Representation Theory Versus Workflow Patterns – The Case of BPMN

  • Jan Recker
  • Petia Wohed
  • Michael Rosemann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


Selecting an appropriate process modeling language forms an important task within business process management projects. A wide range of process modeling languages has been developed over the last decades, leading to an obvious need for rigorous theory to assist in the evaluation and comparison of the capabilities of these languages. While academic progress in the area of process modeling language evaluation has been made on at least two premises, Representation Theory and Workflow Patterns, it remains unclear how these frameworks relate to each other. We use a generic framework for language evaluation to establish similarities and differences between these acknowledged reference frameworks and discuss how and to what extent they complement respectively substitute each other. Our line of investigation follows the case of the popular BPMN modeling language, whose evaluation from the perspectives of Representation Theory and Workflow Patterns is reconciled in this paper.


Modeling Language Representation Theory Language Construct Reference Framework Language Evaluation 
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.
    Group, G.: Delivering ITś Contribution: The 2005 CIO Agenda. Gartner EXP Premier Reports January 2005, Gartner, Inc. (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modeling in Practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3., OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation Specification. Final Adopted Specification (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Don’t Go with the Flow: Web Services Composition Standards Exposed. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18, 72–76 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Evaluating the Quality of Conceptual Models: Current State and Future Directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 15, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An Ontological Model of an Information System. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16, 1282–1292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars. Journal of Information Systems 3, 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal 5, 203–223 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Workflow Resource Patterns: Identification, Representation and Tool Support. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Workflow Data Patterns: Identification, Representation and Tool Support. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 353–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P.: A Study of the Evolution of the Representational Capabilities of Process Modeling Grammars. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 447–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.D.: Process Models Representing Knowledge for Action: a Revised Quality Framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wahl, T., Sindre, G.: An Analytical Evaluation of BPMN Using a Semiotic Quality Framework. In: Castro, J., Teniente, E. (eds.) CAiSE 2005, vol. 1, FEUP, Porto, Portugal, pp. 533–544 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nysetvold, A.G., Krogstie, J.: Assessing Business Process Modeling Languages Using a Generic Quality Framework. In: Castro, J., Teniente, E. (eds.) CAiSE 2005, vol. 1, FEUP, Porto, pp. 545–556 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How Good is BPMN Really? Insights from Theory and Practice. In: Ljungberg, J., Andersson, M. (eds.) 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation of Information Modeling Methods – A Review. In: Dolk, D. (ed.) 31st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, pp. 314–322. Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Recker, J.: Evaluation of Conceptual Modeling Languages. An Epistemological Discussion. In: Romano, N.C. (ed.) 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, Nebraska, pp. 329–337, Association for Information Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siau, K.: Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods. Journal of Database Management 15, 73–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Floyd, C.: A Comparative Evaluation of System Development Methods. In: Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Information System Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, pp. 19–54. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series, vol. 015, Telematica Instituut, Enschede, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gurr, C.A.: Effective Diagrammatic Communication: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 10, 317–342 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bunge, M.A.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology I - The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1977)MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Manning, C.: Candidate Interoperability Standards: An Ontological Overlap Analysis. Technical report, University of Queensland (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Analysis of Web Services Composition Languages: The Case of BPEL4WS. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Recker
    • 1
  • Petia Wohed
    • 2
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbane QLDAustralia
  2. 2.Stockholm University/The Royal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations