Advertisement

Modeling and Enacting Complex Data Dependencies in Business Processes

  • Andreas Meyer
  • Luise Pufahl
  • Dirk Fahland
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8094)

Abstract

Enacting business processes in process engines requires the coverage of control flow, resource assignments, and process data. While the first two aspects are well supported in current process engines, data dependencies need to be added and maintained manually by a process engineer. Thus, this task is error-prone and time-consuming. In this paper, we address the problem of modeling processes with complex data dependencies, e.g., m:n relationships, and their automatic enactment from process models. First, we extend BPMN data objects with few annotations to allow data dependency handling as well as data instance differentiation. Second, we introduce a pattern-based approach to derive SQL queries from process models utilizing the above mentioned extensions. Therewith, we allow automatic enactment of data-aware BPMN process models. We implemented our approach for the Activiti process engine to show applicability.

Keywords

ProcessModeling Data Modeling Process Enactment BPMN SQL 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case Handling: A New Paradigm for Business Process Support. Data & Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C., Wainer, J.: Proclets: A Framework for Lightweight Interacting Workflow Processes. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 10(4), 443–481 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Activiti: Activiti BPM Platform, https://www.activiti.org/
  5. 5.
    Bonitasoft: Bonita Process Engine, https://www.bonitasoft.com/
  6. 6.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: A data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eshuis, R., Van Gorp, P.: Synthesizing Object Life Cycles from Business Process Models. In: Atzeni, P., Cheung, D., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2012 Main Conference 2012. LNCS, vol. 7532, pp. 307–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: PHILharmonicFlows: Towards a Framework for Object-aware Process Management. J. Softw. Maint. Evol.R 23(4), 205–244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Küster, J., Ryndina, K., Gall, H.: Generation of Business Process Models for Object Life Cycle Compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lanz, A., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Robust and flexible error handling in the aristaflow bpm suite. In: Soffer, P., Proper, E. (eds.) CAiSE Forum 2010. LNBIP, vol. 72, pp. 174–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, R., Wu, F.Y., Kumaran, S.: Transforming activity-centric business process models into information-centric models for soa solutions. J. Database Manag. 21(4), 14–34 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, A., Pufahl, L., Fahland, D., Weske, M.: Modeling and Enacting Complex Data Dependencies in Business Processes. Tech. Rep. 74, HPI at the University of Potsdam (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 131–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.: Business artifacts: An Approach to Operational Specification. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML), Version 2.4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Redding, G., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Iordachescu, A.: A flexible, object-centric approach for business process modelling. In: SOCA 2010, vol. 4(3), pp. 191–201 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Silberschatz, A., Korth, H.F., Sudarshan, S.: Database System Concepts, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanderfeesten, I.T.P., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Product-based workflow support. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 517–535 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, J., Kumar, A.: A Framework for Document-Driven Workflow Systems. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 285–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, Z., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Ouyang, C., Wynn, M., Wang, J., Zhu, X.: How to Guarantee Compliance between Workflows and Product Lifecycles? Tech. rep., BPM Center Report BPM-11-10 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Meyer
    • 1
  • Luise Pufahl
    • 1
  • Dirk Fahland
    • 2
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations