Designing Compliant Business Processes with Obligations and Permissions

  • Stijn Goedertier
  • Jan Vanthienen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4103)


The sequence and timing constraints on the activities in business processes are an important aspect of business process compliance. To date, these constraints are most often implicitly transcribed into control-flow-based process models. This implicit representation of constraints, however, complicates the verification, validation and reuse in business process design. In this paper, we investigate the use of temporal deontic assignments on activities as a means to declaratively capture the control-flow semantics that reside in business regulations and business policies. In particular, we introduce PENELOPE, a language to express temporal rules about the obligations and permissions in a business interaction, and an algorithm to generate compliant sequence-flow-based process models that can be used in business process design.


Business Process Business Partner Deontic Logic Business Process Model Business Rule 
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.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Compliant and Flexible Business Processes with Business Rules. In: Proceedings, CAiSE 2006, Workshop BPMDS 2006 (forthcoming 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reijers, H.A., Rigter, J.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The case handling case. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 12(3), 365–391 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bons, R.W.H., Lee, R.M., Wagenaar, R.W., Wrigley, C.D.: Modelling inter-organizational trade using documentary petri nets. HICSS (3), 189–198 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bussler, C.: The role of B2B protocols in inter-enterprise process execution. In: Casati, F., Georgakopoulos, D., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) TES 2001. LNCS, vol. 2193, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marín, R.H., Sartor, G.: Time and norms: a formalisation in the event-calculus. In: ICAIL 1999: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 90–99. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42(1-3), 227–253 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knottenbelt, J., Clark, K.: An architecture for contract-based communicating agents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Europ. Workshop on Multi-Agent Sys. (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in uleml. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 14(2-3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Dongen, B.F., Herbst, J., Maruster, L., Schimm, G., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Workflow mining: A survey of issues and approaches. Data Knowl. Eng. 47(2), 237–267 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Føllesdal, D., Hilpinen, R.: Deontic logic: An introduction. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pp. 1–35. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1971)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Verification tools for finite-state concurrent systems. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) REX 1993. LNCS, vol. 803, pp. 124–175. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.J.C.: Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shanahan, M.: Solving the frame problem: a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Business Rules for Compliant Business Process Models. In: Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2006). LNI., GI, vol. P-85 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yolum, P.: Towards design tools for protocol development. In: AAMAS 2005, pp. 99–105. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stijn Goedertier
    • 1
  • Jan Vanthienen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Decision Sciences & Information ManagementKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations