A Comparison of XML Interchange Formats for Business Process Management
Jan Mendling, Gustaf NeumannDept. of IS and New Media, WU Wien, Austria
Markus NüttgensChair of ISHWP Hamburg, Germany
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 2
Agenda
1. The problem of heterogeneity in BPM
2. Interchange format specification – why and how?
3. Which metamodel concepts are used in BPM?
4. Comparing BPM specifications
5. Conclusions and outlook
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 3
Agenda
The problem of heterogeneity in BPM
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 4
Lack of Standard-Interchange Formats for BPM
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 5
Standardization Bodies
• Object Management Group (OMG)
• Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC)
• Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI)
• Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) (+ UN/CEFACT)
• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
• academic initiatives
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 6
Agenda
Interchange format specification – why and how?
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 7
Effects of Interchange Format Specification
• Pragmatic effect: moving models between tools
• Economic effect: reduced lock-in, more competition
• Conceptual effect: consolidation of concepts
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 8
Metamodels and Interchange Formats
Metamodel Interchange Format
ModelInterchange Format
Instance
instantiates instantiates
represents
maps to
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 9
Interchange Format Design Criteria
• Simplicity not too complex, focus on essentials
• Completeness include all major concepts
• Generality applicable in various scenarios
• No ambiguity precise terms and clear semantics
• Extensibility additional information, future development
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 10
How to specify Interchange Formats
• Interchange Format Only e.g. BPEL4WS
• Mappings Only e.g. XMI
• Joint Specification e.g. PNML
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 11
Agenda
Which metamodel concepts are used in BPM?
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 12
Methodological Remarks
• Schema integration approach
• Identification of high level concepts of BPM specs
• Identification of superset of these concepts
• Use list of concepts as a benchmark
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 13
BPM Specifications
• {Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM) by OMG}
• Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS) by OASIS
• Business Process Modeling Language (BPML) by BPMI
• Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) by BPMI
• Business Process Specification Schema (BPSS) by OASIS + UN/CEFACT
• EPC Markup Language (EPML) by academia
• OWL-S by academia
• Petri Net Markup Language (PNML) by academia
• UML ActD by OMG
• WS-Choreography Description Language (WSCDL) by W3C
• WS Choreography Interface (WSCI) by W3C
• WS Choreography Language (WSCL) by Hewlett-Packard
• WS Flow Language (WSFL) by IBM
• XLANG by Microsoft
• XML Process Definition Language (XPDL) by WfMC
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 14
Metamodel Concepts in BPM
• Task I/O
• Task Address/URI
• Quality Attributes
• Task Protocol
• Control Flow
• Data Handling
• Instance Identification
• Roles
• Events
• Exceptions
• Transactions
• Graphical Position
• Statistical Data
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 15
Agenda
Comparing BPM specifications
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 16
Comparison based on Concepts
BP
DM
BP
EL
4WS
BP
ML
BP
MN
BP
SS
EP
ML
OW
L-S
PN
ML
UM
L A
ct.D
.
WS
-CD
L
WS
CI
WS
CL
WS
FL
XL
AN
G
XP
DL
Task I/O
Task Address
Protocol
Control Flow
Data Handling
Instance Identity
Roles
Quality Attributes
Events
Exceptions
Transactions
Graphic Position
Statistical Data
? + + + + - + - + + + + + + +? + + + - - + - - + + + + + +
? + - + - - + - - + + + + + -? + + + + + + + + + + + + + +? + + + - - - - + + - - + - +? + + - - - - - - - + - + + -? + + + + - + - + + + - + + +
? - - - + - + - - - - - + - -
? + + + - + - - - - - - + + +? + + + + - - - + + + - + + +? + + + + - - - - + + - - + -? - - + - + - + + - - - - - -? - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 17
Remarks on Comparison
• BPEL4WS, BPMN, and WSFL support the most concepts
• But, different choices HOW to support a concept
• compare Workflow Patterns for control flow constructs (v.d.Aalst)
• Patterns needed for each concept
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 18
Agenda
Conclusions and outlook
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 19
Conclusions
• Identification of superset of metamodel concepts
• Pattern analysis for each concept needed
• Conceptual framework towards a BPM reference model
LV 1734 - Vertiefungskurs Neue Medien - Collaborative SystemsFolie 20
Further information
Thank you for your attention!
Jan Mendling, Gustaf Neumann
Dept. Of IS and New MediaWU Wien, Austria{jan.mendling | neumann}@wu-
wien.ac.at
Markus Nüttgens HWP Hamburg, [email protected]
Top Related