Abstract
Business process modeling often deals with the trade-off between comprehensibility and flexibility. Many languages have been proposed to support different paradigms to tackle these characteristics. Well-known procedural, token-based languages such as Petri nets, BPMN, EPC, etc. have been used and extended to incorporate more flexible use cases, however the declarative workflow paradigm, most notably represented by the Declare framework, is still widely accepted for modeling flexible processes. A real trade-off exists between the readable, rather inflexible procedural models, and the highly-expressive but cognitively demanding declarative models containing a lot of implicit behavior. This paper investigates in detail the scenarios in which combining both approaches is useful, it provides a scoring table for Declare constructs to capture their intricacies and similarities compared to procedural ones, and offers a step-wise approach to construct mixed-paradigm models. Such models are especially useful in the case of environments with different layers of flexibility and go beyond using atomic subprocesses modeled according to either paradigm. The paper combines Petri nets and Declare to express the findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams M, Ter Hofstede AHM, Edmond D, van der Aalst WMP (2006) Worklets: a service-oriented implementation of dynamic flexibility in workflows. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE. Springer, pp 291–308
Cortadella J, Kishinevsky M, Lavagno L, Yakovlev A (1998) Deriving Petri nets from finite transition systems. Comput IEEE Trans 47(8):859–882
De Smedt J, vanden Broucke SKLM, De Weerdt J, Vanthienen J (2015) A full R/I-net construct lexicon for declare constraints. Research report KBI 1506
Di Ciccio C, Mecella M (2013) A two-step fast algorithm for the automated discovery of declarative workflows. In: Computational intelligence and data mining (CIDM), 2013 IEEE Symposium on IEEE, pp 135–142
Dijkman RM, Dumas M, Ouyang C (2008) Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf Softw Technol 50(12):1281–1294
Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. Springer
Fahland D (2007) Towards analyzing declarative workflows. Auton Adapt Web Serv 7061:6
Fahland D, Lübke D, Mendling J, Reijers H, Weber B, Weidlich M, Zugal S (2009) Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability. In: Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Springer, pp 353–366
Goedertier S, Vanthienen J, Caron F (2013) Declarative business process modelling: principles and modelling languages. Enterp Inf Syst pp 1–25 (ahead-of-print)
Haisjackl C, Barba I, Zugal S, Soffer P, Hadar I, Reichert M, Pinggera J, Weber B (2014) Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw Syst Model, pp 1–28
Hildebrandt T, Mukkamala RR, Slaats T (2012) Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Fundamentals of software engineering. Springer, pp 343–350
Hull R, Damaggio E, Fournier F, Gupta M, Heath III FT, Hobson S, Linehan M, Maradugu S, Nigam A, Sukaviriya P et al (2011) Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Web services and formal methods. Springer, pp 1–24
Maggi FM, Westergaard M, Montali M, van der Aalst WMP (2012) Runtime verification of LTL-based declarative process models. In: Runtime verification. Springer, pp 131–146
Murata T (1989) Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc IEEE 77(4):541–580
Pesic M (2008) Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Pesic M, Schonenberg H, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Declare: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference, 2007. EDOC 2007. 11th IEEE International, IEEE, pp 287–298
Pesic M, van der Aalst WMP (2006) A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Business process management workshops. Springer, pp 169–180
Prescher J, Di Ciccio C, Mendling J (2014) From declarative processes to imperative models. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on data-driven process discovery and analysis (SIMPDA 2014), Milan, pp 162–173
Reijers HA, Slaats T, Stahl C (2013) Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Business process management. Springer, pp 307–322
Rosemann M, Recker J, Indulska M, Green P (2006) A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars. In: Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp 447–461
Sadiq S, Sadiq W, Orlowska M (2001) Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification. In: Conceptual modelingER 2001. Springer, pp 513–526
Schonenberg H, Ronny M, Nick R, Nataliya M, van der Aalst WMP (2008) Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. In: CAiSE forum, vol 344, pp 81–84
van der Aalst WMP (1999) Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf Softw Technol 41(10):639–650
van der Aalst WMP (2002) Making work flow: on the application of petri nets to business process management. In: Application and theory of petri nets 2002. Springer, pp 1–22
van der Aalst WMP (2013) A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering, Business process management
van der Aalst WMP, Adams M, Ter Hofstede AHM, Pesic M, Schonenberg H (2009) Flexibility as a service. In: Database systems for advanced applications. Springer, pp 319–333
van der Aalst WMP, Ter Hofstede AHM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275
Westergaard M, Slaats T (2013) Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Business process management. Springer, pp 283–290
Westergaard M, Stahl C, Reijers HA (2013) UnconstrainedMiner: efficient discovery of generalized declarative process models. Technical Report BPM-13-28, BPMcenter
White SA (2004) Introduction to BPMN. IBM Corporation, vol 2
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted after two revisions by the editors of the special issue.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J. et al. Mixed-Paradigm Process Modeling with Intertwined State Spaces. Bus Inf Syst Eng 58, 19–29 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0416-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0416-y