Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
L. Wilson, R. Clark (2000)
Comparative Programming Languages
OMG
Workflow Management Facility Specification,V1.2
OMG
Business Process Modeling Notation, V1.1, formal/2008‐01‐17
OMG
Business Process Maturity Model, Beta 1, dtc/2007‐07‐02
R. Mayer, Christopher Menzel, Michael Painter, Paula Dewitte, Thomas Blinn, B. Perakath (1992)
Information Integration for Concurrent Engineering (IICE) IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method Report
T. Pratt, M. Zelkowitz (1975)
Programming Languages: Design and Implementation
Thomas Connolly, Carolyn Begg (1998)
Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation and Management
James Chang (2005)
Business Process Management Systems: Strategy and Implementation
B. Curtis, M. Kellner, J. Over (1992)
Process modelingCommun. ACM, 35
L. Wilson, R. Clark (2001)
Comparative programming languages (3rd ed.)
Rahim Ramezanian (1978)
Communicating sequential processesCommun. ACM, 21
Wasim Sadiq, M. Orlowska (2000)
Analyzing Process Models Using Graph Reduction TechniquesInf. Syst., 25
T. Malone, Kevin Crowston, Jintae Lee, B. Pentland (1999)
Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational ProcessesManagement Science, 45
E. Emerson (1991)
Temporal and Modal Logic
Wasim Sadiq, M. Orlowska (1999)
On Capturing Process Requirements of Workflow Based Business Information Systems
WfMC
Workflow Standard – Interoperability Wf‐XML Binding (WFMC‐TC‐1023, Version 1.1)
Eugene Deborin, Jasmine Basrai, Tony Benedetti, Roger Halchin, Tamer Mahfouz, Nimal Perera, Baswa Shamshabad, Robert Spory, R. Turakhia (2002)
Continuous business process management with holosofx bpm suite and ibm mqseries workflow
C. Date (1987)
Where SQL falls shortDatamation archive, 33
OMG
Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), v1.0, formal/2008‐01‐02
WfMC
Reference Model – The Workflow Reference Model (WFMC‐TC‐1003, 19 Jan, 95, Issue 1.1.)
G. Gatling, A. Rickayzen, Jocelyn Dart, E. Dick, Oliver Hilss, Joern Sedlmayr, S. Kempf, Thomas Kosog, Paul Medaille, Mike Pokraka (2009)
Practical Workflow for SAP
Information Systems Group
ExSpect User Manual
J. Baeten (2005)
A brief history of process algebraTheor. Comput. Sci., 335
J. McCarthy, P.J. Hayes
Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. Machine Intelligence
Carsten Brennecke (2002)
Practical Workflow for SAP: Effective Business Processes using SAP's WebFlow Engine
B. Ryder, M. Soffa, M. Burnett (2005)
The impact of software engineering research on modern programming languagesACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 14
J.A. Hoffer, J. George, J. Valacich
Modern Systems Analysis & Design
WfMC
Process Definition Interface – XML Process Definition Language (WFMC‐TC‐1025, Version 1.15)
Wil Aalst (2003)
Workflow PatternsDistributed and Parallel Databases, 14
M. Scott (1999)
Programming Language Pragmatics
C. Koomen (1991)
Calculus of Communicating Systems
S. Ceri (2005)
Process modeling in Web applications
Faculty of Information Technology
YAWL Editor 1.5 User Manual
S. Ambler (2004)
The Object Primer: Agile Model-Driven Development with UML 2.0
F. Casati, S. Castano, M. Fugini, I. Mirbel, B. Pernici (2000)
Using Patterns to Design Rules in WorkflowsIEEE Trans. Software Eng., 26
WfMC
Workflow Management Coalition Terminology and Glossary (WfMC‐TC‐1011, Issue 3.0)
C. Ouyang, M. Dumas, A. Hofstede, Wil Aalst (2008)
Pattern-Based Translation of BPMN Process Models to BPEL Web ServicesInt. J. Web Serv. Res., 5
OMG
Business Process Definition MetaModel (BPDM), Beta 1, dtc/07‐07‐01
J. Bang-Jensen, Gregory Gutin (2002)
Digraphs - theory, algorithms and applications
B. Henderson-Sellers, M. Serour, T. McBride, Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, L. Dagher (2004)
Process Construction and CustomizationJ. Univers. Comput. Sci., 10
Wil Aalst, T. Basten (2002)
Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to changeTheoretical Computer Science, 270
Wil Aalst (2005)
Pi calculus versus petri nets: let us eat humble pie rather than further inflate the Pi hype, 5
O. Sawy (2001)
Redesigning Enterprise Processes for E-Business
M. Bernardo, P. Ciancarini, L. Donatiello (2002)
Architecting families of software systems with process algebrasACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11
Wil Aalst (1998)
The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow ManagementJ. Circuits Syst. Comput., 8
J. Bergstra, J. Klop (1984)
Process Algebra for Synchronous CommunicationInf. Control., 60
Rob Davis, Eric Brabnder (2007)
ARIS Design Platform: Getting Started with BPM
A. Bonner, M. Kifer (1994)
An Overview of Transaction LogicTheor. Comput. Sci., 133
Anonymous
ARIS design platform
A. Scheer (1998)
ARIS - Business Process Frameworks
Ellen Monk, Bret Wagner (2001)
Concepts in Enterprise Resource Planning
A. Basu, R. Blanning (2000)
A Formal Approach to Workflow AnalysisInf. Syst. Res., 11
OMG
Unified Modeling Language, Version 1.5, formal/03‐03‐01
T. Malone, Kevin Crowston, George Herman (2003)
Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook, 1
WfMC
Audit Data Specification (WFMC‐TC‐1015, Version 1.1.)
Henry Bi (2004)
Process Logic for Verifying the Correctness of Business Process Models
Mark Elson (1973)
Concepts of programming languages
Wil Aalst, A. Hofstede (2005)
YAWL: yet another workflow languageInf. Syst., 30
T. Davenport (1992)
Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology
P. Carstensen, K. Schmidt (1999)
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: New challenges to systems design
S. Jablonski (1996)
Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation
R. Milner (1999)
Communicating and mobile systems - the Pi-calculus
R. Milner
A Calculus of Communicating Systems, LNCS 92
T. Curran, Andrew Ladd (1999)
SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding Enterprise Supply Chain Management
H. Levesque, F. Pirri, R. Reiter (1998)
Foundations for the Situation CalculusElectron. Trans. Artif. Intell., 2
A. Basu, Akhil Kumar (2002)
Research Commentary: Workflow Management Issues in e-BusinessInf. Syst. Res., 13
A. Scheer (1998)
ARIS - Business Process Modeling
OMG
Workflow Management Facility Specification, V1.2. Reprinted with permission
WfMC
Workflow Management Application Programming Interface (Interface 2&3) Specification (WFMC‐TC‐1009, Version 2.0)
R. Kowalski, M. Sergot (1989)
A logic-based calculus of eventsNew Generation Computing, 4
Henry Bi (2008)
Toward an Algebra for Manipulating Process Models
A.B. Webber
Modern Programming Languages: A Practical Introduction
P. Grefen, B. Pernici, G. Sanchez (2012)
Database Support for Workflow Management: The WIDE Project
Rik Eshuis (2006)
Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagramsACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 15
J. Baeten, W. Weijland (1990)
Process algebra, 18
H.H. Bi, J.L. Zhao
Process logic for verifying the correctness of business process models (extended abstract)
C. Ellis, Karim Keddara, G. Rozenberg (1995)
Dynamic change within workflow systems
Purpose – Although software systems used to automate business processes have been becoming rather advanced, the existing practice of developing and modifying graphical process models in those software systems is still primitive: users have to manually add, change, or delete each node and arc piece by piece. Since such manual operations are typically tedious, time‐consuming, and prone to errors, it is desirable to develop an alternative approach. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, a novel, human‐understandable process manipulation language (PML) for specifying operations (e.g. insertion, deletion, merging, and split) on process models is developed. A prototype system to demonstrate PML is also developed. Findings – The paper finds that manipulation operations on process models can be standardized and, thus, can be facilitated and automated through using a structured language like PML. Originality/value – PML can improve manipulation operations on process models over the existing manual approach in two aspects: first, using PML, users only need to specify what operations are to be performed on process models, and then a computer carries out specified operations as well as performs other routine operations (e.g. generating nodes and arcs). This feature minimizes user effort to deal with low‐level details on nodes and arcs. Second, using PML, users can systematically specify operations on process models, thus reducing arbitrary operations and problems in process models.
Business Process Management Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jul 27, 2010
Keywords: Computer software; Operations management; Machine oriented languages; Process planning
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.