Dynamic Weaving in Aspect Oriented Business Process Management

Jalali, Amin; Wohed, Petia; Ouyang, Chun; Johannesson, Paul

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41030-7_2

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These works nicely complement AO4BPMN by providing a formal foundation. Furthermore, the authors of [8] also validate the usefulness of AO4BPMN in practice by presenting a banking case study. Another validation of AO4BPMN in the context of business software can be found in [15], where we use aspects behind the scenes to modularize and manage business process extensions as first-class entities in an industrial context.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…An application of an AO4BPMN variant for modularizing process extensions was presented in [15]. Another application in the context of a banking case study was presented in [8]. Our future work will focus on mapping AO4BPMN aspects to AO4BPEL as an alternative to weaving by model transformation and also on facilitating the definition of pointcuts to users that are not familiar with OCL for instance by providing a form-based query builder.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of [7,8] build upon AO4BPMN 1.0 [5] by proposing a formal definition of the different language concepts. They also propose a formal specification of the execution semantics of a weaving mechanism using colored petri nets.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Weaving Aspects and Business Processes through Model Transformation

Witteborg¹,

Charfi²,

Collell

et al. 2014

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns such as logging, auditing and accounting need to be addressed already in the business process modeling phase and not only in the process implementation phase. Mostly, such concerns are modeled as part of the normal flow in business process models. However, the crosscutting nature of such concerns leads to complex, scattered, and tangled models that are hard to understand and to manage. The lack of appropriate means to modularize crosscutting concerns in business process modeling languages seriously affects understandability, maintainability and reusability. In a previous work we proposed AO4BPMN 1.0 as an aspect-oriented extension of BPMN that allows the modularization of crosscutting concerns. However, there were several open issues in that proposal. First, it lacks a concrete weaving mechanism for composing business processes and aspects. Second, it lacks a well-defined pointcut language to select join points. Third, it does not support BPMN 2.0, which was still under development at that time. In this paper we tackle these issues and present a weaver for AO4BPMN based on model transformation as well as an OCL-based pointcut language.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Weaving Aspects and Business Processes through Model Transformation

Witteborg¹,

Charfi²,

Collell

et al. 2014

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To enact aspect‐oriented business process models, Jalali et al() defined the dynamic weaving. This approach has been extended to cover the whole Business Process Management lifecycle .…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To enact aspect‐oriented models, they should be transformed into standard models, or the system that enacts them should be aware of their semantics . Transforming these models into a standard notation is called Static Weaving , and enacting them through a system that is aware of their semantics is called Dynamic Weaving . Weaving is a composition process that interconnects core and cross‐cutting concerns together based on the rules specified in pointcuts, thus resulting in a unified process specification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid approach for aspect‐oriented business process modeling

Jalali¹,

Maggi

Reijers

2018

J Software Evolu Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Separation of concerns has long been an important strategy to deal with complexity when developing a system. Some concerns (like security) are scattered through the whole system, and different modules are tangled to such concerns. These concerns are known as cross-cutting concerns.When the system in question is a business process, cross-cutting concerns are aimed at being encapsulated by Aspect-Oriented Business Process Modeling. However, the state-of-the-art techniques in this field lack efficient mechanisms that (1) support composition of cross-cutting concerns that can be defined in parallel to (a part of) a process model and (2) enable specifying both mandatory and optional cross-cutting concerns. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a new Aspect-Oriented Business Process Modeling approach. The approach is hybrid since it is based on declarative rules to relate imperative cross-cutting concerns and imperative business process models. The approach is explained, formally grounded with precise semantics, and used accordingly to implement the artifacts that support modeling and enactment of business processes in the proposed fashion as a proof of concept. In addition, the approach is evaluated on the basis of the Technology Acceptance Model during a workshop session. The result shows that participants perceived the approach usable and easy to use. KEYWORDS aspect orientation, business process modeling, cross-cutting concerns, declarative rules, hybrid models INTRODUCTIONSeparation of concerns is an important strategy for people to deal with complexity. This strategy has been widely used and adopted in developing systems where designers can divide the specifications of systems into smaller individual modules. These modules can be managed, understood, and changed separately but integrated into a comprehensive, overall specification. The lack of a proper separation can lead to very intertwined complex systems, which are hard to be changed and managed.Business processes are examples of such systems, which can be defined through sets of constraints to fulfill specific goals. These constraints specify how activities in a business process can be managed, and they are categorized into 2 major groups. One group consists of procedural flow-based constraints that specify how a business process should be performed step by step. The other group consists of very flexible models suitable for specifying processes characterized by high variability, which can hardly be specified as a predetermined procedure. We call the models in the first group imperative models while those in the second group declarative models. 1 Imperative models specify the behavior of flow-oriented and rigid business processes. In these models, the behavior of a process is specified explicitly. Imperative models can be expressed using Business Process Model And Notation (BPMN), 2 Yet Another Workflow Language (YAWL), 3 Petri nets, etc. In contrast, declarative models allow all behavior to happen unless it is explicitly forbidden. Thus, they suit...

show abstract