Advertisement

Realizing Business Processes with ECA Rules: Benefits, Challenges, Limits

  • François Bry
  • Michael Eckert
  • Paula-Lavinia Pătrânjan
  • Inna Romanenko
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4187)

Abstract

Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules offer a flexible, adaptive, and modular approach to realizing business processes. This article discusses the use of ECA rules for describing business processes in an executable manner. It investigates the benefits one hopes to derive from using ECA rules and presents the challenges in realizing business processes. These constitute a list of requirements for an (executable) business process description language, and we take them as a basis to investigate suitability of the concrete ECA rule language XChange in realizing a business process from the EU-Rent Case Study.

Keywords

Business Process Process Instance Business Rule Exception Handling Business Process Execution Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Davenport, T.H.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Havard Business School Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Business Rules Group: Defining business rules – what are they really? (2000), available at: www.businessrulesgroup.org
  3. 3.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Rule interchange format working group charter (2005), See: www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter
  4. 4.
    Bonatti, P.A., Olmedilla, D.: Driving and monitoring provisional trust negotiation with metapolicies. In: IEEE Int. Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks. IEEE Comp. Soc., Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bry, F., Schwertel, U.: REWERSE – reasoning on the Web. AgentLink News (15) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andrews, T., et al.: Business process execution language for web services version 1.1 (2003), available at: www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-bpel
  7. 7.
    Carter, B.M., Lin, J.Y.C., Orlowska, M.E.: Customizing internal activity behaviour for flexible process enforcement. In: Proc. Australasian Database Conference. Australian Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    White, S.A.: Introduction to BPMN. Technical report, Object Management Group (OMG) (2004), available at: http://www.bpmn.org
  10. 10.
    Hall, J.: Business rules boot camp. Tutorial at the European Business Rules Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wagner, G.: How to design a general rule markup language? In: Proc. Workshop on XML Technologien für das Semantic Web - XSW, LNI, GI, vol. 14 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bry, F., Marchiori, M.: Ten theses on logic languages for the Semantic Web. In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 42–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    European Business Rules Conference (2005), http://www.eurobizrules.org
  15. 15.
    Business Rules Group (2005), http://www.businessrulesgroup.org
  16. 16.
    Gudgin, M., et al.: SOAP version 1.2. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schaffert, S., Bry, F.: Querying the Web reconsidered: A practical introduction to Xcerpt. In: Proc.Extreme Markup Languages (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bailey, J., Bry, F., Eckert, M., Pătrânjan, P.L.: Flavours of XChange, a rule-based reactive language for the (Semantic) Web. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 187–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bry, F., Eckert, M., Pătrânjan, P.L.: Reactivity on the Web: Paradigms and applications of the language XChange. J. of Web Engineering 5(1), 3–24 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knolmayer, G., Endl, R., Pfahrer, M.: Modeling processes and workflows by business rules. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, p. 16. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bry, F., Eckert, M.: Twelve theses on reactive rules for the Web. In: Proc. Workshop Reactivity on the Web at Int. Conf. on Extending Database Technology. LNCS, vol. 3268. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brambilla, M., Ceri, S., Comai, S., Tziviskou, C.: Exception handling in workflow-driven web applications. In: Proc. Int. Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Bry
    • 1
  • Michael Eckert
    • 1
  • Paula-Lavinia Pătrânjan
    • 1
  • Inna Romanenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for InformaticsUniversity of MunichMunich

Personalised recommendations