Abstract
Declarative modeling has attracted much attention over the last years, resulting in the development of several academic declarative modeling techniques and tools. The absence of empirical evaluations on their use and usefulness, however, raises the question whether practitioners are attracted to using those techniques. In this paper, we present a study on what practitioners think of declarative modeling. We show that the practitioners we involved in this study are receptive to the idea of a hybrid approach combining imperative and declarative techniques, rather than making a full shift from the imperative to the declarative paradigm. Moreover, we report on requirements, use cases, limitations, and tool support of such a hybrid approach. Based on the gained insight, we propose a research agenda for the development of this novel modeling approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer (2011)
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering (2013)
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - R&D 23(2), 99–113 (2009)
Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Consistency checking of compliance rules. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 47, pp. 106–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Cobleigh, R.L., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A.: User guidance for creating precise and accessible property specifications. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 208–218. ACM (2006)
Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)
Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420. ACM (1999)
Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of understandability. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: The issue of maintainability. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 477–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Harel, D.: Come, let’s play - scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer (2003)
Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Safe distribution of declarative processes. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES 2010. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)
Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Karpinski, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer (1977)
Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess. TWEB 4(1) (2010)
Moody, D.: The physicsof notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003, pp. 1327–1336 (2003)
Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)
Papazoglou, M.: Web Services - Principles and Technology. Prentice Hall (2008)
Pichler, P., Weber, B., Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: An empirical investigation. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Springer (2012)
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)
Westergaard, M.: CPN Tools 4: Multi-formalism and Extensibility. In: Colom, J.-M., Desel, J. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7927, pp. 400–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare: A tool suite for declarative workflow modeling and enactment. In: BPM (Demos) 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 820, CEUR-WS.org (2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C. (2013). Declarative Modeling–An Academic Dream or the Future for BPM?. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds) Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8094. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_26
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40175-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40176-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)