Extending BPMN 2.0 for Modelling the Combination of Activities That Involve Data Constraints

  • Luisa Parody
  • María Teresa Gómez-López
  • Rafael M. Gasca
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 125)


The combination of activities to achieve optimal goals sometimes has a complex solution. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 2.0 facilitates the modelling of business processes by providing new artifacts, such as various types of tasks, source of data and relations between tasks. Sometimes, although the order of the activities can be known, the concrete data values that the activities interchange to optimize their behaviour needs to be found, specially when input parameters of an activity affect to the input parameter of the others. Taking into account the lack of priority and clear sequential relationship between the activities of such combination, a deep analysis of possible models and data input values for the activities is necessary. For that reason, an extension of BPMN 2.0 with a new type of sub-process and its associated marker is proposed. The aim of this new sub-process is to define, in an easy way, a combination of several activities to find out, in an automated way, the concrete values of the data handling that optimize an overall objective.


Business Process Management Business Process Model and Notation Combination of Activities Data Input Data Constraint 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aguilar-Saven, R.S.: Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics 90(2), 129–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bidel, I.: Choosing approach to business process modeling - practical perspective (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Hlupic, V.: Petri Nets and IDEF diagrams: Applicability and efficacy for business process modelling. An International Journal of Computing and Informatics 25(1), 123–133 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castela, N., Tribolet, J.M., Silva, A., Guerra, A.: Business process modeling with uml. In: ICEIS (2), pp. 679–685 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dayal, U., Hsu, M., Ladin, R.: Business process coordination: State of the art, trends, and open issues. In: Apers, P.M.G., Atzeni, P., Ceri, S., Paraboschi, S., Ramamohanarao, K., Snodgrass, R.T. (eds.) VLDB, pp. 3–13. Morgan Kaufmann (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gómez-López, M.T., Reina-Quintero, A., Martínez Gasca, R.: Model-Driven Engineering for Constraint Database Query Evaluation. In: First Workshop Model-Driven Engineering, Logic and Optimization: Friends or Foes? (MELO 2011) (June 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. OMG Standard (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kapuruge, M., Han, J., Colman, A.W.: Support for business process flexibility in service compositions: An evaluative survey. In: Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 97–106. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: A UML 2 Profile for Business Process Modelling. In: Akoka, J., Liddle, S.W., Song, I.-Y., Bertolotto, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Cherfi, S.S.-S., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Thalheim, B., Kolp, M., Bresciani, P., Trujillo, J., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2005. LNCS, vol. 3770, pp. 85–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: A Survey of Comparative Business Process Modeling Approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    OASIS. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services. OASIS Standard (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) 1.2. OMG Standard (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. BPMN 2.0 by Example. Version 1.0 (non-normative). OMG Standard (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papazoglou, M.P., van den Heuvel, W.-J.: Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. VLDB J. 16(3), 389–415 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parody, L., Gómez-López, M.T., Martínez Gasca, R., Borrego, D.: Using distributed csps to model business processes agreement in software multiprocess. In: 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sinogas, P., Vasconcelos, A., Caetano, A., Neves, J., Mendes, R., Tribolet, J.M.: Business processes extensions to uml profile for business modeling. In: ICEIS (2), pp. 673–678 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsai, A., Wang, J., Tepfenhart, W., Rosea, D.: Epc workflow model to wifa model conversion. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC 2006, vol. 4766, pp. 2758–2763 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W3C. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolter, C., Schaad, A.: Modeling of Task-Based Authorization Constraints in BPMN. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, Y., Doshi, P.: Making bpel flexible - adapting in the context of coordination constraints using ws-bpel, pp. 423–430 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yokoo, M., Durfee, E.H., Ishida, T., Kuwabara, K.: The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: Formalization and algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 10(5), 673–685 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, J.F., Kowalczyk, R.: Agent-based dis-graph planning algorithm for web service composition. In: CIMCA/IAWTIC, p. 258. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luisa Parody
    • 1
  • María Teresa Gómez-López
    • 1
  • Rafael M. Gasca
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Languages and Systems DepartmentUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations