Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
On the analysis of CMMN expressiveness: revisiting workflow patterns
Univ Quebec, LATECE Lab, Montreal, PQ, Canada..
Univ Quebec, LATECE Lab, Montreal, PQ, Canada..
Univ Quebec, LATECE Lab, Montreal, PQ, Canada..
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: 2016 IEEE 20TH INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE DISTRIBUTED OBJECT COMPUTING WORKSHOP (EDOCW), 2016, 54-61 p.Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Traditional business process modeling languages use an imperative style to specify all possible execution flows, leaving little flexibility to process operators. Such languages are appropriate for low-complexity, high-volume, mostly automated processes. However, they are inadequate for case management, which involves low-volume, high-complexity, knowledge-intensive work processes of today's knowledge workers. OMG's Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), which uses a declarative style to specify constraints placed at a process execution, aims at addressing this need. To the extent that typical case management situations do include at least some measure of imperative control, it is legitimate to ask whether an analyst working exclusively in CMMN can comfortably model the range of behaviors s/he is likely to encounter. This paper aims at answering this question by trying to express the extensive collection of Workflow Patterns in CMMN. Unsurprisingly, our study shows that the workflow patterns fall into three categories: 1) the ones that are handled by CMMN basic constructs, 2) those that rely on CMMN's engine capabilities and 3) the ones that cannot be handled by current CMMN specification. A CMMN tool builder can propose patterns of the second category as companion modeling idioms, which can be translated behind the scenes into standard CMMN. The third category is problematic, however, since its support in CMMN tools will break model interoperability.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. 54-61 p.
Series
IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, ISSN 2325-6583
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-13504ISI: 000386577000030ISBN: 978-1-4673-9933-3 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-13504DiVA: diva2:1049628
Conference
IEEE 20th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW), SEP 05-09, 2016, Vienna, AUSTRIA
Available from: 2016-11-25 Created: 2016-11-25 Last updated: 2016-11-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Gonzalez-Huerta, Javier
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 44 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf