The semantics of hybrid process models

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

Volumn 10033 LNCS, Issue , 2016, Pages 531-551

  Slaats, Tijs ^a   Schunselaar, Dennis M M ^b   Maggi, Fabrizio M ^c   Reijers, Hajo A ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^d EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Declare; Hybrid process model; Petri net; Semantics

Indexed keywords

PETRI NETS; PROCESS ENGINEERING; SEMANTICS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

BUSINESS PROCESS MODELLING; DECLARATIVE MODELLING; DECLARE; FORMAL SEMANTICS; HYBRID PROCESS; SUB PROCESS;

FORMAL METHODS;

EID: 84995920429     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Barukh, M.C., Benatallah, B.: ProcessBase: a hybrid process management platform. In: Franch, X., Ghose, A.K., Lewis, G.A., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8831, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45391-9_2
2. Carlsen, S.: Action port model: A mixed paradigm conceptual workflow modeling language. In: IFCIS, pp. 300–309 (1998)
3. Giacomo, G., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M.: Declarative process modeling in BPMN. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 84–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_6
4. Smedt, J., 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45563-0_26
5. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Marquard, M., Slaats, T.: A case for declarative process modelling: Agile development of a grant application system. In: EDOCW/AdaptiveCM 2014, pp. 126–133 (2014)
6. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_2
7. Debois, S., Slaats, T.: The analysis of a real life declarative process. CIDM 2015, 1374–1382 (2015)
8. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
9. Haisjackl, C., Barba, I., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 1–28 (2014)
10. Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES, pp. 59–73 (2010)
11. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29320-7_23
12. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9 27
13. Markovic, I., Kowalkiewicz, M.: Linking business goals to process models in semantic business process modeling. In: EDOC, pp. 332–338 (2008)
14. Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 209–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_15
15. Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14538-4
16. Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. TWEB 4(1), 3 (2010)
17. Moody, D.L.: The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE TSE 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
18. Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. EDOC 2007, 287–300 (2007)
19. 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 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 383–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37
20. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36(5), 881–897 (2011)
21. Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling-an academic dream or the future for bpm? BPM 2013, 307–322 (2013)
22. Sadiq, S.W., Orlowska, M.E., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Inf. Syst. 30(5), 349–378 (2005)
23. Slaats, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M.: Exformatics declarative case management workflows as DCR graphs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 339–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_28
24. De Smedt, J., De Weerdt, J., Vanthienen, J., Poels, G.: Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces. Bus. IS Eng. 58(1), 19–29 (2016)
25. Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: EDOC, pp. 151–160. IEEE (2011)
26. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Flexibility as a service. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Liu, Q., Deng, K. (eds.) DASFAA 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5667, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04205-8_27
27. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Comp. Sc. R&D 23, 99–113 (2009)
28. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)
29. Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Cpn tools 4: A process modeling tool combining declarative and imperative paradigms. In: BPM (Demos) (2013)
30. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_24
31. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. BPMDS 2012, 167–181 (2012)
32. Muehlen, M.Z., Indulska, M.: Indulska.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: A representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35(4), 379–390 (2010)