BPM 2010 Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models Matthias Weidlich , Remco Dijk...
Behaviour Compatibility <ul><li>Question whether two process models show the same behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Use Cases </...
Behaviour Inheritance <ul><li>Behaviour equivalences for extended behavioural models </li></ul><ul><li>Extended parts may ...
Complex Correspondences
Research Challenges <ul><li>Definition What means behaviour compatibility for complex correspondences? </li></ul><ul><li>C...
Agenda <ul><li>Background on Behaviour Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semant...
General Idea <ul><li>Focus on trace semantics & trace equivalence </li></ul><ul><li>Idea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex cor...
Trace Partitioning <ul><li>Interleaving transitions: may be enabled concurrently </li></ul><ul><li>Complete traces are par...
Notions of Behaviour Compatibility <ul><li>Projection Compatibility For two correspondences and each complete trace in P1,...
Back to the Example
Agenda <ul><li>Background on Behaviour Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semant...
Structural Characterisation – Scope <ul><li>Focus on free-choice sound WF-nets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dedicated initial and...
Structural Characterisation – Reasoning  <ul><li>For pair of correspondences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concurrency relation id...
Agenda <ul><li>Background on Behaviour Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semant...
Experimental Setup <ul><li>Collection of 10 pairs of process models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of standard proce...
Conclusion & Outlook <ul><li>Notion of behaviour compatibility that copes with extensions and complex correspondences </li...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models

539 views
456 views

Published on

Presentation of the paper entitled "Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models" at the 8th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2010).

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
539
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models

    1. 1. BPM 2010 Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models Matthias Weidlich , Remco Dijkman, Mathias Weske September 16, 2010
    2. 2. Behaviour Compatibility <ul><li>Question whether two process models show the same behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Use Cases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process models that assume different perspectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management of process variants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of a reference model </li></ul></ul>© www.biojobblog.com
    3. 3. Behaviour Inheritance <ul><li>Behaviour equivalences for extended behavioural models </li></ul><ul><li>Extended parts may be blocked or hidden </li></ul>Blocking Protocol Inheritance Hiding Projection Inheritance
    4. 4. Complex Correspondences
    5. 5. Research Challenges <ul><li>Definition What means behaviour compatibility for complex correspondences? </li></ul><ul><li>Computational Complexity Can we decide behaviour compatibility efficiently for a certain class of models? </li></ul>
    6. 6. Agenda <ul><li>Background on Behaviour Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semantics </li></ul><ul><li>A Structural Characterisation of Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental Results </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion & Outlook </li></ul>
    7. 7. General Idea <ul><li>Focus on trace semantics & trace equivalence </li></ul><ul><li>Idea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex correspondence has semantics – relation between subtraces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependencies between these subtraces should be equal for two correspondences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Partitioning of traces induced by the correspondences should be equal </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Trace Partitioning <ul><li>Interleaving transitions: may be enabled concurrently </li></ul><ul><li>Complete traces are partitioned </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subtraces comprising non-interleaving transitions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subtraces comprising interleaving transitions </li></ul></ul>< A1 B1 A2 A3 > < A4 B3 A5 B2 B3 >
    9. 9. Notions of Behaviour Compatibility <ul><li>Projection Compatibility For two correspondences and each complete trace in P1, there is a complete trace with the same partitioning in P2 once extensions are hidden </li></ul><ul><li>Protocol Compatibility For two correspondences and each complete trace in P1, there is a complete trace with the same partitioning in P2 once extensions are blocked </li></ul><ul><li>Compatibility for Process Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Check if all pairs of correspondences are compatible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decidable for finite state spaces </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Back to the Example
    11. 11. Agenda <ul><li>Background on Behaviour Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semantics </li></ul><ul><li>A Structural Characterisation of Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental Results </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion & Outlook </li></ul>
    12. 12. Structural Characterisation – Scope <ul><li>Focus on free-choice sound WF-nets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dedicated initial and final places </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Free of behavioural anomalies (e.g., deadlocks) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No interference of choices and synchronisations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concurrency relation and exclusiveness relation can be computed efficiently </li></ul>
    13. 13. Structural Characterisation – Reasoning <ul><li>For pair of correspondences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concurrency relation identifies interleaving transitions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preprocessing removes concurrent or exclusive paths </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remaining paths are partitioned similar to the traces </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Path Consistency For each complete path in P1, there is a complete path with the same partitioning in P2 once extensions are hidden </li></ul><ul><li>Path Consistency ↔ Projection Compatibility </li></ul>
    14. 14. Agenda <ul><li>Background on Behaviour Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semantics </li></ul><ul><li>A Structural Characterisation of Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental Results </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion & Outlook </li></ul>
    15. 15. Experimental Setup <ul><li>Collection of 10 pairs of process models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of standard process by Dutch municipalities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Correspondences defined by process analysts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projection compatibility: 83% / 30% compatible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protocol compatibility: 38% / 8% compatible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discussion: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incompatibilities identified </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protocol compatibility not appropriate for this use case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need for compact representation of incompatibilities </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Conclusion & Outlook <ul><li>Notion of behaviour compatibility that copes with extensions and complex correspondences </li></ul><ul><li>Structural characterisation of behaviour compatibility for free-choice sound WF-nets </li></ul><ul><li>Future work: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Model transformations that preserve behaviour compatibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compact representation of incompatibilities </li></ul></ul>

    ×