Horizontal Model Integration

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


In this chapter, we give an overview of the different models, which extend the core process description of common business process modelling languages. We describe how the models are related to each other and how they can work together—the core process description language, the actor model, the user interaction (dialogue) model, the data model, and the enhanced communication model. For a seamless integration of these models, we present a four-step integration approach of the proposed H-BPM method and show its usability by an illustrative scenario. The integration approach precisely guides process analysts and modellers via defined steps, providing a complete walk-through for modelling business processes in a trustworthy way. In addition, we describe the architecture of the enhanced Process Platform (eP2), which consists of several components to coordinate collaboration of the different models at runtime.


Business Process Server Action Enterprise Architecture Business Process Model Transition Interpreter 
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.
    Atkinson, C., Draheim, D., Geist, V.: Typed business process specification. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. pp. 69–78. EDOC ’10, IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auer, D., Geist, V., Draheim, D.: Extending BPMN with submit/response-style user interaction modeling. In: Proceedings of CEC ’09. pp. 368–374. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Lohmann, N.: Diagnosing and repairing data anomalies in process models. In: Business Process Management Workshops. pp. 5–16. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachman, C.W.: Summary of current work ansi/x3/sparc/study group: database systems. SIGMOD Rec. 6(3), 16–39 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Börger, E.: Approaches to modeling business processes: a critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL. Softw. Syst. Model 11(3), 305–318 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Draheim, D., Geist, V., Natschläger, C.: Integrated framework for seamless modeling of business and technical aspects in process-oriented enterprise applications. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 22(05), 645–674 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geist, V.: Integrated executable business process and dialogue specification. Dissertation, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gortmaker, J., Janssen, M., Wagenaar, R.W.: Towards requirements for a reference model for process orchestration in e-government. In: Böhlen, M.H., Gamper, J., Polasek, W., Wimmer, M. (eds.) TCGOV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3416, pp. 169–180. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kloppmann, M., Koenig, D., Leymann, F., Pfau, G., Rickayzen, A., Riegen, C., Schmidt, P., Trickovic, I.: WS-BPEL Extension for People - BPEL4People. IBM, SAP (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kossak, F., Geist, V.: An enhanced communication concept for business processes. In: Kolb, J., Leopold, H., Mendling, J. (eds.) Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures – Proceedings of EMISA 2015. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 248, pp. 77–91. Gesellschaft für Informatik (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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: the ground model in detail. (2014). Accessed 12 Oct 2015
  16. 16.
    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, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Minoli, D.: Enterprise Architecture A to Z: Frameworks, Business Process Modeling, SOA, and Infrastructure Technology. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Natschläger, C.: Deontic BPMN. In: Hameurlain, A., Liddle, S., Schewe, K., Zhou, X. (eds.) Database and Expert Systems Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6861, pp. 264–278. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Natschläger, C., Geist, V.: A layered approach for actor modelling in business processes. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 19, 917–932 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Natschläger-Carpella, C.: Extending BPMN with Deontic Logic. Logos, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0. (2011). Accessed 6 Oct 2015
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), version 2.5. (2015). Accessed 6 Oct 2015
  23. 23.
    Pinheiro da Silva, P., Paton, N.: UMLi: The unified modeling language for interactive applications. In: Proceedings of the UML ’00, York. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1939. pp. 117–132. Springer (2000)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, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    REWERSE Working Group I1: R2ML—the REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language. (2015). Accessed 10 Nov 2015
  26. 26.
    Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software Systems Architecture: Working with Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS - Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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, New Jersey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schewe, B., Schewe, K.D.: A user-centered method for the development of data-intensive dialogue systems: an object-oriented approach. In: Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conference on Information System Concepts: Towards A Consolidation of Views. Chapman & Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schewe, K.D.: Horizontal and vertical business process model integration. In: Decker, H., Lenka, L., Link, S., Basl, J., Tjoa, A. (eds.) Database and Expert Systems Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8055, pp. 1–3. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schewe, K.D., Schewe, B.: Integrating database and dialogue design. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2, 1–32 (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seffah, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Desmarais, M.: Human-Centered Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spielmann, M.: Verification of relational transducers for electronic commerce. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 66(1), 40–65 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ter Hofstede, A.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N. (eds.): Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    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, Australia, pp. 64–79. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 267–292 (1987)Google 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