Declarative modeling - An academic dream or the future for BPM?

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 8094 LNCS, Issue , 2013, Pages 307-322

  Reijers, Hajo A ^a,b   Slaats, Tijs ^c,d   Stahl, Christian ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b Hyland Software   (United States)

^c IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d Exformatics A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL EVALUATIONS; FULL-SHIFT; HYBRID APPROACH; MODELING APPROACH; MODELING TECHNIQUE; RESEARCH AGENDA; TOOL SUPPORT;

TOOLS;

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84881237891     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_26     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer (2011)
2. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering (2013)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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) (Pubitemid 47129398)
6. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319-340 (1989)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. Harel, D.: Come, let's play - scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer (2003)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. Karpinski, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer (1977)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: ECIS 2003, pp. 1327-1336 (2003)
18. Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)
19. Papazoglou, M.: Web Services - Principles and Technology. Prentice Hall (2008)
20. 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)
21. Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Springer (2012)
22. 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)
23. 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)
24. 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)