Comparing ConDec to CMMN - Towards a Common Language for Flexible Processes

Renata M. de Carvalho, Hafedh Mili, Javier Gonzalez-Huerta, Anis Boubaker, Abderrahmane Leshob

Abstract

Flexible processes emerged to provide flexibility to business process execution. A flexible process is not static and can have several different executions, that is influenced by the current situation. In this context, the decision-making is placed in the hands of any knowledge worker during the execution, who decides which tasks and in which order they will be executed. Two approaches for flexible processes are discussed in this paper: case management and declarative processes. In particular we use the CMMN standard and the ConDec language for the two approaches, respectively. We compare them based on scope, model representation, formal semantics, and limitations. Our goal is to present commonalities and differences between the languages in order to identify potential extensions to make them more complete to attain more flexible process examples.

References

  1. Baresi, L. and Ghezzi, C. (2010). The disappearing boundary between development-time and run-time. In Proceedings of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, FoSER 7810, pages 17-22, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  2. De Carvalho, R., Silva, N., Lima, R., and Cornelio, M. (2013). Reflex: An efficient graph-based rule engine to execute declarative processes. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, pages 1379-1384.
  3. Gagne, D. and Trudel, A. (2009). Time-bpmn. In Commerce and Enterprise Computing, 2009. CEC 7809. IEEE Conference on, pages 361-367.
  4. Gluch, D., Comella-Dorda, S., Hudak, J., Lewis, G., Walker, J., and Weinstock, C. (2001). Model-based verification: Scope, formalism, and perspective guidelines. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TN-024, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
  5. Jackson, D. (2006). Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press.
  6. Kurz, M. (2013). Taming diversity: A distributed acmbased approach for cross-enterprise knowledge work. In Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on, volume 3, pages 87-91.
  7. Maggi, F. M., Westergaard, M., Montali, M., and van der Aalst, W. (2012). Runtime verification of ltl-based declarative process models. In Runtime Verification, volume 7186 of LNCS, pages 131-146. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  8. Marin, M., Hull, R., and Vaculn, R. (2013). Data centric bpm and the emerging case management standard: A short survey. In Business Process Management Workshops, volume 132 of LNBIP, pages 24-30. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  9. Marin, M. A., Lotriet, H., and Van Der Poll, J. A. (2014). Measuring method complexity of the case management modeling and notation (cmmn). In Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientist and Information Technologists Annual Conference 2014, pages 209:209-209:216, NY, USA.
  10. Milton, S. K. and Johnson, L. W. (2012). Service blueprinting and bpmn: a comparison. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 22(6):606-621.
  11. Motahari-Nezhad, H. and Swenson, K. (2013). Adaptive case management: Overview and research challenges. In Business Informatics (CBI), 2013 IEEE 15th Conference on, pages 264-269.
  12. Mulyar, N. A., Schonenberg, M. H., Mans, and van der Aalst (2007). Towards a taxonomy of process flexibility. BPM Center Report BPM-07-11.
  13. Nurcan, S. (2008). A survey on the flexibility requirements related to business processes and modeling artifacts. In HICSS 7808: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, page 378, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  14. (OMG), O. M. G. (2014). Case management model and notation (cmmn) version 1.0.
  15. Pesic, M. and van der Aalst, W. (2006). A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Business Process Management Workshops, volume 4103 of LNCS, pages 169-180. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  16. Recker, J. (2010). Explaining usage of process modeling grammars: Comparing three theoretical models in the study of two grammars. Information & Management, 47(56):316 - 324.
  17. van der Aalst, W. M., Weske, M., and Grnbauer, D. (2005). Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 53(2):129 - 162.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

de Carvalho R., Mili H., Gonzalez-Huerta J., Boubaker A. and Leshob A. (2016). Comparing ConDec to CMMN - Towards a Common Language for Flexible Processes . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 233-240. DOI: 10.5220/0005688002330240


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward16,
author={Renata M. de Carvalho and Hafedh Mili and Javier Gonzalez-Huerta and Anis Boubaker and Abderrahmane Leshob},
title={Comparing ConDec to CMMN - Towards a Common Language for Flexible Processes},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2016},
pages={233-240},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005688002330240},
isbn={978-989-758-168-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Comparing ConDec to CMMN - Towards a Common Language for Flexible Processes
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - de Carvalho R.
AU - Mili H.
AU - Gonzalez-Huerta J.
AU - Boubaker A.
AU - Leshob A.
PY - 2016
SP - 233
EP - 240
DO - 10.5220/0005688002330240