GiN: A Graphical Language and Tool for Defining iTask Workflows

  • Jeroen Henrix
  • Rinus Plasmeijer
  • Peter Achten
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7193)


Workflow Management Systems (WFMSs) are software applications that coordinate business processes. The coordination is based on a workflow model, expressed in a domain-specific Workflow Description Language (WDL). WDLs are typically graphical languages because the specification has to be understandable for domain experts as well as workflow application developers. Commonly, only simple workflows can be described while additional coding is needed to turn the description into a running application. The iTask system is a combinator library, embedded in Clean, to construct WFMSs. Complex workflows can be defined declaratively from which a complete web-based application is generated. However, the textual specification is less suitable for domain experts who are used to graphical notations. In this paper we address this problem and present GiN: a graphical notation for iTask workflows, as well as a prototype implementation of a tool to construct GiN workflows interactively and graphically. The tool is fully integrated in the iTask system: it is just another iTask component, and workflows created with GiN can be subsequently added and executed dynamically as part of other workflows.


Domain Expert Graphical Notation Abstract Syntax Tree Exit Node Host Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 81, 21–66 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Chapter 10: Three good reasons for using a Petri-net-based Workflow Management System. Information and Process Integration in Enterprises: Rethinking Documents 428, 161–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Technical Report FIT-TR-2002-06, Queensland University of Technology (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Decker, G., Overdick, H., Weske, M.: Oryx – An Open Modeling Platform for the BPM Community. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 382–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: UML Activity Diagrams as a Workflow Specification Language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elliot, C.: Tangible functional programming. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2007, Freiburg, Germany, October 1-3, pp. 59–70. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanna, K.: A Document-Centered Environment for Haskell. In: Butterfield, A., Grelck, C., Huch, F. (eds.) IFL 2005. LNCS, vol. 4015, pp. 196–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henrix, J.: A graphical workflow editor for iTask. Master’s thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Number 638 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK)”. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik (IWi), Universität des Saarlandes, Heft 89 (January 1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelso, J.: A Visual Programming Environment for Functional Languages. PhD thesis, Murdoch University (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koopman, P., Plasmeijer, R., Achten, P.: An Executable and Testable Semantics for iTasks. In: Scholz, S.-B., Chitil, O. (eds.) IFL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5836, pp. 212–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kühne, S., Kern, H., Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Business Process Modelling with Continuous Validation. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 212–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendling, J., Neumann, G., Nüttgens, M.: Towards workflow pattern support of event-driven process chains (EPC). In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop XML4BPM 2005, pp. 23–38 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendling, J., Ziemann, J.: Transformation of BPEL processes to EPCs. In: Nüttgens, M., Rump, F.J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th GI Workshop on Business Process Management with Event-Driven Process Chains (EPK 2005), pp. 41–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michels, S., Plasmeijer, R., Achten, P.: iTask as a New Paradigm for Building GUI Applications. In: Hage, J., Morazán, M.T. (eds.) IFL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6647, pp. 153–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group. Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 1.2. Technical report, Object Management Group (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pil, M.: Dynamic Types and Type Dependent Functions. In: Hammond, K., Davie, T., Clack, C. (eds.) IFL 1998. LNCS, vol. 1595, pp. 169–185. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plasmeijer, R., Achten, P., Koopman, P.: iTasks: executable specifications of interactive work flow systems for the web. In: Hinze, R., Ramsey, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2007, Freiburg, Germany, pp. 141–152. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plasmeijer, R., Achten, P., Koopman, P., Lijnse, B., van Noort, T., van Groningen, J.: iTasks for a change - Type-safe run-time change in dynamically evolving workflows. In: Khoo, S.-C., Siek, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation, PEPM 2011, Austin, TX, USA, pp. 151–160. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reekie, H.J.: Realtime Signal Processing – Dataflow, Visual, and Functional Programming. PhD thesis, University of Technology at Sydney, Australia (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schumm, D., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F., Nitzsche, J.: On visualizing and modelling BPEL with BPMN. In: GPC 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 Workshops at the Grid and Pervasive Computing Conference, pp. 80–87. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The Refined Process Structure Tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vervoort, M., Plasmeijer, R.: Lazy Dynamic Input/Output in the Lazy Functional Language Clean. In: Peña, R., Arts, T. (eds.) IFL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2670, pp. 101–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber, G.D.: Sifflet home page (2011),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen Henrix
    • 1
  • Rinus Plasmeijer
    • 1
  • Peter Achten
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations