Advertisement

Composition of Semantic Process Fragments to Domain-Related Process Families

  • Claudia Reuter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 68)

Abstract

Efficient and effective process management is considered as key success factor for competitiveness of enterprises in an increasingly complex and closely connected environment. Today, there exists a plentitude of IT-tools that support modeling, execution, monitoring, and even flexible change of processes. Though, most process management solutions offer possibilities for reusing workflow components, development of new process models is still a cost and time consuming task. Either common process knowledge is scattered among a growing amount of process models or it is divided into unspecific components, the interrelations of which are difficult to manage. This problem becomes even worse considering potential variations of workflows. In the SPOT project, we adapted the feature modeling approach in order to represent enterprise-specific process knowledge in the form of process families. Process families consist of semantically enriched process fragments and enable the composition of business processes that conform to domain-related rules and regulations.

Keywords

Process management semantic process fragment compositional process modeling feature modeling process families 

References

  1. 1.
    Bayer, J., Buhl, W., Giese, C., Lehner, T., Ocampo, A., Puhlmann, F., Richter, E., Schnieders, A., Weiland, J., Weske, M.: Process Family Engineering, Modeling variant-rich processes. Fraunhofer IESE Report No. 126.06/E, Version 1.0 (2005) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Issues in Modeling Process Variants with Provop. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 17, pp. 56–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., La Rosa, M.: Configurable Workflow Models. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 17(2), 223–225 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A Configurable Reference Modeling Language. Information Systems 32, 1–12 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Weske, M. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D.: ERP modeling: a comprehensive approach. Information Systems 28, 673–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dori, D.: Object Process Methodology – a Holistic Systems Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Nowak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kang, K., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P.: Domain-Specific Language Design Requires Feature Descriptions. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 10(1), 1–17 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Gurp, J., Bosch, J., Svahnberg, M.: On the Notion of Variability in Software Product Lines. In: Proceeding of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), pp. 45–55. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.W.: Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(1), 7–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mannion, M.: Using First-Order Logic for Product Line Model Validation. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 176–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C.: Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2006), pp. 136–145 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun, J., Zhang, H., Li, Y.F., Wang, H.: Formal Semantics and Verification of Feature Modeling. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Systems (ICECCS 2005), pp. 303–312 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riebisch, M., Streitferdt, D., Pashov, I.: Modeling variability for object-oriented product lines – workshop report. In: Buschmann, F., Buchmann, A., Cilia, M.A. (eds.) ECCV-WS 2003. LNCS, vol. 3013, pp. 165–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard (April 2007), http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html (last access of May 12, 2010)
  18. 18.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) FTF Beta 1 Version 2.0 (August 2009), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/Beta1/PD (last access of May 12, 2010)
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Reuter
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Software and Systems EngineeringDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations