Integrating Business Process Models with Rules

Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 130)

Abstract

When it comes to practical software design, UML is the standard for modeling software applications. However, the design of complex business management systems requires much more than just UML for design. In the case of process modeling, UML is far too expressive to be understood by the average business user. Thus, BPMN was introduced. Although there is an important difference in abstraction levels of rules and processes, they can be complementary. A formal model for the integration was previously provided by us. In it, the BPMN component defines the high level behavior of the system while the low level logic is defined by rules in XTT. In this chapter we continue that discussion on a practical level. We discuss challenges that need to be addressed to provide full integration, not just on the design but also the runtime level. We demonstrate how the SKE design process can be applied to this goal. Then we discuss selected metrics for the evaluation of process complexity.

References

  1. 1.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language version 2.1.2. infrastructure specification. Technical report formal/2007-11-04, Object Management Group (November 2007). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2007-11-04.pdf
  2. 2.
    Hunt, J.: Guide to the Unified Process Featuring UML, Java and Design Patterns. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN): Version 2.0 specification. Technical report formal/2011-01-03, Object Management Group (January 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ross, R.G.: Principles of the Business Rule Approach, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nascimento, G., Iochpe, C., Thom, L., Reichert, M.: A method for rewriting legacy systems using business process managemet technology. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), pp. 57–62 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Declarative process modeling with business vocabulary and business rules. In: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: OTM 2007 Workshops, Springer (2007) 603–612Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosemann, M., Schwegmann, A., Delfmann, P.: Preparation of process modeling. Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes, 2nd edn, pp. 41–90. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Refactoring large process model repositories. Comput. Ind. 62(5), 467–486 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosa, M.L., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reijers, H.A.: Design and Control of Workflow Processes: Business Process Management for the Service Industry. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kluza, K., Kaczor, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Enriching business processes with rules using the Oryx BPMN editor. In Rutkowski, L., et al. (eds.): Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 11th International Conference, ICAISC 2012: Zakopane, Poland, April 29–May 3, 2012. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7268, pp. 573–581. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nalepa, G.J., Kluza, K., Kaczor, K.: Proposal of an inference engine architecture for business rules and processes. In Rutkowski, L., et al. (eds.): Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 12th International Conference, ICAISC 2013: Zakopane, Poland, 9–13 June 2013. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7268, pp. 453–464. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nalepa, G.J., Kluza, K., Ciaputa, U.: Proposal of automation of the collaborative modeling and evaluation of business processes using a semantic wiki. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation ETFA 2012, Kraków, Poland, 28 Sept 2012. (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J., Lisiecki, J.: Square complexity metrics for business process models. In Mach-Król, M., Pełech-Pilichowski, T. (eds.): Advances in Business ICT. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 257, pp. 89–107. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tscheschner, W.: Oryx Dokumentation. Universitat Potsdam, Hasso Plattner Institut (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adrian, W.T., Bobek, S., Nalepa, G.J., Kaczor, K., Kluza, K.: How to reason by HeaRT in a semantic knowledge-based wiki. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2011, Boca Raton, Florida, USA (November 2011) 438–441Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nalepa, G.J.: Collective knowledge engineering with semantic wikis. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 16(7), 1006–1023 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, H., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Hulse, J.V., Gao, K.: Metric selection for software defect prediction. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 21(2), 237–257 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grady, R.: Successfully applying software metrics. Computer 27(9), 18–25 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Monsalve, C., Abran, A., April, A.: Measuring software functional size from business process models. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 21(3), 311–338 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarang, P., Juric, M., Mathew, B.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services BPEL and BPEL4WS. Packt Publishing (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The jBPM team of JBoss Community: jBPM User Guide. 5.2.0.final edn. (Dec 2011) online: http://docs.jboss.org/jbpm/v5.2/userguide/
  24. 24.
    Rademakers, T., Baeyens, T., Barrez, J.: Activiti in Action: Executable Business Processes in BPMN 2.0. Manning Pubs Co Series. Manning Publications Company (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaczor, K., Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Towards rule interoperability: design of Drools rule bases using the XTT2 method. Trans. Comput. Collect. Intell. XI 8065, 155–175 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The workflow reference model. Issue 1.1 TC00-1003, Workflow Management Coalition (Jan 1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. IEEE. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Informatics: A Propaedeutic View. Elsevier Science Ltd, London (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Atkinson, C., Kühne, T., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Understanding metamodelling (October 2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    OMG: Meta object facility (MOF) version 2.0, core specification. Technical report formal/2006-01-01, Object Management Group (January 2006). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2006-01-01.pdf
  32. 32.
    International Organization for Standardization: Information technology – Meta Object Facility (MOF) (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ignizio, J.P.: An Introduction To Expert Systems. The Development and Implementation of Rule-Based Expert Systems. McGraw-Hill, Maidenheach (1991)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J.: MOF-based metamodeling for the XTT knowledge representation. In: Tadeusiewicz, R., Ligęza, A., Mitkowski, W., Szymkat, M. (eds.) CMS’09: Computer Methods and Systems: 7th conference, 26–27 November 2009, pp. 93–98. Poland, Cracow, AGH University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Oprogramowanie Naukowo-Techniczne, Kraków (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frankel, D.S.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J.: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1. OMG. (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gasevic, D., Djuric, D., Devedzic, V.: Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pilone, D., Pitman, N.: UML 2.0 in a Nutshell. O’Reilly (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Proposal of square metrics for measuring business process model complexity. In Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, L.A., Paprzycki, M., (eds.): In: Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems – FedCSIS 2012, pp. 919–922. Wroclaw, Poland, 9-12 September 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cardoso, J.: Control-flow complexity measurement of processes and weyuker’s properties. In: 6th International Enformatika Conference. Transactions on Enformatika, Systems Sciences and Engineering, vol. 8. Budapest, Hungary, 26– 28 October (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cardoso, J.: About the data-flow complexity of web processes. In: Proceedings from the 6th International Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support: Business Processes and Support Systems: Design for Flexibility. In: The 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’05), pp. 67–74. Porto, Portugal, 13–17 June 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Neumann, G., Reijers, H.A.: A discourse on complexity of process models. In Eder, J., Dustdar, S., et al. (eds.) In: Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Business Process Management Workshops, Vienna, Austria. BPM’06, pp. 117–128. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Latva-Koivisto, A.M.: Finding a complexity for business process models. Technical report, Helsinki University of Technology (Feb 2001)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Prediction of business process model quality based on structural metrics. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Conceptual modeling, Vancouver, Canada. ER’10, pp. 458–463. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mendling, J.: Metrics for business process models. In: Metrics for Process Models. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 6, pp. 103–133. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kluza, K.: Methods for Modeling and Integration of Business Processes with Rules. Ph.D. thesis, AGH University of Science and Technology (March 2015) Supervisor: Grzegorz J. NalepaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Li, Z.J., Sun, W.: BPEL-unit: JUnit for BPEL processes. Service-Oriented Computing – ICSOC 2006, pp. 415–426. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liu, H., Li, Z., Zhu, J., Tan, H.: Business Process Regression Testing. Service-Oriented Computing ICSOC 2007. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Louridas, P.: Junit: unit testing and coiling in tandem. Software, IEEE 22(4), 12–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tahchiev, P., Leme, F., Massol, V., Gregory, G.: JUnit in Action, 2nd edn. Manning Publications (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AGH University of Science and TechnologyKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations