Propagation of Event Content Modification in Business Processes

  • John WondohEmail author
  • Georg Grossmann
  • Markus Stumptner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9936)


Business processes are composed mainly of activities and events. The latter has gained much focus recently which has resulted in the drift towards Event-Driven Business Process Management (EDBPM). Events are used in both monitoring and controlling the execution of business processes. They are considered to be instantaneous and their content cannot be modified after they occur. However, this is not always the case in the real world. An event’s content can be modified at runtime under circumstances such as: earlier event information containing errors, or new information being obtained about the event. In such cases, the content modification for that event must be taken into consideration in the execution of the process. Additionally, the modified event’s content may affect other events within the process resulting in altering the content of those events as well. Therefore, it is important to determine the propagation of event content modification in an event network within a business process. In this work, we determine the types of event content modifications that can occur within processes, how content modification of one event affects other events within the process, and how the modification affects the process as a whole.


Business processes Event content modification (ECM) Modification propagation 



This research was partially funded by the Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre (D2D CRC).


  1. 1.
    Buchmann, A., Appel, S., Freudenreich, T., Frischbier, S., Guerrero, P.E.: From calls to events: architecting future BPM systems. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chakravarthy, S., Mishra, D.: Snoop: an expressive event specification language for active databases. Data Knowl. Eng. 14(1), 1–26 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eder, J., Panagos, E., Rabinovich, M.I.: Time constraints in workflow systems. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 286–300. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Etzion, O., Niblett, P.: Event Processing in Action. Manning Publications Company, London (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furche, T., Grasso, G., Huemer, M., Schallhart, C., Schrefl, M.: Bitemporal complex event processing of web event advertisements. In: Lin, X., Manolopoulos, Y., Srivastava, D., Huang, G. (eds.) WISE 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8181, pp. 333–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Kumar, A.: Visually monitoring multiple perspectives of business process compliance. In: Proceedings of BPM, pp. 263–279 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koetter, F., Kochanowski, M., Kintz, M.: Leveraging model-driven monitoring for event-driven business process control. In: Proceedings of EMoV, pp. 21–33 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krumeich, J., Weis, B., Werth, D., Loos, P.: Event-driven business process management: where are we now? A comprehensive synthesis and analysis of literature. Bus. Process Manag. J. 20(4), 615–633 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lanz, A., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Time patterns for process-aware information systems. Requir. Eng. 19(2), 113–141 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leitner, P., Michlmayr, A., Rosenberg, F., Dustdar, S.: Monitoring, prediction and prevention of SLA violations in composite services. In: Proceedings of ICWS, pp. 369–376 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montali, M., Maggi, F.M., Chesani, F., Mello, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring business constraints with the event calculus. ACM TIST 5, 17:1–17:30 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patri, O.P., Sorathia, V.S., Panangadan, A.V., Prasanna, V.K.: The process-oriented event model (poem): a conceptual model for industrial events. In: Proceedings of DEBS, pp. 154–165. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scheer, A.W., Thomas, O., Adam, O.: Process modeling using event-driven process chains. In: Process-Aware Information Systems, pp. 119–146 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharon, G., Etzion, O.: Event-processing network model and implementation. IBM Syst. J. 47(2), 321–334 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sripada, S.M.: A logical framework for temporal deductive databases. In: Proceedings of VLDB, pp. 171–182 (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weidlich, M., Ziekow, H., Mendling, J., Günther, O., Weske, M., Desai, N.: Event-based monitoring of process execution violations. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 182–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design Methods for Reactive Systems: Yourdon, Statemate, and the UML. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wondoh, J., Grossmann, G., Stumptner, M.: Utilising bitemporal information for business process contingency management. In: Proceedings of APCCM, pp. 45:1–45:10. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeng, L., Lingenfelder, C., Lei, H., Chang, H.: Event-driven quality of service prediction. In: Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Wondoh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Georg Grossmann
    • 1
  • Markus Stumptner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations