Skip to main content

Event Structures as a Foundation for Process Model Differencing, Part 1: Acyclic processes

  • Conference paper
Book cover Web Services and Formal Methods (WS-FM 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 7843))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of comparing process models in terms of their behavior. Given two process models, the problem addressed is that of explaining their differences in terms of simple and intuitive statements. This model differencing operation is needed for example in the context of process consolidation, where analysts need to reconcile differences between process variants in order to produce consolidated process models. The paper presents an approach to acyclic process model differencing based on event structures. First the paper considers the use of prime event structures. It is found that the high level of node duplication inherent to prime event structures hinders on the usefulness of the difference diagnostics that can be extracted thereon. Accordingly, the paper defines a method for producing (asymmetric) event structures with reduced duplication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 37(3), 410–429 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: A Foundational Approach for Managing Process Variability. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Kunze, M., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Behavioral Similarity - A proper metric. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Baldan, P., Corradini, A., Montanari, U.: Contextual Petri Nets, Asymmetric Event Structures, and Processes. Information and Computation 171(1), 1–49 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Information Systems 36(2), 498–516 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Dijkman, R.: Similarity Search of Business Process Models. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 32(3), 23–28 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. van Glabbeek, R., Goltz, U.: Refinement of actions and equivalence notions for concurrent systems. Acta Informatica 37, 229–327 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleaveland, R.: On automatically explaining bisimulation inequivalence. In: Clarke, E., Kurshan, R.P. (eds.) CAV 1990. LNCS, vol. 531, pp. 364–372. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Sokolsky, O., Kannan, S., Lee, I.: Simulation-Based Graph Similarity. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds.) TACAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3920, pp. 426–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Dijkman, R.: Diagnosing Differences between Business Process Models. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Causal Behavioural Profiles - Efficient Computation, Applications, and Evaluation. Fundamenta Informaticae 113(3-4), 399–435 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, T., Maruster, L.: Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16(9), 1128–1142 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Badouel, E.: On the α-Reconstructibility of Workflow Nets. In: Haddad, S., Pomello, L. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7347, pp. 128–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Weidlich, M., van der Werf, J.M.: On Profiles and Footprints – Relational Semantics for Petri Nets. In: Haddad, S., Pomello, L. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7347, pp. 148–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Polyvyany, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Structuring acyclic process models. Information Systems 37(6), 518–538 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Fahland, D., Weske, M.: Maximal Structuring of Acyclic Process Models. The Computer Journal (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Polyvyanyy, A.: Structuring Process Models. PhD thesis, University of Potsdam, Germany (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Engelfriet, J.: Branching processes of Petri nets. Acta Informatica 28, 575–591 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Nielsen, M., Plotkin, G.D., Winskel, G.: Petri Nets, Event Structures and Domains, Part I. Theoretical Computer Science 13, 85–108 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Best, E., Devillers, R., Kiehn, A., Pomello, L.: Concurrent bisimulations in Petri nets. Acta Informatica 28, 231–264 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Fahland, D.: From Scenarios to Components. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.: Simplifying Mined Process Models: An Approach Based on Unfoldings. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 362–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Boudol, G., Castellani, I.: Flow Models of Distributed Computations: Event Structures and Nets. Technical Report 1482, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis (1991)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Armas-Cervantes, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M. (2013). Event Structures as a Foundation for Process Model Differencing, Part 1: Acyclic processes. In: ter Beek, M.H., Lohmann, N. (eds) Web Services and Formal Methods. WS-FM 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7843. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38230-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38230-7_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38229-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38230-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics