Behaviour Equivalence and Compatibility of Business Process Models with Complex Correspondences

Once multiple models of a business process are created for different purposes or to capture different variants, verification of behaviour equivalence or compatibility is needed. Equivalence verification ensures that two business process models specify the same behaviour. Since different process models are likely to differ with respect to their assumed level of abstraction and the actions that they take into account, equivalence notions have to cope with correspondences between sets of actions and actions that exist in one process but not in the other. In this paper, we present notions of equivalence and compatibility that can handle these problems. In essence, we present a notion of equivalence that works on correspondences between sets of actions rather than single actions. We then integrate our equivalence notion with work on behaviour inheritance that copes with actions that exist in one process but not in the other, leading to notions of behaviour compatibility. Compatibility notions verify that two models have the same behaviour with respect to the actions that they have in common. As such, our contribution is a collection of behaviour equivalence and compatibility notions that are applicable in more general settings than existing ones.

[1]  Insup Lee,et al.  Simulation-Based Graph Similarity , 2006, TACAS.

[2]  Tadao Murata,et al.  Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[3]  Wineke A. M. van Lent,et al.  Similarity of business process models : metrics and evaluation , 2009 .

[4]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Life-Cycle Inheritance: A Petri-Net-Based Approach , 1997, ICATPN.

[5]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Aligning Business Process Models , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference.

[6]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Causal Behavioural Profiles - Efficient Computation, Applications, and Evaluation , 2011, Fundam. Informaticae.

[7]  J. Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching , 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[8]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum II , 1993, CONCUR.

[9]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  On Measuring Process Model Similarity Based on High-Level Change Operations , 2007, ER.

[10]  James L. Peterson,et al.  Petri Nets , 1977, CSUR.

[11]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models , 2008, CAiSE.

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

[13]  H. Bunke.  Graph Matching : Theoretical Foundations , Algorithms , and Applications , 2022 .

[14]  R. J. vanGlabbeek.  Comparative concurrency semantics and refinement of actions , 1996 .

[15]  Andreas Wombacher,et al.  Evaluation of Workflow Similarity Measures in Service Discovery , 2006, Service Oriented Electronic Commerce.

[16]  Stephan Zelewski.  Petrinetzbasierte Modellierung komplexer Produktionssysteme: Band 7: Fallstudie , 1995 .

[17]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Similarity Search of Business Process Models , 2009, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[18]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  The ICoP Framework: Identification of Correspondences between Process Models , 2010, CAiSE.

[19]  Wolfgang Reisig.  Petri Nets: An Introduction , 1985, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[20]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[21]  Wilfried Brauer,et al.  A survey of behaviour and equivalence preserving refinements of Petri nets , 1991, Applications and Theory of Petri Nets.

[22]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models , 2010, BPM.

[23]  David Goldman.  Inheritance of Behavior and Genes “For” Behavior: Gene Wars , 2012 .

[24]  Jan Verelst,et al.  When are two Workflows the Same? , 2005, CATS.

[25]  Hyoil Han,et al.  A survey on ontology mapping , 2006, SGMD.

[26]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  A configurable reference modelling language , 2007, Inf. Syst..

[27]  Jeremy Gibbons,et al.  A Process-Algebraic Approach to Workflow Specification and Refinement , 2007, SC@ETAPS.

[28]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[29]  Mehrdad Sabetzadeh,et al.  Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications , 2007, 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07).

[30]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures , 2007 .

[31]  Andreas Wombacher,et al.  Alternative Approaches for Workflow Similarity , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing.

[32]  Gregor Engels,et al.  Detecting and Resolving Process Model Differences in the Absence of a Change Log , 2008, BPM.

[33]  Luca Aceto,et al.  Adding Action Refinement to a Finite Process Algebra , 1994, Inf. Comput..

[34]  J. Bergstra,et al.  Handbook of Process Algebra , 2001 .

[35]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Configurable Workflow Models , 2008, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[36]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[37]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Behavioral Similarity - A Proper Metric , 2011, BPM.

[38]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Graph Matching Algorithms for Business Process Model Similarity Search , 2009, BPM.