Deciding behaviour compatibility of complex correspondences between process models

M. Weidlich, R.M. Dijkman, M.H. Weske

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademic

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Compatibility of two process models can be verified using common notions of behaviour inheritance. However, these notions postulate 1:1 correspondences between activities of both models. This assumption is violated once activities from one model are refined or collapsed in the other model or in case there are groups of corresponding activities. Therefore, our work lifts the work on behaviour inheritance to the level of complex 1:n and n:m correspondences. Our contribution is (1) the definition of notions of behaviour compatibility for models that have complex correspondences and (2) a structural characterisation of these notions for sound free-choice process models that allows for computationally efficient reasoning. We show the applicability of our technique, by applying it in a case study in which we determine the compatibility between a set of reference process models and models that implement them.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationBusiness process management, 8th international conference, BPM 2010, Hoboken, NJ, USA, September 13-16, 2010. Proceedings
EditorsR. Hull, J. Mendling
Place of PublicationBerlin
PublisherSpringer
Pages78-94
ISBN (Print)978-3-642-15618-2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Event8th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2010), September 13-16, 2010, Hoboken, NJ, USA - Hoboken, NJ, United States
Duration: 13 Sep 201016 Sep 2010

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science
Volume6336

Conference

Conference8th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2010), September 13-16, 2010, Hoboken, NJ, USA
Abbreviated titleBPM 2010
CountryUnited States
CityHoboken, NJ
Period13/09/1016/09/10

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Deciding behaviour compatibility of complex correspondences between process models'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this