Skip to main content

Transforming Process Models: Executable Rewrite Rules versus a Formalized Java Program

  • Conference paper
Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6395))


In the business process management community, transformations for process models are usually programmed using imperative languages (such as Java). The underlying mapping rules tend to be documented using informal visual rules whereas they tend to be formalized using mathematical set constructs. In the Graph and Model Transformation communities, special purpose languages and tools (such as GrGen) are being developed to support the direct execution of such mapping rules. As part of our ongoing effort to bridge these two communities, we have implemented a transformation from petri-nets to statecharts (PN2SC) using both approaches. By relying on technical comparison criteria and by making the solutions available for online replay, we illustrate that rule-based approaches require less specification effort due to their more declarative specification style and automatic performance optimizations. From a tool perspective, GrGen has better visualization and debugging support whereas Java tools support evolution better.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.M., Kogut, P.A., Hart, L., Smith, J.E., Holmes III, W.S., Letkowski, J., Aronson, M.L.: Extending UML to Support Ontology Engineering for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 4th Int. UML Conference 2001, pp. 342–360 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American Magazine (May 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Credle, R., Akibola, V., Karna, V., Panneerselvam, D., Pillai, R., Prasad, S.: Discovering the Business Value Patterns of Chemical and Petroleum Integrated Information Framework. Red Book SG24-7735-00. IBM (August 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dahms, M.: OWL2Ecore: A theoretical and practical investigation. Technical report, SAP Research, CEC Karlsruhe,

  5. Falkovych, K., Sabou, M., Stuckenschmidt, H.: UML for the Semantic Web: Transformation-Based Approaches. In: Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, pp. 92–106 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hillairet, G., Bertrand, F., Lafaye, J.-Y.: MDE for Publishing Data on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of 1st Int. Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering, TWOMDE, pp. 32–46 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Horrocks, I.: OWL: A Description Logic Based Ontology Language. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 5–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Klüwer, J.W., Skjæveland, M.G., Valen-Sendstad, M.: ISO 15926 templates and the Semantic Web. In: Position paper for W3C Workshop on Semantic Web in Energy Industries; Part I: Oil and Gas (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Li, T.-H., Chen, C.-C.: From Ontology to Semantic Web Service via Model-Driven System Development. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, National Chengchi University, Taiwan (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Motik, Patel-Schneider, Parsia: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, W3C Recommendation (October 2009),

  11. Schreiber, G.: A UML Presentation Syntax for OWL Lite. Incomplete draft (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vaught, R.L.: Alfred Tarski’s Work in Model Theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 51(4), 869–882 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Verhelst, F., Myren, F., Rylandsholm, P., Svensson, I., Waaler, A., Skramstad, T., Ornæs, J.I., Tvedt, B.H., Høydal, J.: Digital Platform for the Next Generation IO: A Prerequisite for the High North. In: SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Walter, T., Parreiras, F.S., Staab, S.: OntoDSL: An Ontology-Based Framework for Domain-Specific Languages. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Van Gorp, P., Eshuis, R. (2010). Transforming Process Models: Executable Rewrite Rules versus a Formalized Java Program. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6395. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16128-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16129-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics