1 / 12

Comparing Declarative and Imperative Workflow Models: DCRS and BPMN Analysis

This presentation by Raghava Rao Mukkamala explores the distinctions between declarative and imperative workflow models, particularly focusing on Dynamic Condition-Response Structures (DCRS) and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, with real-world applications illustrated through the "Get Sick" example. The author reviews process behavior, design patterns in BPMN and DCRS, challenges in specification semantics, and proposes future enhancements including role and access rights, data integration, and exception handling.

lavonn
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing Declarative and Imperative Workflow Models: DCRS and BPMN Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Declarative Workflow as Dynamic Condition-Response Structures and the Resultmaker Process Matrix Raghava Rao Mukkamala PhD student, TrustCare Project Supervisor: Thomas Hildebrandt I T University of Copenhagen 2009-12-07

  2. Overview • BPMN Flow Chart – Get Sick example • Imperative verses Declarative • Dynamic Condition Response Structures (DCRS) • BPMN and DCRS comparison • Future work

  3. BPMN Flow chart – Get Sick example • GS, CD, PM, TM, GH • GS, CD, OT, RR, ER , PM, TM, GH • GS, GH • GS, TM, GH • GS, CD, GH

  4. BPMN Flow chart – Get Sick example updated • GS, CD, PM, TM, GH • GS, CD, OT, RR, ER , PM, TM, GH • GS, GH • GS, TM, GH • GS, CD, TM, GH • GS, CD, GH • GS, TM, CD • GS, CD, OT, RR, ER, CD

  5. Imperative verses Declarative • Imperative models (e.g. Flow charts) • Good for Processes with static behaviors and no deviations • Too rigid, impose a strictly pre-defined execution procedure • Specify “How” the process should behave, so over specification • Declarative Models • Specify “What” results a model should produce, instead of “How” • Start with all possible flows, restrict with constraints to get desired behavior • Suitable for rapidly evolving processes and dynamic changes

  6. BPMN Ad Hoc Process • No clear semantics in BPMN specification. • Not implemented by many vendors + Completion condition

  7. Dynamic Condition-Response Structures (DCRS)

  8. Dynamic Condition-Response Structures (DCRS) • GS, GH • GS, TM, GH • GS, CD, [OT, RR ]*, ER , GH • GS, CD, [OT, RR ], GH

  9. BPMN and DCRS comparison Sequence Pattern in BPMN Sequence Pattern in DCRS (using dynamic include/exclude) Sequence Pattern in DCRS (using succession)

  10. BPMN and DCRS comparison Exclusive Choice Pattern in BPMN Exclusive choice Pattern in DCRS

  11. BPMN and DCRS comparison Structured Loop Pattern in BPMN Structured Loop Pattern in DCRS

  12. Future work • Add Roles & Acess rights • Add Time and Data • Add Exception & compensation • Continue modelling workflow patterns • Integrate with Pervasive User Interfaces • Thank You • Questions and Comments

More Related