing and Implementing Interorganizational Processes. The Computer Journal, 53(1):90–106, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst and M. Weske. The P2P approach to Interorganizational Workflows. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’01), volume 2068 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 140–156. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Alves et al. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (OASIS Standard). WS-BPEL TC OASIS, http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/wsbpel-v2.0.html, 2007.
  9. 9.
    T. Basten and W.M.P. van der Aalst. Inheritance of Behavior. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 47(2):47–145, 2001.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Decker, F. Puhlmann, and M. Weske. Formalizing Service Interactions. In International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2006), volume 4102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 414–419. Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Decker and A. Barros. Interaction Modeling Using BPMN. In Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede, Boualem Benatallah, and Hye-Young Paik, editors, Business Process Management Workshops, volume 4928 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 208–219. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Decker and M. Weske. Behavioral Consistency for B2B Process Integration. In John Krogstie, Andreas L. Opdahl, and Guttorm Sindre, editors, CAiSE, volume 4495 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 81–95. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Decker and M. Weske. Interaction-centric Modeling of Process Choreographies. Information Systems, 36(2):292–312, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Lohmann, P. Massuthe, C. Stahl, and D. Weinberg. Analyzing Interacting BPEL Processes. In International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2006), volume 4102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 17–32. Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Martens. On Compatibility of Web Services. In 10th Workshop on Algorithms and Tools for Petri Nets (AWPN 2003), Eichstätt, Germany, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Martens. On Usability of Web Services. In Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering Workshops, IEEE, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Massuthe, W. Reisig, and K. Schmidt. An Operating Guideline Approach to the SOA. In South-East European Workshop on Formal Methods (SEEFM’05), Ohrid, 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Müller, W.M.P. van der Aalst, and C. Stahl. Conformance Checking of Services Using the Best Matching Private View. In N. Lohmann and M. ter Beek, editors, WS-FM 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0, formal/2011-01-03 edition, 2011.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Puhlmann and M. Weske. Interaction Soundness for Service Orchestrations. In Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2006), volume 4294 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 302–313. Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Puhlmann and M. Weske. A Look Around the Corner: The Pi-Calculus. In Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II, pages 64–78. Springer-Verlag, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Weske. Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures.  Springer- Verlag, second edition, 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Wolf. Does my Service Have Partners? In Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II, pages 152–171. Springer-Verlag, 2009.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.M. Zaha, A. Barros, M. Dumas, and A.H.M. ter Hofstede. Let’s Dance: A Language for Service Behavior Modeling. In International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, volume 4275 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 145–162. Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J.M. Zaha, M. Dumas, A. ter Hofstede, A. Barros, and G. Decker. Service Interaction Modeling: Bridging Global and Local Views. In International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), pages 45–55. IEEE Computer Society, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Architecture of Information SystemsEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Business Process Management DisciplineQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.International Laboratory of Process-Aware Information SystemsNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations