Advertisement

Declarative Modeling–An Academic Dream or the Future for BPM?

  • Hajo A. Reijers
  • Tijs Slaats
  • Christian Stahl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8094)

Abstract

Declarative modeling has attracted much attention over the last years, resulting in the development of several academic declarative modeling techniques and tools. The absence of empirical evaluations on their use and usefulness, however, raises the question whether practitioners are attracted to using those techniques. In this paper, we present a study on what practitioners think of declarative modeling. We show that the practitioners we involved in this study are receptive to the idea of a hybrid approach combining imperative and declarative techniques, rather than making a full shift from the imperative to the declarative paradigm. Moreover, we report on requirements, use cases, limitations, and tool support of such a hybrid approach. Based on the gained insight, we propose a research agenda for the development of this novel modeling approach.

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.: Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - R&D 23(2), 99–113 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Consistency checking of compliance rules. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 47, pp. 106–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cobleigh, R.L., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A.: User guidance for creating precise and accessible property specifications. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 208–218. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420. ACM (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of maintainability. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 477–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D.: Come, let’s play - scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Safe distribution of declarative processes. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES 2010. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karpinski, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer (1977)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess. TWEB 4(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moody, D.: The physicsof notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003, pp. 1327–1336 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papazoglou, M.: Web Services - Principles and Technology. Prentice Hall (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: An empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: The declarative approach to business process execution: An empirical test. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 470–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare: A tool suite for declarative workflow modeling and enactment. In: BPM (Demos) 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 820, CEUR-WS.org (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christian Stahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Perceptive SoftwareApeldoornThe Netherlands
  3. 3.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Exformatics A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations