![](bg8.png)
processes artifacts and their implementations which
can be BPEL processes, etc.The main concept of our
approach is implemented by a set of tools integrated
as ECLIPSE plug-ins. These plugins are parts of a
more general integrated framework which is built to
deal with the software artifacts change impact propa-
gations.
We are continuing the work by enriching the ap-
proach, in a more detailed way, with the different kind
of mapping relationships related to the BPM artifacts
and their implementation. The main goal is to be
able to automatically track the change impact prop-
agation. To achieve this, we must explicitly represent
knowledge concerningthe semantic of BPM elements
and their relationships. We are then using the BPMN
ontology(Penicina, 2013) that is expressed using the
owl language(Motik et al., 2012). We plan to en-
rich this ontology by concepts representing the var-
ious aspects of change impact and the relationships
propagating such impacts. The use of the owl lan-
guage makes it possible to define, in an explicit way,
the relationship hierarchy based on the impact prop-
agation. It is also possible to explicitly define some
semantical characteristics of relationships like transi-
tivity, etc. The reasoning capabilities provided by the
ontology languages(like owl) may assist the change
experts to define change impact rules.
Another goal is to provide some forward and re-
verse engineering tools in order to implement some
important tasks like defining flexible and adaptable
tools for the generation of BPM implementations and
some others for the generation of BPMs from the pro-
cess implementations.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, A. and Basson, H. (2009). Software evolution mod-
elling: an approach for change impact analysis. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Frontiers of Information Technology, FIT ’09, pages
56:1–56:4, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Ahmad, A., Basson, H., and Bouneffa, M. (2008a). Soft-
ware evolution control: Towards a better identifica-
tion of change impact propagation. In ICET’08: Pro-
ceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on
Emerging Technologies, pages 286–291. IEEE Com-
puter Society.
Ahmad, A., Basson, H., and Bouneffa, M. (2009). Rule-
based approach for software evolution management.
In IEEE APSSC 2009: IEEE Asia-Pacific Services
Computing Conference.
Ahmad, A., Basson, H., Deruelle, L., and Bouneffa, M.
(2008b). Towards a better control of change impact
propagation. In INMIC’08: 12th IEEE International
Multitopic Conference, pages 398–404. IEEE Com-
puter Society.
Allweyer, T. (2010). BPMN 2.0 : Introduction to the Stan-
dard for Business Process Modeling. Books on De-
mand, Norderstedt.
Dadam, P., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Jurisch, M., Acker,
H., Pser, K. G. A., Kreher, U., and Lauer, M. (2007).
Adept2 - next generation process management tech-
nology. In Proceedings Fourth Heidelberg Innovation
Forum, Aachen. D.punkt Verlag.
DeRemer, F. and Kron, H. (1975). Programming-in-the
large versus programming-in-the-small. SIGPLAN
Not., 10(6):114–121.
Dumas, P., Charbonnel, G., and Calmes, F. (1990). La
m´ethode OSSAD - Pour maˆıtriser les technologies de
l’information - Tome 2: Guide pratique, Les Editions
d’Organisation, Paris.
Emig, C., Momm, C., Weisser, J., and Abeck, S. (2005).
Programming in the Large based on the Business
Process Modeling Notation. In Jahrestagung der
Gesellschaft f¨ur Informatik (GI), Bonn.
Gottschalk, K., Graham, S., Kreger, H., and Snell, J. (2002).
Introduction to web services architecture. IBM Syst.
J., 41:170–177.
Haller, A., Gaaloul, W., and Marmolowski, M. (2008). To-
wards an xpdl compliant process ontology. In SER-
VICES I, pages 83–86.
Juric, M. B. (2006). Business Process Execution Language
for Web Services BPEL and BPEL4WS 2nd Edition.
Packt Publishing.
Lee, Y.-C., Chu, P.-Y., and Tseng, H.-L. (2011). Corpo-
rate performance of ict-enabled business process re-
engineering. Industrial Management and Data Sys-
tems, 111(5).
M. O., H., Deruelle, L., Basson, H., and Ahmad, A. (2010).
A change propagation process for distributed software
architecture. In ENASE 2010: Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Ap-
proaches to Software Engineering.
Motik, B., Grau, B. C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A.,
and Lutz, C. (2012). Owl 2 web ontology language:
Profiles. w3c recommendation (27 october 2009).
OMG (2011). Business process model and notation
(bpmn) version 2.0. OMG Document Number: for-
mal/ 2011-01-03, Standard document URL: http://
www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0 Accessed 2011-03-18.
Parmenter, D. (2007). Key Performance Indicators (KPI):
Developing, Implementing,and Using Winning KPIs.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
Penicina, L. (2013). Choosing a bpmn 2.0 compatible up-
per ontology. In The 5th International Conference on
Information, Process, and Knowledge Management,,
pages 89 – 96, Nice, France. IARIA.
Rajlich, V. (1997). A model for change propagation based
on graph rewriting. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Software Maintenance, pages
84–91, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer So-
ciety.
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
44