Skip to main content

Zoom and Enhance: Action Refinement via Subprocesses in Timed Declarative Processes

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management (BPM 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12875))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 3317 Accesses

Abstract

This paper addresses the open technical problems of evolving executable, event-based process models by refinement, that is, by iteratively expanding a model until it has the required level of detail. Such iterative development is helpful because of the expectation that the next-step model is semantically compatible with the previous one, only with more detail. We provide in this paper a formal notion of refinement of single atomic actions (events) into entire subprocesses, and a theoretical framework for providing guarantees that such a next-step model is formally a refinement of the previous one. Our work is set within the declarative, event-based process modelling language of timed Dynamic Condition Response (DCR) graphs, which can express timed constraints (conditions with delay and obligations with deadlines) between events, liveness, safety, and concurrency. Concretely, we extend DCR graph syntax and semantics with a notion of subprocess, provide examples of its use, and give sound approximations of situations where replacing an event with a subprocess formally is a refinement of the original process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    This number should be seen in light of the fact that subprocesses only become relevant in larger graphs, where compositionality matters.

  2. 2.

    A time step is a discrete duration of time orthogonal to the execution of events. A time step can represent any duration, examples being a computers clock cycle, a day or a year. For the examples in this paper a time step is a day.

References

  1. Van der Aalst, W.M.: Decomposing petri nets for process mining: a generic approach. Distributed Parallel Databases 31(4), 471–507 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ayari, S., Ben Dali Hlaoui, Y., Jemni Ben Ayed, L.: A new approach for the verification of BPMN models using refinement patterns (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barba, I., Lanz, A., Weber, B., Reichert, M., Del Valle, C.: Optimized time management for declarative workflows (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burattin, A., Maggi, F.M., Sperduti, A.: Conformance checking based on multi-perspective declarative process models. Expert Syst. Appl. 65(C), 194–211 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Choi, Y., Zhao, J.L.: Decomposition-based verification of cyclic workflows (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Costa Seco, J., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Reseda: Declaring live event-driven computations as reactive semi-structured data (Oct 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Masellis, R., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Maggi, F.M.: Declarative process models: Different ways to be hierarchical (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.: The DCR workbench: declarative choreographies for collaborative processes. In: Gay, S., Ravara, A. (eds.) Behavioural Types: From Theory to Tools, pp. 99–124. River Publishers, June 2017

    Google Scholar 

  9. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M., Slaats, T.: Hybrid process technologies in the financial sector: the case of BRFkredit. In: Business Process Management Cases, pp. 397–412. Management for Professionals, Springer, Cham (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Concurrency and asynchrony in declarative workflows. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 72–89. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_5

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T.: Replication, refinement & reachability: complexity in dynamic condition-response graphs. Acta Informatica 55(6), 489–520 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Debois, S., Slaats, T.: The analysis of a real life declarative process. In: SSCI 2015, pp. 1374–1382. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Decker, G., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., Pfitzner, K., Weske, M.: Modeling service choreographies using BPMN and bpel4chor (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ding, Z., Jiang, C., Zhou, M.: Design, analysis and verification of real-time systems based on time petri net refinement. ACM Trans. Embed. Comp. Syst. 12(1), 1–18 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. van Glabbeek, R., Goltz, U.: Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Glabbeek, R., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions in causality based models (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Post-Proceedings of PLACES 2010. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 82(5–7), 164–185 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Horita, H., Honda, K., Sei, Y., Nakagawa, H., Tahara, Y., Ohsuga, A.: Transformation approach from kaos goal models to BPMN models using refinement patterns (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lee, K., Favrel, J.: Hierarchical reduction method for analysis and decomposition of petri nets. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. SMC-15(2), 272–280 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Merlin, P., Farber, D.: Recoverability of communication protocols - implications of a theoretical study. IEEE Trans. Commun. 24(9), 1036–1043 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Polyvyanyy, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Isotactics as a foundation for alignment and abstraction of behavioral models (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schönig, S., Zeising, M.: The DPIL framework: tool support for agile and resource-aware business processes. BPM (Demos) 1418, 125–129 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Slaats, T., Schunselaar, D.M., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A.: The semantics of hybrid process models (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Slaats, T., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T. T.: Open to Change: A Theory for Iterative Test-Driven Modelling (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Srba, J.: Comparing the expressiveness of timed automata and timed extensions of petri nets. In: Cassez, F., Jard, C. (eds.) FORMATS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5215, pp. 15–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85778-5_3

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Suzuki, I., Murata, T.: A method for stepwise refinement and abstraction of petri nets. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 27(1), 51–76 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Turetken, O., Dikici, A., Vanderfeesten, I., Rompen, T., Demirors, O.: The influence of using collapsed sub-processes and groups on the understandability of business process models. Bus. Inf. Sys. Eng., 1–21 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Turetken, O., Rompen, T., Vanderfeesten, I., Dikici, A., van Moll, J.: The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Valette, R.: Analysis of petri nets by stepwise refinements. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(1), 35–46 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Van Glabbeek, R., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Informatica 37(4–5), 229–327 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient computation of causal behavioural profiles using structural decomposition (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wirth, N.: Prog. development by stepwise refinement. CACM 14(4), 221–227 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wong, P.Y., Gibbons, J.: Formalisations and applications of BPMN. Sci. Comput. Programm. 76(8), 633–650 (2011), special issue on the 7th Int’l Workshop on the Foundations of Coordination Lang. and Soft. Arch. (FOCLASA’08)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zerguini, L.: A novel hierarchical method for decomposition and design of workflow models. J. Integr. Des. Process. Sci. 8(2), 65–74 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Creating declarative process models using test driven modeling suite. In: Nurcan, S. (ed.) CAiSE Forum 2011. LNBIP, vol. 107, pp. 16–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29749-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: The impact of testcases on the maintainability of declarative process models. Ent., Bus.-Proc. and Inf. Sys. Modelling, 163–177 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model - a cognitive perspective. In: EESSMod (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Haisjackl, C., Pinggera, J., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw. Syst. Modeling 14(3), 1081–1103 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31072-0_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Søren Debois .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Normann, H., Debois, S., Slaats, T., Hildebrandt, T.T. (2021). Zoom and Enhance: Action Refinement via Subprocesses in Timed Declarative Processes. In: Polyvyanyy, A., Wynn, M.T., Van Looy, A., Reichert, M. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12875. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85468-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85469-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics