Creating declarative process models using test driven modeling suite

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 107 LNBIP, Issue , 2012, Pages 16-32

  Zugal, Stefan ^a   Pinggera, Jakob ^a   Weber, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

Declarative Business Process Models; Test Driven Modeling; Test Driven Modeling Suite

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING;

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY; DOMAIN EXPERTS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL PLATFORM; MODELING NOTATION; PROCESS MODEL; PROCESS MODELING; TECHNICAL LEVELS; TEST DRIVEN MODELING SUITE; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84861150731     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29749-6_2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Lenz, R., Reichert, M.: IT support for healthcare processes - premises, challenges, perspectives. DKE 61, 39-58 (2007)
2. Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley-Interscience (2005)
3. Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex: Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflow without Losing Control. JIIS 10, 93-129 (1998)
4. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. DKE 53, 129-162 (2005)
5. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint- Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77-94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
6. Sadiq, S.W., Orlowska, M.E., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. ISJ 30, 349-378 (2005)
7. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features - Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. DKE 66, 438-466 (2008)
8. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven (2008)
9. 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)
10. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J.,Weber, B.: Toward Enhanced Life-Cycle Support for Declarative Processes. JSME (2011), doi:10.1002/smr.554
11. van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A(E.), van der Weide, T.P.: Exploring Modelling Strategies in a Meta-modelling Context. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1128-1137. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
12. Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative Specification and Verification of Service Choreographies. ACM Trans. Web 4, 1-62 (2010)
13. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability - a cognitive perspective. In: Proc. EESSMod 2011, pp. 18-27 (2011)
14. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 45, 185-213 (1996)
15. Zhang, J., Norman, D.A.: Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science 18, 87-122 (1994)
16. Zhang, J.: The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science 21, 179-217 (1997)
17. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proc. EMISA 2011, pp. 177-182 (2011)
18. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transaction on Systems Man &Cybernetics, Part A 41, 449-462 (2011)
19. Kim, J., Lerch, F.J.: Why Is Programming (Sometimes) So Difficult? Programming as Scientific Discovery in Multiple Problem Spaces. ISR 8, 25-50 (1997)
20. Green, T.R., Petre, M.: Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework. JVLC 7, 131-174 (1996)
21. Beck, K.: Test Driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley (2002)
22. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The Impact of Testcases on the Maintainability of Declarative Process Models. In: Halpin, T., Nurcan, S., Krogstie, J., Soffer, P., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 163-177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
23. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.: DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In: Proc. EDOC 2007, pp. 287-298 (2007)
24. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform. In: Proc. ER-POIS 2010, pp. 13-18 (2010)
25. Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Tracing the Process of Process Modeling with Modeling Phase Diagrams. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 370-382. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
26. Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A(S.), Lindeman, L(L.), Proper, H.A(E.): Capturing Modeling Processes - Towards the MoDial Modeling Laboratory. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4278, pp. 1242-1252. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
27. Hoppenbrouwers, S.J., Proper, E.H., van der Weide, T.P.: Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation. In: Proc. LAP 2005, pp. 139-155 (2005)
28. Tort, A., Olivé, A.: An approach to testing conceptual schemas. DKE 69, 598-618 (2010)
29. Tort, A., Olivé, A.: First Steps Towards Conceptual Schema Testing. In: Proc. CAiSE Forum 2009, pp. 1-6 (2009)
30. Amyot, D., Eberlein, A.: An Evaluation of Scenario Notations and Construction Approaches for Telecommunication Systems Development. Telecommunication Systems 24, 61-94 (2003)
31. Liang, H., Dingel, J., Diskin, Z.: A comparative survey of scenario-based to state-based model synthesis approaches. In: Proc. SCESM 2006, pp. 5-12 (2006)
32. Fahland, D.: From Scenarios To Components. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2010)
33. Fahland, D.: Oclets - Scenario-Based Modeling with Petri Nets. In: Franceschinis, G., Wolf, K. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5606, pp. 223-242. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
34. Lamma, E., Mello, P., Montali, M., Riguzzi, F., Storari, S.: Inducing Declarative Logic-Based Models from Labeled Traces. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 344-359. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
35. Glinz, M., Seybold, C., Meier, S.: Simulation-Driven Creation, Validation and Evolution of Behavioral Requirements Models. In: Proc. MBEES 2007, pp. 103-112 (2007)