Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Maintainability

  • Conference paper
Business Process Management Workshops (BPM 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 43))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The rise of interest in declarative languages for process modeling both justifies and demands empirical investigations into their presumed advantages over more traditional, imperative alternatives. Our concern in this paper is with the ease of maintaining business process models, for example due to changing performance or conformance demands. We aim to contribute to a rigorous, theoretical discussion of this topic by drawing a link to well-established research on maintainability of information artifacts.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Svatoš, O.: Conceptual Process Modeling Language: Regulative Approach. In: 9th Undergraduate and Graduate Students eConf. and 14th Business & Government Executive Meeting on Innovative Cross-border eRegion, Univ. of Maribor (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boley, H.: Declarative and Procedural Paradigms - Do They Really Compete? In: Boley, H., Richter, M.M. (eds.) PDK 1991. LNCS, vol. 567, pp. 383–385. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Pesic, M.: Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fahland, D., Lübke, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S.: Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability. In: BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21(1), 31–48 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Green, T.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Sutcliffe, A., Macaulay, L. (eds.) People and Computers V, Proceedings, pp. 443–460 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Green, T., Petre, M.: Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A Cognitive Dimensions Framework. J. Vis. Lang. Computing 7(2), 131–174 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mutschler, B., Reichert, M., Bumiller, J.: Unleashing the Effectiveness of Process-oriented Information Systems: Problem Analysis, Critical Success Factors, Implications. IEEE Trans. Sys., Man, and Cybernetics (C) 38(3), 280–291 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex – Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. J. of Intelligent Inf. Systems 10(2), 93–129 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness Criteria for Dynamic Changes in Workflow Systems – A Survey. Data Knowl. Eng. 50(1), 9–34 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Evaluating workflow process designs using cohesion and coupling metrics. Comp. in Ind. 59(5), 420–437 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guceglioglu, A., Demirors, O.: Using Software Quality Characteristics to Measure Business Process Quality. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 374–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Felleisen, M.: On the Expressive Power of Programming Languages. Science of Computer Programming 17(1-3), 35–75 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Prechelt, L.: An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages. Computer 23–29 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Green, T.: Conditional program statements and their comprehensibility to professional programmers. Journal of Occupational Psychology 50, 93–109 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Green, T.: Ifs and thens: Is nesting just for the birds? Software Focus 10(5), 373–381 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blackwell, A.: Ten years of cognitive dimensions in visual languages and computing. J. Vis. Lang. Computing 17(4), 285–287 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Cardoso, J.: On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Green, T., Blackwell, A.: A Tutorial on Cognitive Dimensions (1998), http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~thomas.green/workStuff/Papers/index.html

  21. Siddiqi, J.I., Roast, C.R.: Viscosity as a metaphor for measuring modifiability. lEE Proc. Software Engineering. 144(4), 215–223 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lloyd, J.: Practical advantages of declarative programming. In: Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, GULP-PRODE 1994 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kowalski, R.: Algorithm = logic + control. Commun. ACM 22(7), 424–436 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roy, P.V., Haridi, S.: Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Petri, C.A.: Concepts of net theory. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science: Proc. of Symposium and Summer School, High Tatras, September 3-8, pp. 137–146. Math. Inst. of the Slovak Acad. of Sciences (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Holt, A.W.: A Mathematical Model of Continuous Discrete Behavior. Massachusettes Computer Associates, Inc. (November 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On Measuring Process Model Similarity based on High-level Change Operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features -Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 66(3), 438–466 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

    Dirk Fahland & Jan Mendling

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Hajo A. Reijers

  3. University of Innsbruck, Austria

    Barbara Weber & Stefan Zugal

  4. Hasso-Plattner-Institute, University of Potsdam, Germany

    Matthias Weidlich

Authors
  1. Dirk Fahland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hajo A. Reijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthias Weidlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefan Zugal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ulm University, Germany and University of Vienna, Austria

    Stefanie Rinderle-Ma

  2. University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld, Australia

    Shazia Sadiq

  3. IAAS, University of Stuttgart, Germany

    Frank Leymann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fahland, D., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S. (2010). Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Maintainability. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2009. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 43. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_45

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_45

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12185-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12186-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation