Advertisement

Mixing Paradigms for More Comprehensible Models

  • Michael Westergaard
  • Tijs Slaats
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8094)

Abstract

Petri nets efficiently model both data- and control-flow. Control-flow is either modeled explicitly as flow of a specific kind of data, or implicit based on the data-flow. Explicit modeling of control-flow is useful for well-known and highly structured processes, but may make modeling of abstract features of models, or processes which are highly dynamic, overly complex. Declarative modeling, such as is supported by Declare and DCR graphs, focus on control-flow, but does not specify it explicitly; instead specifications come in the form of constraints on the order or appearance of tasks. In this paper we propose a combination of the two, using colored Petri nets instead of plain Petri nets to provide full data support. The combined approach makes it possible to add a focus on data to declarative languages, and to remove focus from the explicit control-flow from Petri nets for dynamic or abstract processes. In addition to enriching both procedural processes in the form of Petri nets and declarative processes, we also support a flow from modeling only abstract data- and control-flow of a model towards a more explicit control-flow model if so desired. We define our combined approach, and provide considerations necessary for enactment. Our approach has been implemented in CPN Tools 4.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C.A., Wainer, J.: Workflow Modeling using Proclets. In: CoopIS 2000. LNCS, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carmona, J.A., Cortadella, J., Kishinevsky, M.: A Region-Based Algorithm for Discovering Petri Nets from Event Logs. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 358–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CPN Tools webpage, http://cpntools.org
  6. 6.
    Fahland, D.: Towards analyzing declarative workflows. In: Autonomous and Adaptive Web Services. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 07061, p. 6. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik, IBFI (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Post-Proc. of PLACES 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Terry, H.,I.F., Stacy, H., Mark, L., Sridhar, M., Anil, N., Piyawadee, S., Roman, V.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Proc. of WS-FM 2010, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.: Coloured Petri Nets – Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kristensen, L.M., Westergaard, M.: Automatic Structure-Based Code Generation from Coloured Petri Nets: A Proof of Concept. In: Kowalewski, S., Roveri, M. (eds.) FMICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6371, pp. 215–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maggi, F.M., Westergaard, M., Montali, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Runtime Verification of LTL-Based Declarative Process Models. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring Business Constraints with Linear Temporal Logic: An Approach Based on Colored Automata. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mukkamala, R.R.: A Formal Model For Declarative Workflows - Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen (March 2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mulyar, N., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Peleg, M.: Declarative and procedural approaches for modelling clinical guidelines: Addressing flexibility issues. In: ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM 2007 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 335–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Controls to Users. Ph.D. thesis, Beta Research School for Operations Management and Logistics, Eindhoven (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: An empirical investigation. In: Proc. of ER-BPM 2011, pp. 383–394 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Westergaard, M.: CPN Tools 4: Multi-formalism and Extensibility. In: Colom, J.-M., Desel, J. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7927, pp. 400–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Westergaard, M.: Better Algorithms for Analyzing and Enacting Declarative Workflow Languages Using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.: Declare: A Tool Suite for Declarative Workflow Modeling and Enactment. In: Business Process Management Demonstration Track (BPMDemos 2011). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 820, CEUR-WS.org (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Westergaard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Higher School of EconomicsNational Research UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Exformatics A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations