Comparison of BPMN2 Diagrams

  • Pit Pietsch
  • Sven Wenzel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 125)


Models are compared to identify which elements are unchanged and which were added, removed, or modified. This information is necessary for developers to understand which edit steps were applied between two revisions of a model, to discover differences in concurrently developed models and it is also a fundamental building block for advanced processing steps, e.g. model merging. Hence, model comparison is generally considered as a critical factor for the acceptance and success of model-driven development approaches. Surprisingly however, for many model types only inadequate tool support for comparing models is available. This paper presents the prototype of a similarity-based model comparison tool for BPMN2 diagrams. The algorithms and heuristics of the SiDiff model differencing framework have been configured to the specific characteristics of BPMN2 diagrams. An initial evaluation indicates that the presented prototype produces results of high quality.


Model Comparison BPMN2 Similarity of Business Process Models Quality of Differences Difference Computation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bendix, L., Emanuelsson, P.: Collaborative work with software models - industrial experience and requirements. In: International Conference on Model-Based Systems Engineering, MBSE 2009, pp. 60–68 (March 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bendix, L., Emanuelsson, P.: Diff and merge support for model-based development. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models, CVSM 2008, pp. 31–34. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerth, C., Küster, J.M., Luckey, M., Engels, G.: Precise Detection of Conflicting Change Operations Using Process Model Terms. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0 (2011), (accessed May 15, 2012)
  5. 5.
    Eclipse BPMN2 Project (2012), (accessed May 15, 2012)
  6. 6.
    Eclipse BPMN2 Visual Editor (2012), (accessed May 15, 2012)
  7. 7.
    EMF Compare Project (2012), (accessed May 15, 2012)
  8. 8.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A generic difference algorithm for uml models. In: Software Engineering 2005. Fachtagung des GI-Fachbereichs Softwaretechnik (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Treude, C., Berlik, S., Wenzel, S., Kelter, U.: Difference computation of large models. In: ESEC-FSE 2007: Proceedings of the the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 295–304. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Förtsch, S., Westfechtel, B.: Differencing and merging of software diagrams - state of the art and challenges. In: ICSOFT (SE), pp. 90–99 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolovos, D.S., Ruscio, D.D., Pierantonio, A., Paige, R.F.: Different models for model matching: An analysis of approaches to support model differencing. In: CVSM 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selonen, P.: A review of UML model comparison techniques. In: Nordic Workshop on Model Driven Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xing, Z., Stroulia, E.: UMLdiff: An algorithm for object-oriented design differencing. In: ASE 2005: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 54–65. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin, Y., Gray, J., Jouault, F.: DSMdiff: A differentiation tool for domain-specific models. European Journal of Information Systems 16(4), 349–361(13) (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The SiDiff Project - Similarity-based differencing of models (2012), (accessed May 15, 2012)
  16. 16.
    Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Rahm, E.: Similarity flooding: A versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In: 18th Intl. Conf on Data Engineering, ICDE (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pietsch, P.: Optimierung des SiDiff-Algorithmus unter Ausnutzung modellspezifischer Eigenschaften und Strukturen. Master’s thesis, University of Siegen (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG, BPMN 2.0 by Example, (accessed May 15, 2012)
  19. 19.
    Dijkman, R.M.: A classification of differences between similar business processes. In: EDOC, pp. 37–50 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dijkman, R.: Diagnosing Differences between Business Process Models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Detecting and Resolving Process Model Differences in the Absence of a Change Log. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gerth, C., Küster, J.M., Engels, G.: Language-Independent Change Management of Process Models. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MoDELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 152–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dumas, M.: Similarity search of business process models (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph Matching Algorithms for Business Process Model Similarity Search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Koegel, M.: Towards a generic operation recorder for model evolution. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice, IWMCP 2010, pp. 76–81. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lippe, E., van Oosterom, N.: Operation-based merging. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments, SDE 5, pp. 78–87. ACM, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schneider, C., Zündorf, A., Niere, J.: Coobra – A small step for development tools to collaborative environments. In: Workshop on Directions in Software Engineering Environments; Workshop at ICSE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kehrer, T., Kelter, U., Taentzer, G.: A rule-based approach to the semantic lifting of model differences in the context of model versioning. In: ASE, pp. 163–172 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pietsch, P., Yazdi, H.S.: The QuDiMo Project (2011), (accessed June 26, 2012)
  31. 31.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Vanhatalo, J., Voelzer, H.: Simplified computation and generalization of the refined process structure tree. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods, WS-FM (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On Measuring Process Model Similarity Based on High-Level Change Operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pietsch, P., Shariat Yazdi, H., Kelter, U.: Generating realistic test models for model processing tools. In: ASE 2011, pp. 660–623 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pietsch, P., Shariat Yazdi, H., Kelter, U.: Controlled Generation of Models with Defined Properties. In: SE 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kehrer, T., Kelter, U., Pietsch, P., Schmidt, M.: Adaptability of Model Comparison Tools. In: ASE (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient consistency measurement based on behavioral profiles of process models. Transactions on Software Engineering 37(3), 410–429 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pit Pietsch
    • 1
  • Sven Wenzel
    • 2
  1. 1.University of SiegenGermany
  2. 2.Technical University DortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations