Objects and Databases Third International Conference, ICOODB 2010, F
AccordingtoFrancoisBancillonandWonKim[SIGMODRECORD,Vol.19,No. 4, December 1990], object-oriented databases started in around 1983. Twen- seven years later this publication contains the proceedings of the Third Inter- tional Conference on Object-Oriented D
- PDF / 445,739 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 429.725 x 659.895 pts Page_size
- 47 Downloads / 230 Views
Abstract. BPMN 2.0 is well on the way to becoming an international process modeling standard and will soon become the modeling method used for many process execution engines such as BPEL. Since it also provides the possibility to model distributed systems, a major concept of S-BPM, its usage is a natural step toward analyzing S-BPM and BPMN mapping possibilities. As will be demonstrated here, conformance to the BPMN 2.0 semantics as a sub class of modeling conformance can be achieved almost completely by the mapping method proposed by this paper. Those conformance deviations and losses that do occur on both sides are due solely to methodological differences discussed at the end of the paper or to be the issue of future work. The achievement of common execution conformance will not be discussed in detail here. The execution of BPMN models requires far more information than what is currently contained in most user models, as recent research has shown. Keywords: S-BPM, BPMN, mapping, interface, model interchange.
1
Motivation for This Work
The basic motivation for this work is to avoid a vendor lock-in for S-BPM customers and to show that S-BPM models can be readily transferred into a subset of the BPMN 2.0 notation (‘BPMN’ is used as an abbreviation for BPMN 2.0 from now on). BPMN is, in spite of some weaknesses, about to become an industry standard and will soon serve as a common standard for business process model interchange in practice, even if other approaches for business process meta models exist, e.g. POP*, proposed by Ziemann et al. [1]. Accepting the fact that BPMN will inevitably become a worldwide standard, the purpose of this paper is to introduce a bidirectional mapping between subsets of both modeling languages. The goal is to reduce the loss of information by language translation and to translate as many entities of both specifications as possible. BPMN defines some classes and subclasses of conformance at the beginning of the BPMN specification [2]. For the purpose of the interface proposed here, the BPMN descriptive modeling conformance (a subclass of modeling conformance) has been chosen as the proper point of reference on the BPMN side. Regarding S-BPM, the point of reference is the basic paper of Albert S. Oppl and A. Fleischmann (Eds.): S-BPM ONE 2012, CCIS 284, pp. 91–105, 2012. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012
92
S. Sneed
Fleischmann which introduces the S-BPM method and its basic modeling concepts [3] as well as his recent book on that subject [4]. To introduce the S-BPM language to the reader, it is to be noted here that, as opposed to BPMN, the S-BPM model entities are defined bottom up. S-BPM process models can be reduced to abstract state machines and hence to executable code. Furthermore, the entities defined within S-BPM are derived from nature in order to support our natural way of thinking. Subjects within S-BPM can represent real world entities, which may be machines, human actors, systems, and so on. All of these subjects have certain abilities, can perform certain task
Data Loading...
