Process Equivalence: Comparing Two Process Models Based on Observed Behavior

In various application domains there is a desire to compare process models, e.g., to relate an organization-specific process model to a reference model, to find a web service matching some desired service description, or to compare some normative process model with a process model discovered using process mining techniques. Although many researchers have worked on different notions of equivalence (e.g., trace equivalence, bisimulation, branching bisimulation, etc.), most of the existing notions are not very useful in this context. First of all, most equivalence notions result in a binary answer (i.e., two processes are equivalent or not). This is not very helpful, because, in real-life applications, one needs to differentiate between slightly different models and completely different models. Second, not all parts of a process model are equally important. There may be parts of the process model that are rarely activated while other parts are executed for most process instances. Clearly, these should be considered differently. To address these problems, this paper proposes a completely new way of comparing process models. Rather than directly comparing two models, the process models are compared with respect to some typical behavior. This way we are able to avoid the two problems. Although the results are presented in the context of Petri nets, the approach can be applied to any process modeling language with executable semantics.

[1]  Franck van Breugel,et al.  A Behavioural Pseudometric for Metric Labelled Transition Systems , 2005, CONCUR.

[2]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Conformance Testing: Measuring the Fit and Appropriateness of Event Logs and Process Models , 2005, Business Process Management Workshops.

[3]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Communicating Systems , 1980, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[5]  Radha Jagadeesan,et al.  Metrics for labelled Markov processes , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Jörg Desel,et al.  Validation of Process Models by Construction of Process Nets , 2000, Business Process Management.

[7]  Wolfgang Reisig,et al.  Lectures on Petri Nets I: Basic Models , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  The ProM Framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Support , 2005, ICATPN.

[9]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to change , 2002 .

[10]  Hongyan Ma,et al.  Process-aware information systems: Bridging people and software through process technology , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Carla Simone,et al.  A survey of equivalence notions for net based systems , 1992, Advances in Petri Nets: The DEMON Project.

[12]  Vincent Danos,et al.  Transactions in RCCS , 2005, CONCUR.

[13]  Grzegorz Rozenberg Advances in Petri Nets 1992 , 1992, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Eike Best,et al.  Some Equivalence Results for Free Choice Nets and Simple Nets and on the Periodicity of Live Free Choice Nets , 1983, CAAP.

[15]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Genetic Process Mining: A Basic Approach and Its Challenges , 2005, Business Process Management Workshops.

[16]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Applications and Theory of Petri Nets , 1983, Informatik-Fachberichte.

[17]  Gianfranco Ciardo,et al.  Applications and Theory of Petri Nets 2005, 26th International Conference, ICATPN 2005, Miami, USA, June 20-25, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, ICATPN.

[18]  Shlomit S. Pinter,et al.  Discovering workflow models from activities' lifespans , 2004, Comput. Ind..

[19]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics , 1996, JACM.

[20]  van der Wmp Wil Aalst,et al.  Process equivalence in the context of genetic mining , 2006 .