Abstract
Canceling ongoing process instances is a natural phenomenon in practice. As such, modeling cancellation behavior is supported in the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) via exception events. Event-data-driven analysis techniques using such process models, e.g., conformance checking, require converting the BPMN model into a formal process modeling representation, i.e., Petri nets. However, the existing transformation of BPMN models with exception events renders a classical Petri net, with various additional modeling constructs to mimic the exception behavior. Using such a model in a subsequent analysis renders an infeasible computational complexity. Hence, this paper presents a novel conversion of BPMN models with exception events into reset nets, significantly reducing the number of required invisible transitions in the corresponding transformation. Our results show that the enhanced conversion reduces the computational effort of using the converted models for conformance checking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
We omit OR gateways, yet, the framework is easily extended with OR-support.
- 2.
\(\mathcal {P}(X)\) denotes the power set of set X.
- 3.
All models (i.e., both designed and obtained by means of transformation), event data generated and computational results, are available via https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10Q11FfRu_Lf9kA1moR2gikQc9HAwnsNv?usp=sharing. The code used in the experiments is available via https://github.com/require-gio/pm4py-resetnet.
- 4.
As there is no executable implementation available of the Dijkman transformation, we re-implemented the approach.
- 5.
Note that the \(A^*\) variant for reset/inhibitor nets has been implemented in python, extending the pm4py framework [5].
References
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.M.W.: An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47961-9_37
Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.: Memory-efficient alignment of observed and modeled behavior. BPM Cent. Rep. 3, 1–44 (2013)
Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 14(3), 329–366 (2004)
Arbab, F., Kokash, N., Meng, S.: Towards using Reo for compliance-aware business process modeling. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2008. CCIS, vol. 17, pp. 108–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88479-8_9
Berti, A., van Zelst, S.J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process mining for python (PM4Py): bridging the gap between process-and data science. In: ICPM Demo Track 2019, Aachen, Germany, 24–26 June 2019 (2019)
Boonyawat, S., Vatanawood, W.: Transforming YAWL workflows with time constraints to generalized stochastic Petri nets. In: 3rd International Conference on Software and e-Business (2019)
Burattin, A.: PLG2: multiperspective process randomization with online and offline simulations. In: BPM Demo Track 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 21 September 2016. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1789. CEUR-WS.org (2016)
Carmona, J., van Dongen, B.F., Solti, A., Weidlich, M.: Conformance checking - relating processes and models. Springer (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99414-7
Dechsupa, C., Vatanawood, W., Thongtak, A.: Hierarchical verification for the BPMN design model using state space analysis. IEEE Access 7, 16795–16815 (2019)
Decker, G., Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Transforming BPMN diagrams into YAWL nets. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 386–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85758-7_30
Decker, G., Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: The business process modeling notation. In: Modern Business Process Automation - YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer (2010)
Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Formal semantics and analysis of BPMN process models using Petri nets. Queensland University of Technology, Technical report (2007)
Dijkman, R., Van Gorp, P.: BPMN 2.0 execution semantics formalized as graph rewrite rules. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPMN 2010. LNBIP, vol. 67, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16298-5_4
Dufourd, C., Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) ICALP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1443, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055044
Kalenkova, A.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Lomazova, I.A., Rubin, V.A.: Process mining using BPMN: relating event logs and process models. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(4), 1019–1048 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-015-0502-0
Kheldoun, A., Barkaoui, K., Ioualalen, M.: Specification and verification of complex business processes - a high-level petri net-based approach. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 55–71. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_4
Kherbouche, O.M., Ahmad, A., Basson, H.: Using model checking to control the structural errors in BPMN models. In: RCIS 2013, Paris, France, 29–31 May 2013. IEEE (2013)
Lohmann, N., Verbeek, E., Dijkman, R.: Petri net transformations for business processes – a survey. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 46–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00899-3_3
Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B., Lefebvre, E., Elabed, L., El-Boussaidi, G.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. 43(1), 4:1–4:56 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1824795.1824799
OMG (2021)https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/About-BPMN/. Accessed 30 Nov 2021
Ou-Yang, C., Lin, Y.: BPMN-based business process model feasibility analysis: a petri net approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(14), 3763–3781 (2008)
Raedts, I., Petkovic, M., Usenko, Y.S., van der Werf, J.M.E.M., Groote, J.F., Somers, L.J.: Transformation of BPMN models for behaviour analysis. In: MSVVEIS-2007, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, June 2007. INSTICC PRESS (2007)
Reisig, W.: Petri Nets: An Introduction, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 4. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69968-9
Terayawan, S., Vatanawood, W.: Transforming control-flow patterns of YAWL to Petri nets. In: International Communication Engineering and Cloud Computing Conference (2019)
Verbeek, H.M.W., Wynn, M.T., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Reduction rules for reset/inhibitor nets. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 76(2), 125–143 (2010)
Ye, J., Song, W.: Transformation of BPMN diagrams to YAWL nets. J. Softw. 5(4) (2010)
Ye, J., Sun, S., Song, W., Wen, L.: Formal semantics of BPMN process models using YAWL. In: 2008 Second International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application, vol. 2. IEEE (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lomidze, G., Schuster, D., Li, CY., van Zelst, S.J. (2022). Enhanced Transformation of BPMN Models with Cancellation Features. In: Almeida, J.P.A., Karastoyanova, D., Guizzardi, G., Montali, M., Maggi, F.M., Fonseca, C.M. (eds) Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13585. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17604-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17604-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17603-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17604-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)