Business Process Modeling: Defining Domain Specific Modeling Languages by Use of UML Profiles

  • Steen Brahe
  • Kasper Østerbye
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4066)


General-purpose modeling languages are inadequate to model and visualize business processes precisely. An enterprise has its own vocabulary for modeling processes and its specific tasks may have attached data that define the tasks precisely. We propose using Domain Specific Modeling (DSM) languages to model business processes, such that an enterprise can define its own DSM language(s) capturing its vocabulary and data requirement. We suggest using UML profiles and UML activity diagrams as the semantic base for these DSM languages and present tools that are able to create a DSM language and tool support for a given domain. One tool, called ADSpecializer, can generate a UML profile and its tool support of a given application domain. The other tool, ADModeler, is used to create UML activity diagrams within such a domain-specific UML profile. The two tools enable an enterprise to efficiently define and utilize their own DSM language.


Business Process Activity Diagram Business Process Modeling Eclipse Modeling Framework Model Drive Engineer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bézivin, J., Heckel, R.: Language Engineering for Model-driven Software Development. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 04101, 1–8 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Havey, M.: Essential Business Process Modeling. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility 2.0 Specification. Document id: ptc/04-10-15 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. Document id: formal/05-07-04 (2005) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture- Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    BPEL: BEA, Microsoft, IBM, SAP, Siebel, Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, Version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    GME, Generic Modeling Environment (last accessed, January 29, 2006),
  8. 8.
    Heckel, R., Voigt, H.: Model-Based Development of Executable Business Processes for Web Services. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 559–584. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: Pattern-based Analysis of UML Activity Diagrams. Technical report #129, Beta Research School, Eindhoven University of Technology (December 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.H.M.: UML Activity Diagrams as a Workflow Specification Language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MetaEdit+, MetaCase modeling tool (last accessed, January 29, 2006),
  13. 13.
    Gardner, T.: UML Modelling of Automated Business Processes with a Mapping to BPEL4WS. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    White, S.: Process Modeling Notations and Workflow Patterns. In: Fischer, L. (ed.) WorkflowHandbook 2004, pp. 265–294. Future Strategies Inc., Lighthouse Point (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    White, S.: Business Process Modeling Notation, Version 1.0 (May 2004) (Last accessed, January 29, 2006),
  16. 16.
    Staikopoulos, A., Bordbar, B.: A Comparative Study of Meta-model Integration and Interoperability in UML and Web Services. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 145–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bordbar, B., Staikopoulus, A.: On behavioural Model Transformation in Web Services. In: Proc. Conceptual Modelling for Advanced Application Domain (eCOMO), Shanghai, China, pp. 667–678 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eriksson, H.E., Penker, M.: Business Modeling with UML. Business Patterns at Work. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eclipse Project,
  20. 20.
    Eclipse UML2 project,
  21. 21.
    Eclipse EMF project,
  22. 22.
    Eclipse GMF project,
  23. 23.
    Lauesen, S.: User Interface Design: A Software Engineering Perspective. Addison Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steen Brahe
    • 1
  • Kasper Østerbye
    • 1
  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations