Business Process Configuration According to Data Dependency Specification
Source abstract
Abstract
Configuration techniques have been used in several fields, such as the design of business process models. Sometimes these models depend on the data dependencies, being easier to describe what has to be done instead of how. Configuration models enable to use a declarative representation of business processes, deciding the most appropriate work-flow in each case. Unfortunately, data dependencies among the activities and how they can affect the correct execution of the process, has been overlooked in the declarative specifications and configurable systems found in the literature. In order to find the best process configuration for optimizing the execution time of processes according to data dependencies, we propose the use of Constraint Programming paradigm with the aim of obtaining an adaptable imperative model in function of the data dependencies of the activities described declarative.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Business Process Modeling and Analysis · Service-Oriented Architecture and Web Services · Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Dto. Métodos Cuantitativos, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, 41014 Seville, Spain
Dto. Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos, Universidad de Sevilla, 41004 Sevilla, Spain
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. Weske, M. (2007). Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures, Springer.
2. Business process modelling: Review and framework10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00102-6 ↗
3. Tsai, A., Wang, J., Tepfenhart, W., and Rosea, D. (2006, January 8–11). EPC Workflow Model to WIFA Model Conversion. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC ’06, Taipei, Taiwan.10.1109/ICSMC.2006.385291 ↗
4. Business Processes Extensions to UML Profile for Business Modeling
5. List, B., and Korherr, B. (2005, January 24–28). A UML 2 Profile for Business Process Modelling. Proceedings of the ER (Workshops), Klagenfurt, Austria.
6. Petri Nets and IDEF diagrams: Applicability and efficacy for business process modelling
7. Imperative versus Declarative Process Modeling Languages: An Empirical Investigation10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_37 ↗
8. Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models10.1007/s10270-013-0356-2 ↗
9. Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_29 ↗
10. Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Maintainability10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_45 ↗
11. Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows10.1016/j.is.2004.05.002 ↗
12. Pastor, O., Flory, A., and Cavarero, J.L. (2008, January 3–6). High-level design and analysis of business processes: The advantages of declarative specifications. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2008, Marrakech, Morocco.
13. A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management10.1007/11837862_18 ↗
14. Using Declarative Specifications in Business Process Design
15. Hybrid business process modeling for the optimization of outcome data10.1016/j.infsof.2015.10.007 ↗
16. Van der Aalst, W.M.P. (2016). Process Mining: Data Science in Action, Springer. [1st ed.].10.1007/978-3-662-49851-4 ↗
17. SCORE: Simulator for cloud optimization of resources and energy consumption10.1016/j.simpat.2018.01.004 ↗
18. Teppan, E.C., and Friedrich, G. (arXiv, 2013). The Partner Units Configuration Problem, arXiv.
19. Modeling and Validation of Business Process Families10.1016/j.is.2012.11.010 ↗
20. Petrie, C.J. (2012). Automated Configuration Problem Solving, Springer Publishing Company.10.1007/978-1-4614-4532-6 ↗
21. Benchmarking and Configuration of Workflow Management Systems
22. Van der Aalst, W.M.P., and van Hee, K. (2004). Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems, MIT Press.
23. Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization10.1002/spip.213 ↗
24. Configurable Workflow Models10.1142/S0218843008001798 ↗
25. Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration10.1007/s10270-008-0090-3 ↗
26. Moon, M., Hong, M., and Yeom, K. (August, January 28). Two-Level Variability Analysis for Business Process with Reusability and Extensibility. Proceedings of the 2008 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference, Turku, Finland.10.1109/COMPSAC.2008.129 ↗
27. Improved model management with aggregated business process models10.1016/j.datak.2008.09.004 ↗
28. Design and management of flexible process variants using templates and rules. Managing Large Collections of Business Process Models10.1016/j.compind.2011.12.002 ↗
29. Baran, M., Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J., and Ligęza, A. (2013, January 8–11). A hierarchical approach for configuring business processes. Proceedings of the 2013 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Krakow, Poland.
30. Albert, P., Henocque, L., and Kleiner, M. (2008, January 3–5). An End-to-End Configuration-Based Framework for Automatic SWS Composition. Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Dayton, OH, USA.10.1109/ICTAI.2008.145 ↗
31. Automated composition of Web services via planning in asynchronous domains10.1016/j.artint.2009.12.002 ↗
32. Mesmoudi, A., Mrissa, M., and Hacid, M.S. (2011, January 4–9). Combining configuration and query rewriting for Web service composition. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Washington, DC, USA.10.1109/ICWS.2011.26 ↗
33. Drescher, C. (2012, January 7–9). The Partner Units Problem a Constraint Programming Case Study. Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2012, Athens, Greece.10.1109/ICTAI.2012.31 ↗
34. Mittal, S., and Frayman, F. (1989, January 20–26). Towards a Generic Model of Configuraton Tasks. Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA, USA.
35. Configurable multi-perspective business process models10.1016/j.is.2010.07.001 ↗
36. Correctness-Preserving Configuration of Business Process Models
37. A configurable reference modelling language10.1016/j.is.2005.05.003 ↗
38. Product-based workflow support10.1016/j.is.2010.09.008 ↗
39. Product Based Workflow Support: Dynamic Workflow Execution. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
40. Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., and Zurada, J.M. (2016). From SBVR to BPMN and DMN Models. Proposal of Translation from Rules to Process and Decision Models. Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, Springer International Publishing.
41. Object Management Group (OMG) (2017). Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), OMG. Version 1.4: Formal Specification.
42. Deontic BPMN: A powerful extension of BPMN with a trusted model transformation10.1007/s10270-013-0329-5 ↗
43. Wiśniewski, P., Kluza, K., and Ligęza, A. (2018). An Approach to Participatory Business Process Modeling: BPMN Model Generation Using Constraint Programming and Graph Composition. Appl. Sci., 8.10.3390/app8091428 ↗
44. Diagnosing correctness of semantic workflow models10.1016/j.datak.2013.04.008 ↗
45. Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., and Margaria, T. (2008, January 1–5). Automatic Workflow Graph Refactoring and Completion. Proceedings of the Service-Oriented Computing–ICSOC 2008, Sydney, Australia.10.1007/978-3-540-89652-4 ↗
46. Hasanov, E. (2017). Enhancing BPMN Conformance Checking with OR Gateways and Data Objects. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tartu].
47. Object Management Group (OMG) (2011). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0, OMG. Object Management Group Standard.
48. Rossi, F., van Beek, P., and Walsh, T. (2006). Handbook of Constraint Programming (Foundations of Artificial Intelligence), Elsevier Science Inc.
49. Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint Processing, Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/es-es/marketplace/ibm-ilog-cplex.
50. Manual, R. (2014, February 24). JSolver 2.1. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/es-es/marketplace/ibm-ilog-cplex.
51. Decision-Making Support for the Correctness of Input Data at Runtime in Business Processes10.1142/S0218843014500038 ↗
52. Mylopoulos, J., and Reiter, R. (1991). Where the Really Hard Problems Are, Morgan Kaufmann. IJCAI.