Formalisations and applications of BPMN

Abstract

We present two formalisations of the Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN). In particular, we introduce a semantic model for BPMN in the process algebra CSP; we then study an augmentation of this model in which we introduce relative timing information, allowing one to specify timing constraints on concurrent activities. By exploiting CSP refinement, we are able to show some relationships between the timed and the untimed models. We then describe a novel empirical studies model, and the transformation to BPMN, allowing one to apply our formal semantics for analysing different kind of workflows. To provide a better facility for describing behaviour specification about a BPMN diagram, we also present a pattern-based approach using which a workflow designer could specify properties which could otherwise be difficult to express. Our approach is specifically designed to allow behavioural properties of BPMN diagrams to be mechanically verified via automatic model-checking as provided by the FDR tool. We use two examples to illustrate our approach.

Form Follows Function: Model-Driven Engineering for Clinical Trials

“…These too could be specified in a structured format in the protocol, in a workflow modelling notation such as BPEL or BPMN, and then used to generate scheduling tools for trial execution. We have conducted some preliminary studies on using such workflow notations to specify and check trial safety properties such as drug interactions [38,40], but have not yet integrated this work with the rest of the CancerGrid toolchain. The biggest challenge will be to allow the trial designer to describe the temporal aspects of the trial in sufficient detail, without degenerating into a full-blown programming exercise; we hope that workflow patterns [37] and property specification patterns [39] will be helpful in this regard.…”

BProVe: A formal verification framework for business process models

“…The most common formalisations of BPMN are given via encodings to various formalisms, such as Petri Nets [9], [45], [46], [47], [48], or their extensions such as YAWL [49], [50] and ECATNets [51] [52], and process calculi [10], [53], [11], [54], [12], [55], [56], [57].…”

“…Among the others, Wong and Gibbons presented in [53], [10] a translation from a subset of BPMN process diagrams, under the assumption of well-formedness, to a CSP-like language based on Z notation using Haskell. This enables the introduction of a formal verification to check properties based on the notion of messages, like consistency between BPMN diagrams with different levels of abstraction and compatibility between participants within a Business Process collaboration [58].…”

“…In this case, the analysis will be conducted on the derived Petri Net. Other approaches provide, instead, denotations of BPMN elements with terms in a given process algebra (see, e.g., [10], [11], [12]). In this paper we provide an alternative verification framework that is based on the definition of a native semantics according to a Structural Operational Semantics (SOS) style [13].…”

Decomposition of business process models into reusable sub-diagrams

“…They can be also represented as a randomlyordered list of tasks, along with their input and output conditions, which are then used for a constraint-based process composition [9]. Another approach is a semantic model for BPMN specified in the CSP process algebra [10]. This is especially useful for specifying time constraints between process activities.…”