Keynotes
The following keynotes have been given at BPMN 2010.- Unraveling Unstructured BPMN Models
Prof. Dr. Marlon Dumas
A BPMN process models is well-structured if for every split there is a corresponding join such that the set of nodes between the split and the join form a single-entry-single-exit region. In other words, a well-structured BPMN model is composed of nested blocks. Well-structuredness is a desirable property for at least two reasons.
First, it has been shown that well-structured process models are easier to comprehend and less error-prone than unstructured ones. Secondly, several process model analysis techniques only work for structured models. However, many process models found in practice are not well-structured, and it is not always feasible or even desirable to restrict process modelers to produce only well-structured models. An alternative to forcing modelers to produce well-structured process models, is to automatically transform unstructured models into well-structured ones when needed. This talk will present the initial results of an ongoing research effort aimed at designing a complete method for transforming a BPMN process model with an arbitrary topology into an equivalent well-structured process model.
- BPEL vs. BPMN 2.0: Should You Care?
Prof. Dr. Frank Leymann
BPMN 2.0 is an executable process modeling language. Thus, its relation to BPEL becomes an issue. In this talk, we propose a positioning of both languages, introduce the notion of a "native metamodel", and emphasize the role of the native metamodel of a process engine for the actual discussion.
- An Overview of BPMN 2.0 and its Potential Use
Dr. Hagen Völzer
BPMN 2.0 defines a rich notation and modeling language that can be used in different ways and different scenarios. For example, one company could use BPMN to model their internal processes in order to analyze and improve them. Another company could use BPMN to model their interaction with business partners within a particular supply chain. A third company might use BPMN to define their fully or partially automated production workflow that is executed by a powerful execution engine.
In the talk, we will give an overview of such scenarios and the corresponding modeling elements that are used in these scenarios. Not all of these scenarios will be supported by every BPMN tool. This is reflected by the fact that the BPMN 2.0 specification provides different conformance classes to suit specific scenarios. The specification defines Process Modeling Conformance, Process Execution Conformance, BPEL Process Execution Conformance and Choreography Modeling Conformance. Process Modeling Conformance is subdivided along different classes of process diagrams, into Descriptive, Analytic and Common Executable. In the talk, we will also relate these conformance classes to the various uses of BPMN. (Slides available upon request from Hagen Völzer)
Workshop Sessions
13 October 2010Session 1: Process Modelling (Chair: Jan Mendling)
- 14:45-15:15. Jana Koehler. The Role of BPMN in a Modeling Methodology for Dynamic BPM Solutions
- 15:15-15:45 Stefan Krumnow and Gero Decker. A concept for spreadsheet based process modeling
Session 2: Process Execution (Chair: Mathias Weske)
- 16:15-16:45. Remco Dijkman and Pieter Van Gorp. BPMN 2.0 Execution Semantics Formalized as Graph Rewrite Rules
- 16:45-17:15. Steffen Kunz, Tobias Fickinger, Johannes Prescher, and Klaus Spengler. Managing Complex-Event Processes with BPMN
14 October 2010
Session 3: Model Organisation (Chair: Mathias Weske)
- 10:00-10:30. Emilian Pascalau and Clemens Rath. Managing Business Process Variants @ eBay
- 10:30-11:00. Philip Effinger, Nicole Jogsch, and Sandra Seiz. On A Study of Layout Aesthetics for Business Process Models using BPMN
Session 4: Applications (Chair: Matthias Weidlich)
- 11:30-11:50. Victoria Torres, Pau Giner, Begoña Bonet, and Vicente Pelechano. Adapting BPMN to Public Administration
- 11:50-12:10. Zhiqiang Yan, Hajo A. Reijers, and Remco Dijkman. An Evaluation of BPMN Modeling Tools
- 12:10-12:30. Maria Rastrepkina. Managing Variability in Process Models by Structural Decomposition