skip to main content
10.1145/3297280.3297287acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Object-centric behavioral constraint models: a hybrid model for behavioral and data perspectives

Published:08 April 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In order to maintain a competitive edge, enterprises are driven to improve efficiency by modeling their business processes. Existing process modeling languages often only describe the lifecycles of individual process instances in isolation. Although process models (e.g., BPMN and Data-aware Petri nets) may include data elements, explicit connections to real data models (e.g., a UML class model) are rarely made. Therefore, the Object-Centric Behavioral Constraint (OCBC) modeling language was proposed to describe the behavioral and data perspectives, and the interplay between them in one single, hybrid diagram. In this paper, we describe OCBC models and introduce the extended interactions between the data and behavioral perspectives on the attribute level. We implement the approach in a plugin and evaluate it by a comparison with other models.

References

  1. W.M.P. van der Aalst, P. Barthelmess, C.A. Ellis, and J. Wainer. 2001. Proclets: A Framework for Lightweight Interacting Workflow Processes. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 10, 4 (2001), 443--481.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. W.M.P. van der Aalst, G. Li, and M. Montali. 2017. Object-Centric Behavioral Constraints. CoRR Technical Report. arXiv.org e-Print archive. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05740.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. W.M.P. van der Aalst, M. Pesic, and H. Schonenberg. 2009. Declarative Workflows: Balancing Between Flexibility and Support. Computer Science - Research and Development 23, 2 (2009), 99--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. L. Balmelli et al. 2007. An Overview of the Systems Modeling Language for Products and Systems Development. Journal of Object Technology 6, 6 (2007), 149--177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. G. Booch. 2005. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Pearson Education India. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P.D. Bruza and T. van der Weide. 1989. The Semantics of Data Flow Diagrams. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Cohn and R. Hull. 2009. Business Artifacts: A Data-Centric Approach to Modeling Business Operations and Processes. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 32, 3 (2009), 3--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. H.E. Eriksson and M. Penker. 2000. Business Modeling with UML. New York (2000), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner. 2014. A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. G.M. Giaglis. 2001. A Taxonomy of Business Process Modeling and Information Systems Modeling Techniques. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 13, 2 (2001), 209--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Object Management Group. 2010. Business Process Model and Notation. OMG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. R. Hull et al. 2011. Business Artifacts with Guard-Stage-Milestone Lifecycles: Managing Artifact Interactions with Conditions and Events. In International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems (DEBS 2011). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. Jensen. 1996. Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P.G. Larsen, N. Plat, and H. Toetenel. 1994. A Formal Semantics of Data Flow Diagrams. Formal aspects of Computing 6, 6 (1994), 586--606. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. G. Li, R.M.de Carvalho, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. 2018. Configurable Event Correlation for Process Discovery from Object-Centric Event Data. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). 203--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Li and R.M. de Carvalho. 2018. Dealing with Artifact-Centric Systems: a Process Mining Approach. In Proceedings of the 9th EMISA, May 24--25, 2018. 80--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. G. Li, R.M. de Carvalho, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. 2017. Automatic Discovery of Object-Centric Behavioral Constraint Models. In Business Information Systems: 20th International Conference, BIS 2017, June 28--30, 2017, Proceedings. Springer, 43--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. G. Li, E. González López de Murillas, R.M. de Carvalho, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. 2018. Extracting Object-Centric Event Logs to Support Process Mining on Databases. In Information Systems in the Big Data Era, CAiSE Forum 2018, Jan Mendling and Haralambos Mouratidis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 182--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. de Leoni and W.M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Data-aware Process Mining: Discovering Decisions in Processes Using Alignments. In Proceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on applied computing. ACM, 1454--1461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C. Menzel and R.J. Mayer. 1998. The IDEF Family of Languages. In Handbook on architectures of information systems. Springer, 209--241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. H. Mili et al. 2010. Business Process Modeling Languages: Sorting Through the Alphabet Soup. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43, 1 (2010), 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. N. Sidorova, C. Stahl and N. Trčka. 2011. Soundness verification for conceptual workflow nets with data: Early detection of errors with the most precision possible. Information Systems 36, 7 (2011), 1026--1043. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Nigam and N.S. Caswell. 2003. Business Artifacts: An Approach to Operational Specification. IBM Systems Journal 42, 3 (2003), 428--445. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. O.S. Noran. 2000. Business Modelling: UML vs. IDEF. School of Computing and Information Technology, Griffith University (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. R. De Masellis, C. Di Francescomarino, C. Ghidini, M. Montali and S. Tessaris. 2017. Add Data into Business Process Verification: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice.. In AAAI. 1091--1099. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. W.M.P. van der Aalst. 2015. Extracting Event Data from Databases to Unleash Process Mining. In BPM-Driving innovation in a digital world. Springer, 105--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. W.M.P. van der Aalst and K.M. van Hee. 1996. Business Process Redesign: A Petri-Net-Based Approach. Computers in industry 29, 1--2 (1996), 15--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Object-centric behavioral constraint models: a hybrid model for behavioral and data perspectives

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SAC '19: Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
      April 2019
      2682 pages
      ISBN:9781450359337
      DOI:10.1145/3297280

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 April 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader