Skip to main content
Log in

Declarative and Hybrid Process Discovery: Recent Advances and Open Challenges

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal on Data Semantics

Abstract

Knowledge-intensive processes, such as those encountered in health care, finance and government, tend to allow a large degree of flexibility: there are many possible solutions towards a goal, and it is left to the expertise of knowledge workers to find the one most suitable for the particular case at hand. As a result, such processes usually exhibit more varied behaviour than traditional production processes. This poses a challenge for process discovery algorithms that return imperative, flow-based, models. The models tend to become highly complex when representing many alternative paths, and therefore, the miners need to either sacrifice on simplicity, fitness, or precision. It has been proposed that one should discover the constraints of the process instead, based on the assumption that such a constraint-based, declarative process model can describe highly varied behaviour more concisely. More recently, it has been observed that many processes do not neatly fall in one category or the other; instead, they contain both flexible and rigid parts. In such cases, it may be helpful to identify these parts and mine constraints for some and flow for others, resulting in a hybrid model. In this paper, we provide an overview of recent advances in both declarative and hybrid process discovery, discuss a number of open challenges that still remain, and propose directions for future research.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.kmd.dk/indsigter/fleksibilitet-og-dynamisk-sagsbehandling-i-staten.

  2. http://www.kppq.de/modeller.html.

  3. http://www.kppq.de/miner.html.

  4. https://bpmn.io/toolkit/cmmn-js/.

  5. https://www.visual-paradigm.com/features/cmmn-diagram-tools/.

  6. https://test6.signavio.com/userguide/en/modeling_and_notations/cmmn/index.html.

  7. https://www.dcrgraphs.net/.

  8. http://dcr.itu.dk/.

  9. https://www.win.tue.nl/declare/.

  10. http://cpntools.org/.

References

  1. Dumas M, Rosa ML, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5

  2. van der Aalst WMP, van Hee KM (2002) Workflow management: models, methods, and systems. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Weske M (2012) Business process management—concepts, languages, architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Davenport TH (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  5. Di Ciccio C, Marrella A, Russo A (2015) Knowledge-intensive processes: characteristics, requirements and analysis of contemporary approaches. J Data Semant 4(1):29–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-014-0038-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Santos França JBd, Netto JM, do E S Carvalho J, Santoro FM, Baião FA, Pimentel M (2015) Kipo: the knowledge-intensive process ontology. Softw Syst Model 14(3):1127–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0397-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lyng KM, Hildebrandt T, Mukkamala RR (2009) From paper based clinical practice guidelines to declarative workflow management. In: Ardagna D, Mecella M, Yang J (eds) Business process management workshops. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 336–347

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Becker J, Rosemann M, von Uthmann C (2000) Guidelines of business process modeling, pp 30–49. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9

  9. Dijkman RM, Dumas M, Ouyang C (2008) Semantics and analysis of business process models in bpmn. Inf Softw Technol 50(12):1281–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van der Aalst WMP (1997) Verification of workflow nets. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on application and theory of petri nets, ICATPN ’97, pp 407–426. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=647744.733919

  11. Awad A, Decker G, Weske M (2008) Efficient compliance checking using bpmn-q and temporal logic. In: Business process management (pp 326–341). Springer

  12. Reijers HA, Slaats T, Stahl C (2013) Declarative modeling-an academic dream or the future for bpm? In: Daniel F, Wang J, Weber B (eds) Business process management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 307–322

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Aalst WMP, Stahl C (2011) Modeling business processes—a petri net-oriented approach. Cooperative Information Systems series. MIT Press. http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/modeling-business-processes

  14. Hildebrandt TT, Mukkamala RR (2010) Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings third workshop on programming language approaches to concurrency and communication-centric software, PLACES 2010, Paphos, Cyprus, 21st March 2010 (pp 59–73). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.69.5

  15. Pesic M, Schonenberg H, van der Aalst WMP (2007) DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: 11th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC 2007), 15–19 October 2007, Annapolis, Maryland, USA (pp 287–300). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2007.25. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/EDOC.2007.25

  16. Debois S, Hildebrandt T, Slaats T, Marquard M (2014) A case for declarative process modelling: agile development of a grant application system. In: 2014 IEEE 18th international enterprise distributed object computing conference workshops and demonstrations (pp 126–133). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2014.27

  17. Hildebrandt T, Mukkamala RR, Slaats T (2011) Designing a cross-organizational case management system using dynamic condition response graphs. In: 2011 IEEE 15th international enterprise distributed object computing conference (pp 161–170). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2011.35

  18. Mukkamala RR (2012) A formal model for declarative workflows—dynamic condition response graphs. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen

  19. Slaats T (2015) Flexible process notations for cross-organizational case management systems. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen

  20. Marquard M, Shahzad M, Slaats T (2015) Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad HR, Recker J, Weidlich M (eds) Business process management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 209–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. van der Aalst W, Adams M, ter Hofstede A, Pesic M, Schonenberg H (2009) Flexibility as a service. In: Chen L, Liu C, Liu Q, Deng K (eds) Database systems for advanced applications, vol 5667. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04205-8_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Sadiq S, Sadiq W, Orlowska M (2001) Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification. In: Kunii HS, Jajodia S, Sølvberg A (eds) Conceptual modeling—ER 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2224. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 513–526

  23. Bruno G (2014) Combining flexibility and data handling in business process models. Int J Hum Cap Inf Technol Prof (IJHCITP) 5(2):14–27

    Google Scholar 

  24. De Giacomo G, Dumas M, Maggi FM, Montali M (2015) Declarative process modeling in bpmn. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE)

  25. De Smedt J, Vanden Broucke SK, De Weerdt J, Vanthienen J (2015) A full r/i-net construct lexicon for declare constraints. Available at SSRN 2572869

  26. Zeising M, Schonig S, Jablonski S (2014) Towards a common platform for the support of routine and agile business processes. In: 2014 International conference on collaborative computing: networking, applications and worksharing (CollaborateCom) (pp 94–103). IEEE

  27. Slaats T, Schunselaar DMM, Maggi FM, Reijers HA (2016) The semantics of hybrid process models. In: Debruyne C, Panetto H, Meersman R, Dillon T, Kühn e, O’Sullivan D, Ardagna CA (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2016 Conferences. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 531–551

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Andaloussi AA, Burattin A, Slaats T, Kindler E, Weber B (2020) On the declarative paradigm in hybrid business process representations: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature study. Inf Syst 91:101505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2020.101505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reijers HA, Slaats T, Stahl C (2013) Declarative modeling—an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on business process management (BPM 2013) (pp 307–322)

  30. Debois S, Hildebrandt T, Marquard M, Slaats T (2018) Hybrid process technologies in the financial sector: the case of BRFkredit. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 397–412

    Google Scholar 

  31. Van der Aalst W, Weijters T, Maruster L (2004) Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 16(9):1128–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Der Aalst W (2011) Process mining: discovery, conformance and enhancement of business processes. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Fahland D, Lübke D, Mendling J, Reijers H, Weber B, Weidlich M, Zugal S (2009) 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) Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 353–366

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Ly LT, Rinderle-Ma S, Knuplesch D, Dadam P (2011) Monitoring business process compliance using compliance rule graphs. In: Meersman R, Dillon T, Herrero P, Kumar A, Reichert M, Qing L, Ooi BC, Damiani E, Schmidt DC, White J, Hauswirth M, Hitzler P, Mohania M (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2011. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 82–99

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Goedertier S, Haesen R, Vanthienen J (2008) Rule-based business process modelling and enactment. Int J Bus Process Integration Manage 3(3):194–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pesic M (2008) Constraint-based workflow management systems: shifting control to users. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR638413. Proefschrift

  37. van der Aalst W, Pesic M, Schonenberg H, Westergaard M, Maggi FM (2010) Declare. Webpage. http://www.win.tue.nl/declare/

  38. van der Aalst WM, Pesic M (2006) DecSerFlow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti M, Nunez M, Zavattaro G (eds) Proceedings of web services and formal methods (WS-FM 2006), LNCS, vol 4184. Springer Verlag, pp 1–23

  39. Dwyer MB, Avrunin GS, Corbett JC (1999) Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the 1999 international conference on software engineering (IEEE Cat. No. 99CB37002) (pp 411–420). IEEE

  40. Maggi FM, Montali M, Westergaard M, van der Aalst WMP (2011) Monitoring business constraints with linear temporal logic: an approach based on colored automata. In: Business process management (BPM), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6896, pp 32–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23059-13

  41. Montali M, Pesic M, van der Aalst WM, Chesani F, Mello P, Storari S (2010) Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess. ACM Trans Web (TWEB) 4(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  42. Montali M (2010) Specification and verification of declarative open interaction models: a logic-based approach. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 56. Springer

  43. Westergaard M, Stahl C, Reijers HA (2013) Unconstrainedminer: efficient discovery of generalized declarative process models

  44. Westergaard M, Maggi FM (2012) Looking into the future. In: Meersman R, Panetto H, Dillon T, Rinderle-Ma S, Dadam P, Zhou X, Pearson S, Ferscha A, Bergamaschi S, Cruz IF (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2012. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 250–267

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. De Masellis R, Maggi FM, Montali M (2014) Monitoring data-aware business constraints with finite state automata. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on software and system process, ICSSP 2014 (pp 134–143). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2600821.2600835

  46. Burattin A, Maggi FM, Sperduti A (2016) Conformance checking based on multi-perspective declarative process models. Expert Syst Appl 65:194–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.040. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417416304390

  47. Zugal S, Soffer P, Haisjackl C, Pinggera J, Reichert M, Weber B (2015) Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Softw Syst Model 14(3):1081–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-013-0356-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zugal S, Soffer P, Pinggera J, Weber B (2012) Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: BMMDS/EMMSAD, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 113. Springer, pp 167–181

  49. Mukkamala RR, Hildebrandt T, Tøth JB (2008) The resultmaker online consultant: from declarative workflow management in practice to ltl. In: Proceedings of the 2008 12th enterprise distributed object computing conference workshops, EDOCW ’08 (pp 135–142). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2008.57

  50. Nielsen M, Plotkin G, Winskel G (1979) Petri nets, event structures and domains. In: G. Kahn (ed) Semantics of concurrent computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 70, pp 266–284. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0022474

  51. Hildebrandt T, Mukkamala RR, Slaats T (2011) Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings of fundamentals of software engineering (FSEN). http://www.itu.dk/people/rao/pubs_accepted/fsenpaper.pdf

  52. Hildebrandt T, Mukkamala RR, Slaats T, Zanitti F (2013) Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J Logic Algebraic Program (JLAP). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2013.05.005

  53. Slaats T, Mukkamala RR, Hildebrandt T, Marquard M (2013) Exformatics declarative case management workflows as dcr graphs. In: Daniel F, Wang J, Weber B (eds) Business process management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 339–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Costa Seco J, Debois S, Hildebrandt T, Slaats T (2018) Reseda: declaring live event-driven computations as reactive semi-structured data. In: 2018 IEEE 22nd International enterprise distributed object computing conference (EDOC) (pp 75–84). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2018.00020

  55. Debois S, Hildebrandt T, Slaats T (2014) Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: Sadiq S, Soffer P, Völzer H (eds) Business process management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 18–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Hull R, Damaggio E, Fournier F, Gupta M, Heath III FT, Hobson S, Linehan M, Maradugu S, Nigam A, Sukaviriya P, Vaculin R (2011) Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Proc. of WS-FM’10 (pp 1–24). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg

  57. Bhattacharya K, Gerede C, Hull R, Liu R, Su J (2007) Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: In preparation, pp 288–304

  58. Object management group: case management model and notation, version 1.0. Webpage (2014). http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.0/PDF

  59. Kurz M, Schmidt W, Fleischmann A, Lederer M (2015) Leveraging cmmn for acm: examining the applicability of a new omg standard for adaptive case management. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on subject-oriented business process management (p 4). ACM

  60. Wiemuth M, Junger D, Leitritz M, Neumann J, Neumuth T, Burgert O (2017) Application fields for the new object management group (omg) standards case management model and notation (cmmn) and decision management notation (dmn) in the perioperative field. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12(8):1439–1449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Herzberg N, Kirchner K, Weske M (2014) Modeling and monitoring variability in hospital treatments: a scenario using cmmn. In: International conference on business process management (pp 3–15). Springer

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

    Google Scholar 

  63. Fahland D, Lübke D, Mendling J, Reijers H, Weber B, Weidlich M, Zugal S (2009) Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages: the issue of understandability, pp 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6.29

  64. Schönig S, Ackermann L, Jablonski S (2018) Towards an implementation of data and resource patterns in constraint-based process models. In: MODELSWARD, pp 271–278

  65. Maggi FM, Mooij AJ, van der Aalst WMP (2011) User-guided discovery of declarative process models. In: 2011 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and data mining (CIDM) (pp 192–199). https://doi.org/10.1109/CIDM.2011.5949297

  66. Maggi FM, Bose RPJC, van der Aalst WMP (2012) Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Advanced information systems engineering, pp 270–285

  67. Agrawal R, Srikant R (1994) Fast algorithms for mining association rules in large databases. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on very large data bases, VLDB ’94 (pp 487–499). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645920.672836

  68. Maggi FM, Ciccio CD, Francescomarino CD, Kala T (2018) Parallel algorithms for the automated discovery of declarative process models. Inf Syst 74:136–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2017.12.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306437916306615. Special Issue on papers presented in the 20th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing1 Conference, EDOC 2016

  69. Ciccio CD, Mecella M (2015) On the discovery of declarative control flows for artful processes. ACM Trans Manage Inf Syst 5(4):24:1–24:37. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Di Ciccio C, Maggi FM, Mendling J (2016) Efficient discovery of target-branched declare constraints. Inf Syst 56(C):258–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2015.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ciccio CD, Maggi FM, Montali M, Mendling J (2017) Resolving inconsistencies and redundancies in declarative process models. Inf Syst 64:425–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2016.09.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306437915302052

  72. Ciccio CD, Maggi FM, Montali M, Mendling J (2018) On the relevance of a business constraint to an event log. Inf Syst 78:144–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2018.01.011. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306437916306457

  73. Debois S, Hildebrandt TT, Laursen PH, Ulrik KR (2017) Declarative process mining for dcr graphs. In: Proceedings of the symposium on applied computing, SAC ’17 (pp 759–764). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3019612.3019622

  74. Nekrasaite V, Parli AT, Back CO, Slaats T (2019) Discovering responsibilities with dynamic condition response graphs. In: Accepted for proceedings of 31st international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2019)

  75. Popova V, Fahland D, Dumas M (2015) Artifact lifecycle discovery. Int J Cooperative Inf Syst 24(01):1550001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021884301550001X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schönig S, Cabanillas C, Jablonski S, Mendling J (2016) A framework for efficiently mining the organisational perspective of business processes. Decis Support Syst 89:87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Westergaard M, Slaats T (2013) Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel F, Wang J, Weber B (eds) Business process management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 283–290

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. De Giacomo G, Dumas M, Maggi FM, Montali M (2015) Declarative process modeling in bpmn. In: Zdravkovic J, Kirikova M, Johannesson P (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 84–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. De Smedt J, De Weerdt J, Vanthienen J, Poels G (2016) Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces. Bus Inf Syst Eng 58(1):19–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0416-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Smedt JD, Weerdt JD, Vanthienen J (2015) Fusion miner: process discovery for mixed-paradigm models. Decis Support Syst 77:123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.06.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923615001165

  81. Maggi FM, Slaats T, Reijers HA (2014) The automated discovery of hybrid processes. In: Sadiq S, Soffer P, Völzer H (eds) Business process management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 392–399

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. Schunselaar DMM, Slaats T, Maggi FM, Reijers HA, van der Aalst WMP (2018) Mining hybrid business process models: a quest for better precision. In: Abramowicz W, Paschke A (eds) Business information systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 190–205

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  83. Leemans SJ, Fahland D, van der Aalst WM (2013) Discovering block-structured process models from event logs-a constructive approach. In: International conference on applications and theory of Petri nets and concurrency (pp 311–329). Springer

  84. Weijters AJMM Medeiros AKAD Process mining with the heuristicsminer algorithm

  85. Pichler P, Weber B, Zugal S, Pinggera J, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2012) Imperative versus declarative process modeling languages: an empirical investigation. In: Daniel F, Barkaoui K, Dustdar S (eds) Business process management workshops. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 383–394

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  86. Abbad Andaloussi A, Slaats T, Burattin A, Hildebrandt TT, Weber B (2019) Evaluating the understandability of hybrid process model representations using eye tracking: first insights. In: Daniel F, Sheng QZ, Motahari H (eds) Business process management workshops. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 475–481

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  87. Abbad Andaloussi A, Burattin A, Slaats T, Petersen ACM, Hildebrandt TT, Weber B (2019) Exploring the understandability of a hybrid process design artifact based on dcr graphs. In: Reinhartz-Berger I, Zdravkovic J, Gulden J, Schmidt R (eds) Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 69–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  88. Abbad Andaloussi A, Buch-Lorentsen J, López HA, Slaats T, Weber B (2019) Exploring the modeling of declarative processes using a hybrid approach. In: Laender AHF, Pernici B, Lim EP, de Oliveira JPM (eds) Concept Model. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 162–170

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  89. Zugal S, Pinggera J, Weber B (2011) The impact of testcases on the maintainability of declarative process models. In: Halpin T, Nurcan S, Krogstie J, Soffer P, Proper E, Schmidt R, Bider I (eds) Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 163–177

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  90. Slaats T, Debois S, Hildebrandt T (2018) Open to change: a theory for iterative test-driven modelling. In: Weske M, Montali M, Weber I, vom Brocke J (eds) Business process management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 31–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  91. Buijs JCAM, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP (2012) On the role of fitness, precision, generalization and simplicity in process discovery. In: Meersman R, Panetto H, Dillon T, Rinderle-Ma S, Dadam P, Zhou X, Pearson S, Ferscha A, Bergamaschi S, Cruz IF (eds) On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2012. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 305–322

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  92. Back CO, Debois S, Slaats T (2018) Towards an empirical evaluation of imperative and declarative process mining. In: International conference on conceptual modeling (pp 191–198). Springer

  93. Tax N, Lu X, Sidorova N, Fahland D, van der Aalst WM (2018) The imprecisions of precision measures in process mining. Inf Process Lett 135:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2018.01.013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020019018300280

  94. Westergaard M, Slaats T (2013) Cpn tools 4: a process modeling tool combining declarative and imperative paradigms. In: BPM (Demos)

  95. Khan SS, Madden MG (2009) A survey of recent trends in one class classification. In: Irish conference on artificial intelligence and cognitive science (pp 188–197). Springer

  96. Tax DMJ (2002) One-class classification: concept learning in the absence of counter-examples

  97. Goedertier S, Martens D, Vanthienen J, Baesens B (2009) Robust process discovery with artificial negative events. J Mach Learn Res 10:1305–1340. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1577069.1577113

  98. Basin D, Debois S, Hildebrandt T (2018) On purpose and by necessity: compliance under the gdpr. Proceedings of financial cryptography and data security 18

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their extremely insightful and detailed feedback, which helped improve the paper significantly. In addition, I would like to thank Søren Debois for his insightful comments. Funding was provided by the Hybrid Business Process Management Technologies Project (DFF-6111-00337) funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the EcoKnow Project (7050-00034A) funded by the Innovation Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tijs Slaats.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work is supported by the Hybrid Business Process Management Technologies Project (DFF-6111-00337) funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the EcoKnow Project (7050-00034A) funded by the Innovation Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slaats, T. Declarative and Hybrid Process Discovery: Recent Advances and Open Challenges. J Data Semant 9, 3–20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-020-00112-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740-020-00112-9

Keywords

Navigation