Downloaded 31 times
![ 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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/edoc2010v3-101102213547-phpapp01/85/Modeling-Service-Choreographies-with-Rule-enhanced-Business-Processes-4-320.jpg)
![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]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/edoc2010v3-101102213547-phpapp01/85/Modeling-Service-Choreographies-with-Rule-enhanced-Business-Processes-7-320.jpg)
Uploaded byDragan Gasevic
Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhanced Business Processes
The document discusses modeling service choreographies with rule-enhanced business processes, focusing on extending the BPMN2 language to incorporate support for vocabularies and rules. It presents challenges in process modeling, such as integrating business rules and addressing redundancy, while evaluating various approaches and the implications for service interaction patterns. The authors propose a framework and tool, rbpmn, to facilitate modeling and processing of these rules in choreography, and note future work in usability and formalization.
More Related Content
Similar to Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhanced Business Processes
More from Dragan Gasevic
Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhanced Business Processes
- 1. Modeling Service Choreographies with Rule-enhancedBusiness Processes Milan Milanović1 and Dragan Gašević2 1 University of Belgrade, Serbia 2 Athabasca University, AB, Canada
- 2. Problem Domain Processmodeling and service composition Orchestrations – CASCON 2009 Business processes from one participant’s side Choreographies Business processes from a global perspective
- 3. Available languages(e.g., BPMN) Challenges How to support business vocabularies/rules? How to manage redundant elements? MODELS 2009 Choreography Modeling
- 4. Extension ofthe 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. Rule-enhanced BPMN- rBPMN Interconnection and interaction models Evaluation mechanism – expressiveness Service Interaction Patterns MODELS 2009 Result
- 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. 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. MODELS 2009 The BPMNLanguage
- 9. Rules and BusinessProcesses 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. Representational Analysis Basedon the BWW model PΔR - Symmetric Difference; P R – Intersection; P/R & R/P -Relative Complement∩ Vid Prezel
- 11. Representational Analysis Basedon the BWW model Vid Prezel
- 12. Rule Modeling REWERSEI1 Rule Markup Language (R2ML) with a UML-based graphical concrete syntax MODELS 2009
- 13. REWERSE I1Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18. Multiplicity ofparticipants – ||| References – to distinguish participants Correlation information – who sent a message MODELS 2009 Interaction Models
- 19. MODELS 2009 Service InteractionPatterns Contingent requests pattern
- 20. MODELS 2009 Service InteractionPatterns Contingent requests pattern
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30. Expressiveness comparison ServiceInteraction 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. rBPMN Editor Implementationof 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.
- 33. rBPMN Heroes Languagedesign and implementation Milan Milanovic Luis Rocha
- 34. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSEI1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving
- 35. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSEI1 Rule Markup Language MODELS 2009 Extension for Rule Models rBPMN metamodel weaving MODELS 2009 Service Interaction Patterns Contingent requests pattern
- 36. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSEI1 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. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSEI1 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. MODELS 2009 Conclusion REWERSEI1 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. Usability Semi-structuredEnglish vs. visual Interaction vs. interconnection model Quality and empirical issues of rBPMN MODELS 2009 Future Work
- 40. Usability Semi-structuredEnglish vs. visual Interaction vs. interconnection model Quality and empirical issues of rBPMN MODELS 2009 Future Work Community call: We need a corpus!
- 41. Language formalizationaffairs Static and operational semantics e.g., OWL2 and mCRL2 Coupled co-evolution of rules & processes MODELS 2009 Future Work
- 42.
Editor's Notes
- #9 <number> BPMN -> OMG specification.
- #20 <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.
- #21 <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.
- #22 <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.
- #23 <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.