Advertisement

Abstract

Declarative process models support process flexibility, which has been widely recognized as important, particularly for organizations that face frequent changes and variable stimuli from their environment. However, current declarative approaches emphasize activities and provide constraints addressing their existence and dependencies. This expressiveness is not capable of addressing the process context (namely, environment effects) and its goal. The paper proposes a declarative model which addresses activities as well as states, external events, and goals. As such, it explicitly addresses the context of a process. The model is based on the Generic Process Model (GPM), extended by a notion of activity, which includes a state change aspect and an intentional aspect. The achievement of the intention of an activity may depend on events in the environment and is hence not certain. The paper provides a formalization of the model and some conditions for verification. These are illustrated by an example from the medical domain.

Keywords

Declarative process model Context Generic Process Model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersson, B., Bider, I., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Towards a Formal Definition of Goal-Oriented Business Process Patterns. Business Process Management Journal 11(6) (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q and temporal logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, K.: Test Driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, vol. 3. Reidel, Boston (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghattas, J., Soffer, P., Peleg, M.: A formal model for process context learning. In: Proc. BPI 2009, Ulm, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: 5th Int’l Symp. on RE, pp. 249–261. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Integration and veri_cation of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 64, 3–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-based workflow models: Change made easy. In: Chung, S. (ed.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regev, G., Bider, I., Wegmann, A.: Defining business process flexibility with the help of invariants. Software Process Improvement and Practice 12, 65–79 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: ADEPT workflow management system: In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 370–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Flexibility: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. In: Dietz, et al (eds.) CIAO! And EOMAS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 10, pp. 16–30. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schonenberg, H., Weber, B., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting flexible processes through recommendations based on history. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 51–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soffer, P., Kaner, M., Wand, Y.: Assigning Ontology-Based Semantics to Workflow nets”. Journal of Database Management 21(3), 1–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: On the Notion of Soft Goals in Business Process Modeling. Business Process Management Journal 11(6), 663–679 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soffer, P., Wand, Y.: Goal-driven multi-process analysis. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8(3), 175–203 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: Handling events during business process execution: An empirical testGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: The declarative approach to business process execution: An empirical test. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 470–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. To appear in IJISMDGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ploesser, K., Janiesch, C., Recker, J., Rosemann, M.: Context Change Archetypes:Understanding the Impact of Context Change on Business Processes (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pnina Soffer
    • 1
  • Tomer Yehezkel
    • 1
  1. 1.Carmel MountainUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations