Abstract
Traditional business process modeling notations, including the standard Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), rely on an imperative paradigm wherein the process model captures all allowed activity flows. In other words, every flow that is not specified is implicitly disallowed. In the past decade, several researchers have exposed the limitations of this paradigm in the context of business processes with high variability. As an alternative, declarative process modeling notations have been proposed (e.g., Declare). These notations allow modelers to capture constraints on the allowed activity flows, meaning that all flows are allowed provided that they do not violate the specified constraints. Recently, it has been recognized that the boundary between imperative and declarative process modeling is not crisp. Instead, mixtures of declarative and imperative process modeling styles are sometimes preferable, leading to proposals for hybrid process modeling notations. These developments raise the question of whether completely new notations are needed to support hybrid process modeling. This paper answers this question negatively. The paper presents a conservative extension of BPMN for declarative process modeling, namely BPMN-D, and shows that Declare models can be transformed into readable BPMN-D models.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - Research and Development 23 (2009)
Awad, A., Sakr, S.: On efficient processing of BPMN-Q queries. Computers in Industry 63(9) (2012)
Carmona, J.: Projection approaches to process mining using region-based techniques. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 24(1) (2012)
De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Grasso, M., Maggi, F., Montali, M.: Monitoring business metaconstraints based on LTL and LDL for finite traces. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
De Giacomo, G., Vardi, M.Y.: Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces. In: 23rd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). AAAI (2013)
De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J.: Multi-paradigm process mining: retrieving better models by combining rules and sequences. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information & Software Technology 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)
Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Masellis, R.D., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath, F., Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Noi Sukaviriya, P., Vaculín, R.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: 5th ACM Int. Conf. on Distributed Event-Based Systems (DEBS). ACM (2011)
Maggi, F.M., Slaats, T., Reijers, H.A.: The automated discovery of hybrid processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 392–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Marin, M., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: Data centric BPM and the emerging case management standard: a short survey. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 24–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative Specification and Verification of Service Choreographies. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2010)
Object Management Group: Business Process Modeling Notation Version 2.0. Tech. rep., Object Management Group Final Adopted Specification (2011)
Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In: EDOC 2007 (2007)
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)
Prescher, J., Di Ciccio, C., Mendling, J.: From declarative processes to imperative models. In: 4th Int. Symp. on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA). CEUR-WS.org (2014)
Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems - Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer (2012)
Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.: Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. In: Forum at the CAiSE 2008 Conf., vol. 344. CEUR-WS.org (2008)
Westergaard, M.: Better algorithms for analyzing and enacting declarative workflow languages using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 283–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
De Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M. (2015). Declarative Process Modeling in BPMN. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9097. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19068-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19069-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)