Checking Business Process Evolution

  • Pascal PoizatEmail author
  • Gwen Salaün
  • Ajay Krishna
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10231)


Business processes support the modeling and the implementation of software as workflows of local and inter-process activities. Taking over structuring and composition, evolution has become a central concern in software development. We advocate it should be taken into account as soon as the modeling of business processes, which can thereafter be made executable using process engines or model-to-code transformations. We show here that business process evolution needs formal analysis in order to compare different versions of processes, identify precisely the differences between them, and ensure the desired consistency. To reach this objective, we first present a model transformation from the BPMN standard notation to the LNT process algebra. We then propose a set of relations for comparing business processes at the formal model level. With reference to related work, we propose a richer set of comparison primitives supporting renaming, refinement, property- and context-awareness. Thanks to an implementation of our approach that can be used through a Web application, we put the checking of evolution within the reach of business process designers.


Business Process Model Transformation Internal Transition Process Algebra Original Process 
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.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Arnold, A.: Finite Transition Systems - Semantics of Communicating Systems. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brand, D., Zafiropulo, P.: On communicating finite-state machines. J. ACM 30(2), 323–342 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Champelovier, D., Clerc, X., Garavel, H., Guerte, Y., Lang, F., McKinty, C., Powazny, V., Serwe, W., Smeding, G.: Reference Manual of the LNT to LOTOS Translator, Version 6.1. INRIA/VASY (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christiansen, D.R., Carbone, M., Hildebrandt, T.: Formal semantics and implementation of BPMN 2.0 inclusive gateways. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corradini, F., Polini, A., Re, B., Tiezzi, F.: An operational semantics of BPMN collaboration. In: Braga, C., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FACS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9539, pp. 161–180. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28934-2_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coste, N., Garavel, H., Hermanns, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Ten years of performance evaluation for concurrent systems using CADP. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6416, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16561-0_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Medeiros, A.K.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Quantifying process equivalence based on observed behavior. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 55–74 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420. ACM (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: A scripting language for compositional verification. In: Kim, M., Chin, B., Kang, S., Lee, D. (eds.) FORTE 2001. IIFIP, vol. 69, pp. 377–392. Springer, Boston, MA (2002). doi: 10.1007/0-306-47003-9_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2011: A toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. STTT 2(15), 89–107 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Güdemann, M., Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Dumont, A.: VerChor: A framework for verifying choreographies. In: Cortellessa, V., Varró, D. (eds.) FASE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 226–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-37057-1_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO. LOTOS – A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. Technical Report 8807, ISO (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC. International Standard 19510, Information technology - Business Process Model and Notation (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kluza, K., Kaczor, K.: Overview of BPMN model equivalences. Towards normalization of BPMN diagrams. In: Proceedings of KESE 2012, pp. 38–45 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lam, V.: Foundation for equivalences of BPMN models. Theoret. Appl. Inform. 24(1), 33–66 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns an Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing web service based business processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mateescu, R., Salaün, G., Ye, L.: Quantifying the parallelism in BPMN processes using model checking. In: Proceedings of CBSE 2014, pp. 159–168 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mateescu, R., Thivolle, D.: A model checking language for concurrent value-passing systems. In: Cuellar, J., Maibaum, T., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 148–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68237-0_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) - Version 2.0., January 2011Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Checking the realizability of BPMN 2.0 choreographies. In: Proceedings of SAC 2012, pp. 1927–1934 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raedts, I., Petkovic, M., Usenko, Y.S., van der Werf, J.M., Groote, J.F., Somers, L.: Transformation of BPMN models for behaviour analysis. In: Proceedings of MSVVEIS 2007, pp. 126–137 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems - Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30, 245–275 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Dongen, B., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R.M., Weske, M.: Behaviour equivalence and compatibility of business process models with complex correspondences. Comput. J. 55(11), 1398–1418 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A relative timed semantics for BPMN. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 229(2), 59–75 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Proceedings of ICFEM 2008, pp. 355–374 (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: Verifying business process compatibility. In: Proceedings of QSIC 2008, pp. 126–131 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris Lumières, Univ Paris OuestNanterreFrance
  2. 2.Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS, LIP6 UMR7606ParisFrance
  3. 3.University of Grenoble Alpes, Inria, LIG, CNRSGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations