A Layered Approach for Actor Modelling

  • Felix KossakEmail author
  • Christa Illibauer
  • Verena Geist
  • Christine Natschläger
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe


Several BPMLs that primarily express the flow of activities provide only limited support for actor modelling. For example, BPMN and UML activity diagrams suggest rigid swimlane concepts to model roles and actors. Thus, in this chapter, we present a task-based approach for actor modelling, extended with deontic logic and speech act theory. An extension of process diagrams with deontic logic to highlight modalities and to reduce the structural complexity of the process flow was already suggested in the previous chapter. In addition, another issue that can be addressed with deontic logic is the limited support for actor modelling. The proposed actor modelling approach comprises three different views. The deontically classified process view is supplemented by an organisational view that graphically depicts the relevant user roles, groups and their hierarchy as well as by a rule view that contains additional rules to specify further constraints. The new approach for actor modelling is more expressive and provides the possibility to reduce the structural complexity of the process flow as shown by an application scenario and an evaluation based on the Workflow Resource Patterns.


Business Process Actor Modelling Enterprise Architecture Deontic Logic Business Process Modelling 
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.
    Adams, M.: The resource service. In: Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Adams, M., Russell, N. (eds.) Modern Business Process Automation, pp. 261–290. Springer, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, A., Grosskopf, A., Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Enabling resource assignment constraints in BPMN, [working paper BPT Technical Report 04-2009], Business Process Technology, Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J.:Conceptual modeling with description logics. In: Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, pp. 349–372. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies, “Agents 2000” Conference, pp. 21–29. Barcelona (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum, F., Weigand, H.: Communication and deontic logic. In: Wieringa, R., Feenstra, R. (eds.) Information Systems: Correctness and Reusability, pp. 242–260. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiter, T., Mascardi, V., Subrahmanian, V.: Error-tolerant agents. In: Kakas, A., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, pp. 83–104. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., Börger, E.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z.: A formal analysis of a business contract language. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 15(4), 659–685 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grossi, D., Royakkers, L., Dignum, F.: Organizational structure and responsibility: an analysis in a dynamic logic of organized collective agency. Artif. Intell. Law 15(3), 223–249 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilpinen, R.: Deontic logic. In: Goble, L. (ed.) The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, Chap. 8, pp. 159–182. Blackwell, Malden (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohwiller, J., Schlegel, D., Grieser, G., Hoekstra, Y.: Integration of BPM and BRM. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) Business Process Model and Notation: Third International Workshop, BPMN 2011, Lucerne, pp. 136–141. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korherr, B., List, B.: Extending the EPC and the BPMN with business process goals and performance measures. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Cardoso, J. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems: 9th International Conference, ICEIS 2007, Funchal, pp. 287–294. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kossak, F., Illibauer, C., Geist, V., Kubovy, J., Natschläger, C., Ziebermayr, T., Kopetzky, T., Freudenthaler, B., Schewe, K.D.: A Rigorous Semantics for BPMN 2.0 Process Diagrams. Springer, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kunze, M., Luebbe, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Towards understanding process modeling – the case of the BPM academic initiative. In: Business Process Model and Notation. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 95, pp. 44–58. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milanović, M., Gašević, D., Wagner, G., Hatala, M.: Rule-enhanced business process modeling language for service choreographies. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5795, pp. 337–341. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minoli, D.: Enterprise Architecture A to Z: Frameworks, Business Process Modeling, SOA, and Infrastructure Technology. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Natschläger, C.: Towards a BPMN 2.0 ontology. In: Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.) Business Process Model and Notation. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol.95, pp. 1–15. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Natschläger, C., Geist, V.: A layered approach for actor modelling in business processes. Bus. Process Manag. J. 19, 917–932 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Natschläger-Carpella, C.: Extending BPMN with Deontic Logic. Logos, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (SBVR), v1.0. (2008). Accessed 25 Sep 2015
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0. (2011). Accessed 06 Oct 2015
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), version 2.5. (2015). Accessed 06 Oct 2015
  23. 23.
    Recker, J.: BPMN modeling - who, where, how and why. Bus. Process Trends 5(5), 1–8 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: A BPMN extension for the modeling of security requirements in business processes. IEICE–Trans. Inf. Syst. E90-D(4), 745–752 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.: Workflow Resource Patterns. BETA Working Paper Series WP 127. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS - Business Process Frameworks. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheer, A., Thomas, O., Adam, O.: Process modeling using event-driven process chains. In: Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A. (eds.) Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software through Process Technology, pp. 119–146. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tan, K., Crampton, J., Gunter, C.: The consistency of task-based authorization constraints in workflow systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Workshop on Computer Security Foundations, CSFW’04, Pacific Grove, pp. 155–169. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C. (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    van der Aalst, W.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Workflow patterns homepage. Accessed 25 Sep 2015
  32. 32.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Russell, N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J., Sheth, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolter, C., Schaad, A.: Modeling of task-based authorization constraints in BPMN. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Business Process Management: 5th International Conference, BPM 2007, Brisbane, pp. 64–79. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 267–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Kossak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christa Illibauer
    • 1
  • Verena Geist
    • 1
  • Christine Natschläger
    • 1
  • Thomas Ziebermayr
    • 1
  • Bernhard Freudenthaler
    • 1
  • Theodorich Kopetzky
    • 1
  • Klaus-Dieter Schewe
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbHHagenberg im MühlkreisAustria

Personalised recommendations