Deciding Data Object Relevance for Business Process Model Abstraction

  • Josefine Harzmann
  • Andreas Meyer
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8217)


Business process model abstraction received considerable attention lately. So far, business process model abstraction is mainly based on control flow aspects ignoring data objects. Recently, data objects have been included in process model abstraction techniques. Thereby, the question arises which data objects are relevant for a specific abstraction level of a process model. To date, data object relevance is decided by control flow. But for data object abstraction independently from control flow aspects, the relevance question remains open. In this paper, we answer this question by introducing a set of data object relevance criteria focusing on data objects. These have been derived from use cases and have been evaluated with a first user study. Further, we show means to combine the presented criteria.


BPM Data Objects Relevance Criteria Data Object Abstraction Business Process Model Abstraction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: View-Based Process Visualization. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 88–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Constructing Customized Process Views. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64(2), 419–438 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Structural Matching of BPEL Processes. In: European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS), pp. 171–180. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Data Support in Process Model Abstraction. In: Atzeni, P., Cheung, D., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2012 Main Conference 2012. LNCS, vol. 7532, pp. 292–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morasca, S.: Measuring Attributes of Concurrent Software Specifications in Petri Nets. In: Software Metrics Symposium, pp. 100–110. IEEE Computer Society (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (UML), Version 2.4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: The Triconnected Abstraction of Process Models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Weske, M.: From Fine-Grained to Abstract Process Models: A Semantic Approach. Information Systems 37(8), 784–797 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Weske, M., Nugteren, T.: Business Process Model Abstraction: A Definition, Catalog, and Survey. Distributed and Parallel Databases 30(1), 63–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(3), 410–429 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josefine Harzmann
    • 1
  • Andreas Meyer
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations