Advertisement

A Discussion of BPMN 2.0

  • Felix Kossak
  • Christa Illibauer
  • Verena Geist
  • Jan Kubovy
  • Christine Natschläger
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe
Chapter

Abstract

The semantic model for the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0 presented in Chap.  4 deviates from the OMG’s standard in several places. In this chapter, we discuss and justify those deviations. Furthermore, we discuss miscellaneous other features of BPMN 2.0 as it is and make further suggestions for improvements. A detailed specification of these further changes in terms of a formal, semantic model for business process diagrams in general will be subject to a separate publication.

References

  1. 18.
    Börger, E.: Approaches to modeling business processes: a critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL. Software & Systems Modeling 11(3), 305–318 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0214-z
  2. 20.
    Börger, E., Sörensen, O.: BPMN core modeling concepts: Inheritance-based execution semantics. In: Embley, D.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Handbook of Conceptual Modeling: Theory, Practice and Research Challenges, pp. 287–335. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 21.
    Börger, E., Sörensen, O., Thalheim, B.: On defining the behavior of OR-joins in business process models. Journal of Universal Computer Science pp. 3–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 23.
    Börger, E., Thalheim, B.: A method for verifiable and validatable business process modeling. In: Börger, E., Cisternino, A. (eds.) Advances in Software Engineering, vol. 5316, chap. A Method for Verifiable and Validatable Business Process Modeling, pp. 59–115. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89762-0_3
  5. 30.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Process instatiation. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68(9), 777–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 45.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., Börger, E.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 48.
    Freund, J.: BPMN 2.0 works: Integrating 8 different BPMN modelers with camunda fox. BPMN-Guide, Ein Blog von camunda services GmbH. http://www.bpm-guide.de/2012/06/18/bpmn20-works/. Accessed 2014-05-19. (June 2012)
  8. 56.
    Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science (Operating and programming systems series). Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, USA (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 58.
    ter Hofstede, A.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adamns, M., Russell, N. (eds.): Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2010), http://www.springer.com/computer+science/database+management+%26+information+retrieval/book/978-3-642-03120-5
  10. 60.
    Illibauer, C., Geist, V., Kossak, F.: Open questions regarding events. Tech. Rep. SCCH-TR-1226, Software Competence Center Hagenberg, Hagenberg, Austria (2012), http://www.scch.at/de/publikationen/publication_id/670
  11. 66.
    Kossak, F., Illibauer, C., Geist, V.: Event-based gateways: Open questions and inconsistencies. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPMN. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 125, pp. 53–67. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 81.
    Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 84.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.C., Indulska, M.: Sometimes less is more: Are process modeling languages overly complex? In: Taveter, K., Gasevic, D. (eds.) 3rd International Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies and Rules for The Enterprise. IEEE, Annapolis, Maryland (2007), http://eprints.qut.edu.au/12269/
  14. 89.
    Natschläger, C., Illibauer, C., Geist, V.: Decomposition and reusability in BPMN. Tech. Rep. SCCH-TR-1151, Software Competence Center Hagenberg, Hagenberg, Austria (2012), http://www.scch.at/de/forschung/publikationen/2611
  15. 92.
    Natschläger-Carpella, C.: Extending BPMN with Deontic Logic. Logos Verlag Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 95.
    Object Management Group: Business process model and notation (BPMN) 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0. Accessed 2011-08-02. (2011)
  17. 104.
    Recker, J.: BPMN modeling – who, where, how and why. BPTrends 5(5), 1–8 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 105.
    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. pp. 1582–1593. Goeteborg, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 106.
    Recker, J.C., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems pp. 333–363 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 111.
    Respect-IT: A KAOS Tutorial. http://www.objectiver.com/fileadmin/download/documents/KaosTutorial.pdf. Accessed 2013-02-20. (2007)
  21. 115.
    Rücker, B., Schoettes, M.: fox modeler. User guide for the camunda fox modeller, https://app.camunda.com/confluence/display/foxUserGuide/fox+modeler#foxmodeler-Usingbusinessmodelersdifferenttothefoxmodeler. Accessed 2014-05-19. (March 2013)
  22. 143.
    White, S.: Oral answers to problems and questions posed at the BPMN’12 conference (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Kossak
    • 1
  • Christa Illibauer
    • 1
  • Verena Geist
    • 1
  • Jan Kubovy
    • 2
  • Christine Natschläger
    • 1
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
    • 1
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
    • 1
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
    • 1
  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Competence Center HagenbergHagenberg im MühlkreisAustria
  2. 2.Johannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations