Modeling Service Choreographies
with
Rule-enhanced Business Processes
Milan Milanović1
and Dragan Gašević2
1
University of...
Problem Domain
 Process modeling and service composition
 Orchestrations – CASCON 2009
 Business processes from one par...
 Available languages (e.g., BPMN)
 Challenges
 How to support business vocabularies/rules?
 How to manage redundant el...
 Extension of the BPMN2 language
 Software language engineering
 Adding support for vocabularies and rules
 Building o...
 Rule-enhanced BPMN - rBPMN
 Interconnection and interaction models
 Evaluation mechanism – expressiveness
 Service In...
Processes & Rules – Option 1
 Complete processes modeled by rules
 With reaction and production rules
 Some issues
 Wh...
Processes & Rules – Option 2
 Hybrid approaches
 BP stays, but rules are added for
 control flow decisions,
data constr...
MODELS 2009
The BPMN Language
Rules and Business Processes
 Challenges
 to have rules as first class concepts in BPs
 to support vocabularies/ontolog...
Representational Analysis
 Based on the BWW model
PΔR - Symmetric Difference; P R – Intersection; P/R & R/P -Relative Com...
Representational Analysis
 Based on the BWW model
Vid Prezel
Rule Modeling
 REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language (R2ML)
 with a UML-based graphical concrete syntax
MODELS 2009
 REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language
MODELS 2009
Extension for Rule Models
rBPMN metamodel weaving
rBPMN in Action
rBPMN in Action
rBPMN in Action
OWL-based
reasoning
rBPMN in Action
Rete-based
 Multiplicity of participants – |||
 References –
to distinguish participants
 Correlation information –
who sent a mes...
MODELS 2009
Service Interaction Patterns
 Contingent requests pattern
MODELS 2009
Service Interaction Patterns
 Contingent requests pattern
Case Study
Case Study
Rules in Choreography
EDOC 2009
Case Study
Rules in Choreography
EDOC 2009
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Rule in Choreography
EDOC 2009
Expressiveness comparison
 Service Interaction Patterns
Language
Pattern
group
Pattern Let’s
Dance
BPMN
WS-
CDL
iBPMN rBP...
rBPMN Editor
 Implementation of BPMN2 + R2ML
 Eclipse plug-in based on GMF and EMF
 Binaries available for download
 G...
rBPMN Editor
rBPMN Heroes
 Language design and implementation
Milan Milanovic Luis Rocha
MODELS 2009
Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language
MODELS 2009
Extension for Rule Models
rBPMN metamodel weaving
MODELS 2009
Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language
MODELS 2009
Extension for Rule Models
rBPMN metamodel weaving
MODE...
MODELS 2009
Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language
MODELS 2009
Extension for Rule Models
rBPMN metamodel weaving
MODE...
MODELS 2009
Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language
MODELS 2009
Extension for Rule Models
rBPMN metamodel weaving
MODE...
MODELS 2009
Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language
MODELS 2009
Extension for Rule Models
rBPMN metamodel weaving
MODE...
 Usability
 Semi-structured English vs. visual
 Interaction vs. interconnection model
 Quality and empirical issues of...
 Usability
 Semi-structured English vs. visual
 Interaction vs. interconnection model
 Quality and empirical issues of...
 Language formalization affairs
 Static and operational semantics
 e.g., OWL2 and mCRL2
 Coupled co-evolution of rules...
Thank you!
Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhanced Business Processes

1,069 views

Published on

The research community has so far mainly focused on the problem of modeling of service orchestrations in the domain of service composition, while modeling of service choreographies has attracted less attention. The following challenges in choreography modeling are tackled in this paper: i) choreography models are not well-connected with the underly-ing business vocabulary models. ii) there is limited support for decoupling parts of business logic from complete choreography models. This reduces dynamic changes of choreographies; iii) choreography models contain redundant elements of shared business logic, which might lead to an inconsistent implementa-tion and incompatible behavior. Our proposal – rBPMN – is an extension of a business process modeling language with rule and choreography modeling support. rBPMN is defined by weaving the metamodels of the Business Process Modeling No-tation and REWERSE Rule Markup Language. To evaluate our proposal, we use service-interaction patterns and compare our approach with related solutions.

Published in: Technology, Art & Photos
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,069
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • <number>
    BPMN -> OMG specification.
  • <number>
    In the contingent requests pattern, a participant sends a request to another participant.
    If this second participant does not respond within a given period of time, the request is sent to another (third) participant.
    Again, if no response comes back, a fourth participant is contacted, and so on.
    For the decision about delayed responses, we propose using rule gateways with attached reaction rules.
    If a late (time-outdated) response from some earlier participant came during the processing of the contingent request (by a Pool 2 participant in Fig. 2), a reaction rules attached to the rule gateway R1 decides if such a response should be accepted or not.
  • <number>
    In the contingent requests pattern, a participant sends a request to another participant.
    If this second participant does not respond within a given period of time, the request is sent to another (third) participant.
    Again, if no response comes back, a fourth participant is contacted, and so on.
    For the decision about delayed responses, we propose using rule gateways with attached reaction rules.
    If a late (time-outdated) response from some earlier participant came during the processing of the contingent request (by a Pool 2 participant in Fig. 2), a reaction rules attached to the rule gateway R1 decides if such a response should be accepted or not.
  • <number>
    In the contingent requests pattern, a participant sends a request to another participant.
    If this second participant does not respond within a given period of time, the request is sent to another (third) participant.
    Again, if no response comes back, a fourth participant is contacted, and so on.
    For the decision about delayed responses, we propose using rule gateways with attached reaction rules.
    If a late (time-outdated) response from some earlier participant came during the processing of the contingent request (by a Pool 2 participant in Fig. 2), a reaction rules attached to the rule gateway R1 decides if such a response should be accepted or not.
  • <number>
    In the contingent requests pattern, a participant sends a request to another participant.
    If this second participant does not respond within a given period of time, the request is sent to another (third) participant.
    Again, if no response comes back, a fourth participant is contacted, and so on.
    For the decision about delayed responses, we propose using rule gateways with attached reaction rules.
    If a late (time-outdated) response from some earlier participant came during the processing of the contingent request (by a Pool 2 participant in Fig. 2), a reaction rules attached to the rule gateway R1 decides if such a response should be accepted or not.
  • Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhanced Business Processes

    1. 1. Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhanced Business Processes Milan Milanović1 and Dragan Gašević2 1 University of Belgrade, Serbia 2 Athabasca University, AB, Canada
    2. 2. Problem Domain  Process modeling and service composition  Orchestrations – CASCON 2009  Business processes from one participant’s side  Choreographies  Business processes from a global perspective
    3. 3.  Available languages (e.g., BPMN)  Challenges  How to support business vocabularies/rules?  How to manage redundant elements? MODELS 2009 Choreography Modeling
    4. 4.  Extension of the BPMN2 language  Software language engineering  Adding support for vocabularies and rules  Building on the previous related work  iBPMN [Decker & Puhlmann, 2007] MODELS 2009 Approach Greetings for the EDOC friends from the International Conference on Software Language Engineering http://planet-sl.org
    5. 5.  Rule-enhanced BPMN - rBPMN  Interconnection and interaction models  Evaluation mechanism – expressiveness  Service Interaction Patterns MODELS 2009 Result
    6. 6. Processes & Rules – Option 1  Complete processes modeled by rules  With reaction and production rules  Some issues  What’s the identity of a business process?  Which languages to use?  Are the languages at the same level?
    7. 7. Processes & Rules – Option 2  Hybrid approaches  BP stays, but rules are added for  control flow decisions, data constraints, and process composition [Graml et al., 2007]
    8. 8. MODELS 2009 The BPMN Language
    9. 9. Rules and Business Processes  Challenges  to have rules as first class concepts in BPs  to support vocabularies/ontologies  to define message and event typing  to formalize defining conditions  to enable declarative (parts of) processes MODELS 2009
    10. 10. Representational Analysis  Based on the BWW model PΔR - Symmetric Difference; P R – Intersection; P/R & R/P -Relative Complement∩ Vid Prezel
    11. 11. Representational Analysis  Based on the BWW model Vid Prezel
    12. 12. Rule Modeling  REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language (R2ML)  with a UML-based graphical concrete syntax MODELS 2009
    13. 13.  REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving
    14. 14. rBPMN in Action
    15. 15. rBPMN in Action
    16. 16. rBPMN in Action OWL-based reasoning
    17. 17. rBPMN in Action Rete-based
    18. 18.  Multiplicity of participants – |||  References – to distinguish participants  Correlation information – who sent a message MODELS 2009 Interaction Models
    19. 19. MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern
    20. 20. MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern
    21. 21. Case Study
    22. 22. Case Study
    23. 23. Rules in Choreography EDOC 2009
    24. 24. Case Study
    25. 25. Rules in Choreography EDOC 2009
    26. 26. Case Study
    27. 27. Case Study
    28. 28. Case Study
    29. 29. Rule in Choreography EDOC 2009
    30. 30. Expressiveness comparison  Service Interaction Patterns Language Pattern group Pattern Let’s Dance BPMN WS- CDL iBPMN rBPMN Send + + + + + Receive + + + + +1) Send/Receive + + + + + Racing incoming messages + + + + + One-to-many send + - +/- + + One-from-many receive + - + + + 2) One-to-many send/receive + - +/- + + Multi-responses + + + + + Contingent requests +/- - +/- +/- +3) Atomic multicast notification - - - - - Request with referral + - + + + Relayed request + - + + +4) Dynamic routing - - +/- - +/-
    31. 31. rBPMN Editor  Implementation of BPMN2 + R2ML  Eclipse plug-in based on GMF and EMF  Binaries available for download  Going out as open source shortly  Looking fwd to your feedback  http://rbpmneditor.googlecode.com/  http://www.youtube.com/user/rbpmn
    32. 32. rBPMN Editor
    33. 33. rBPMN Heroes  Language design and implementation Milan Milanovic Luis Rocha
    34. 34. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving
    35. 35. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern
    36. 36. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern
    37. 37. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern Expressiveness comparison  Service Interaction Patterns
    38. 38. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns  Contingent requests pattern Expressiveness comparison  Service Interaction Patterns rBPMN Editor
    39. 39.  Usability  Semi-structured English vs. visual  Interaction vs. interconnection model  Quality and empirical issues of rBPMN MODELS 2009 Future Work
    40. 40.  Usability  Semi-structured English vs. visual  Interaction vs. interconnection model  Quality and empirical issues of rBPMN MODELS 2009 Future Work Community call: We need a corpus!
    41. 41.  Language formalization affairs  Static and operational semantics  e.g., OWL2 and mCRL2  Coupled co-evolution of rules & processes MODELS 2009 Future Work
    42. 42. Thank you! Questions?

    ×