Advertisement

Validation of Families of Business Processes

  • Gerd Gröner
  • Christian Wende
  • Marko Bošković
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
  • Tobias Walter
  • Florian Heidenreich
  • Dragan Gašević
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)

Abstract

A Software Product Line (SPL) is a set of programs that are developed as a whole and share a set of common features. Product line’s variability is typically specified using problem space models (i.e., feature models), solution space models that specify the realization of functionality and mapping models that link problem and solution space artifacts. In this paper, we consider this concept in the scope of families of business processes, whose specificity is that the solution space is defined with business process models. Solution space models are typically specified as model templates, and thus in the rest of the paper we will refer to business process model templates. While the previous research tackled the concepts of families of business processes, there have been very limited research on their validation.

Keywords

business process families well-formedness constraints validation process model variability configuration 

References

  1. 1.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGregor, J., Muthig, D., Yoshimura, K., Jensen, P.: Successful Software Product Line Practices. IEEE Software 27(3), 16–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lau, S.Q.: Domain Analysis of E-Commerce Systems Using Feature-Based Model Templates. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, H., Li, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, H., Pan, J.: Verifying Feature Models using OWL. J. of Web Semantics 5(2), 117–129 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow Patterns. In: Distributed and Parallel Databases (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Computation of Causal Behavioural Profiles Using Structural Decomposition. In: Lilius, J., Penczek, W. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6128, pp. 63–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Structuring Acyclic Process Models. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 276–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heidenreich, F., Kopcsek, J., Wende, C.: FeatureMapper: Mapping Features to Models. In: ICSE 2008 Companion, pp. 943–944. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ren, Y., Gröner, G., Lemcke, J., Rahmani, T., Friesen, A., Zhao, Y., Pan, J.Z., Staab, S.: Validating Process Refinement with Ontologies. In: Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, vol. 477 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioural Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 99 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schnieders, A., Puhlmann, F.: Variability Mechanisms in E-Business Process Families. In: BIS 2006: 9th Int Conf. on Business Information Systems, pp. 583–601 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boffoli, N., Cimitile, M., Maggi, F.M.: Managing Business Process Flexibility and Reuse through Business Process Lines. In: Cordeiro, J., Ranchordas, A., Shishkov, B. (eds.) ICSOFT 2009. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 50, pp. 61–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosa, M.L., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-based Variability Modeling for System Configuration. SoSyM 8(2), 251–274 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Gottschalk, F., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J.: Preserving Correctness during Business Process Model Configuration. Formal Asp. Comput. 22(3-4), 459–482 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond Soundness: On the Verification of Semantic Business Process Models. Distributed and Parallel Databases 27(3), 271–343 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Czarnecki, K., Pietroszek, K.: Verifying Feature-Based Model Templates Against Well-Formedness OCL Constraints. In: GPCE 2006, pp. 211–220. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thaker, S., Batory, D., Kitchin, D., Cook, W.: Safe Composition of Product Lines. In: GPCE 2007, pp. 95–104. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janota, M., Botterweck, G.: Formal Approach to Integrating Feature and Architecture Models. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Storm, T.: Generic Feature-Based Software Composition. In: Lumpe, M., Vanderperren, W. (eds.) SC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4829, pp. 66–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohabbati, B., Hatala, M., Gašević, D., Asadi, M., Bošković, M.: Development and Configuration of Service-Oriented Systems Families. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wohed, P., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Russell, N.: On the suitability of BPMN for business process modelling. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White, J., Schmidt, D., Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated Diagnosis of Product-Line Configuration Errors in Feature Models. In: SPLC 2008, pp. 225–234. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerd Gröner
    • 1
  • Christian Wende
    • 2
  • Marko Bošković
    • 3
  • Fernando Silva Parreiras
    • 1
  • Tobias Walter
    • 1
  • Florian Heidenreich
    • 2
  • Dragan Gašević
    • 3
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  1. 1.WeST InstituteUniversity of Koblenz-LandauGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universität DresdenGermany
  3. 3.Athabasca UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations