BPMN Model Interchange

The Quest for Interoperability

Abstract. BPMN is the prevalent standard for modeling business processes. In

order to facilitate working with BPMN processes, businesses must be able to
exchange process models across tools from various vendors. The BPMN Inter-
change Working Group (BPMN MIWG) which is part of the Object Manage-
ment Group’s (OMG) effort to improve model interchange proposes a demon-
stration showcasing the current state of interoperability of BPMN processes by
conducting a series of imports, refinements, and exports across tools from sev-
eral vendors.

1 Introduction

With the increasing adoption of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [1],
businesses are more and more using tools supporting BPMN. In order to avoid recre-
ating processes for each tool, it is imperative to have a standard format for exchanging
processes modeled using BPMN [2, 3]. This includes not only being able to export
processes from one modeling tool to the next but also from modeling tools used by
business users to more complex execution environments which provide automation or
analytical capabilities.
This article first introduces the capabilities and current limitations of interchange
of BPMN processes. Sections 2 and 3 introduce the BPMN Model Interchange Work-
ing Group (BPMN MIWG) along with its activities and results. Based on this back-
ground information, section 5 introduces the planned demonstration which showcases
the stepwise exchange and refinement of BPMN processes across tools from multiple
vendors.

2 Interchange Capabilities1

In BPMN 2.0, processes comprise two aspects: (1) Process models contain the seman-
tics and (2) Process diagrams store the visual representation of the process models. In
order to exchange processes between tools, both aspects have to be contained in a
BPMN file storing both the model and the diagram. Beyond the semantic richness
introduced with the latest version, BPMN 2.0 defines standardized formats for creat-
ing XML files which contain both aspects. This allows exchanging BPMN processes
between tools of different vendors.
Mirroring the two aspects of BPMN processes, these XML BPMN files comprise
two parts: (1) One or more process models containing the semantics and (2) One or
more process diagrams store the visual representation of the process models. In the

1
This article is based in parts on [3] and [2]. Particularly, sections 2 and 3 are taken from [3].

adfa, p. 1, 2011.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
BPMN specification, this latter part is referred to as BPMN Diagram Interchange
(BPMN DI).
BPMN 2.0 offers two XML formats for storing BPMN processes: (1) A format de-
fined using XML Schema Definition (XSD) and (2) a format defined using XML
Metadata Interchange (XMI). Both formats provide essentially the same expressive
power. However, with the XSD-based format being more popular, this demonstration
focuses on the XSD-based format.

3 Interchange Limitations

Even though the BPMN 2.0 Diagram Interchange supports exchanging BPMN pro-
cess models, there are still currently some limitations on the success of interchange.
The BPMN Diagram Interchange (BPMN DI) provides mechanisms for specifying
the basic visual layout of BPMN diagrams. However, the BPMN DI provides no
mechanisms for the following aspects of a BPMN diagram (as they are intentionally
not covered by BPMN 2.0 specification): (1) Colors of shapes and text, (2) Shape
decorations like shadows, gradients, or backgrounds, (3) Text wrapping, and (4)
Thickness (in pixels) and style of the lines. Therefore, the same BPMN diagram may
be rendered somewhat differently in different tools without violating BPMN compli-
ance.
Besides the visual aspects of process diagrams, there are some semantic aspects
(i.e. places where BPMN specification left room for selecting way to add implementa-
tion related details e.g. several languages with different semantics can be used) which
are also not covered by BPMN interchangeability. First, elements that are specified in
BPMN models using proprietary extensions may cause problems when exchanging
these models between tools. Among others, this includes: (1) The script of a script
task, (2) the implementation of a user task, and (3) the implementation of a global
user task. Furthermore, elements that are not contained within but referred to by a
process model are not guaranteed to be interchangeable. This primarily applies to web
services which are referenced by service tasks, send tasks and receive tasks.
BPMN allows tool vendors to add proprietary information to the XML serialization
of a BPMN process model using vendor-specific extensions. This is particularly
useful for business process management systems (BPMS) that may require additional
information (e.g. information about forms shown to users for a specific task). Alt-
hough extension elements are a standard way to add proprietary information to a
BPMN file, this added information is vendor-specific. Therefore, users cannot expect
that information contained in extension elements will always be uniformly interpreted
by different tools.

4 BPMN MIWG

Even though the BPMN 2.0 specification contains definitions for the diagram inter-
change, practice showed that in some cases there are ambiguities or even contradic-
tions in the specification document, and there was no “single source of truth”. Be-
cause of this, various tool vendors interpret parts of the specification differently and
thus tool implementations of the BPMN standard varies. Also, different vendors
choose to implement different subsets, without a commonly agreed upon conformance
sub-classes or “basic subsets” of BPMN.
In order to resolve this problem, the BPMN Model Interchange Working Group
(BPMN MIWG) was set up as a part of OMG [4]. Being a joint effort of many ven-
dors interested in diagram interchange, the initiative's goal is to guide and support
vendors in creating standard-compliant BPMN tools, identify issues in the BPMN
specification, and facilitate model interchange. The group's guiding principles are:
transparency, inclusion, collaboration, and openness.
The BPMN MWIG currently provides eight carefully designed test cases for test-
ing the interchange of BPMN processes. As these test cases encompass an increasing
degree of complexity based on the BPMN conformance levels defined in [5], they
allow vendors to increase the interchange of their tools step by step.
Using these test cases on a regular basis is sometimes a time-consuming task. In
order to reduce the amount of time for identifying potential interoperability, parts of
these test cases can be checked automatically by using open source tools provided by
BPMN MIWG [6].
In order to spread out the word about the relevancy, capabilities, and limitations of
BPMN interchange, the BPMN MIWG initiates and maintains a number of activities:

 It actively contacts and invites tool vendors to participate in the common effort.
 It conducts own tests of a selection of tools. These results are then published in a
publicly available issue tracker (cf. [7])2.
 It educates practitioners about BPMN interchange. An important example for this
is the OMG Certified Expert in BPM (OCEB) curriculum which now includes [2]
as a recommended reading.
 It develops proposals for the upcoming BPMN revision based on the experience
gained during conducting tests with various tools (cf. [8]). These proposals aim at
clarifying interoperability issues but do not suggest fundamental changes to
BPMN.
 It participates in major BPMN and BPMN events and conferences. This paper is an
example of these activities.

5 Demonstration

In the proposed demonstration, representatives from multiple tool vendors which

participate in the BPMN MIWG joint effort will incrementally open, extend, and
export BPMN process models in their respective tools. That way, the demonstration
will give an insight in the degree of interchange which is already possible using
commercial and open source tools.

2
Please note that the number of issues for a given tool allows no to infer the level of BPMN
compatibility directly. Instead, a large number of issues for a given tool usually indicates
that a tool is thoroughly tested.
 The demonstration will comprise three phases. Following the structure of the
BPMN MIWG test cases, each phase will focus on different aspects on BPMN inter-
change:

 The Diagram Interchange demo aims to show that the vendors can interchange a
BPMN diagram (image).
This demo consists of progressively building the diagram from to tool to tool.
Starting with a blank page and finishing with a completed BPMN diagram.
 The Hidden Attribute demo aims to show that tools can interchange BPMN attrib-
utes that are not visible in the diagram but nonetheless part of the BPMN Model,
and that hidden attributes entered from other tools are maintained during the inter-
change.
This demo will start with a completed BPMN diagram, and then each tool will add
hidden attributes to it. Each tool will show that the attribute(s) from the previous
tool(s) are maintained before passing it to the next tool.
 The Execution demo aims to show that tools can interchange executable BPMN
models while maintaining all hidden and extended attributes without compromis-
ing the execution of the model
Starting with a BPMN model that contains all executable parameters of various ex-
ecution engines, modeling tools will one after the other change the name of task
before passing the model to the next tool. This will showcase that although the
model was modified the execution capability is preserved. At the end various exe-
cution engines will execute the model in parallel. Each execution engine will show
the completion of a different specific task of the same model.

Table 1 provides an overview about which tools and vendors will be showcased

Table 1. Demonstration schedule

Tool Diagram Hidden Execution

Interchange Attribute
ADONIS (BOC Group) X X X
camunda bpmn.io X X X
camunda Modeler X X X
Signavio Process Editor X X X
Trisotech BPMN Modeler X X X
Trisotech BPMN Visio-Add-In X X X
W4 BPMN+ X X X
YaoQiang X X

6 Findings

The preparation for this demonstration as provided mixed experiences.

First, it is shown that interoperability between tools is already possible even for
non-trivial processes. Particularly the challenging execution interchange demonstra-
tion shows that also the subsequent construction of executable business processes
using several BPMN tools is possible.
On the other hand, the amount of preparation necessary suggests there is still a
good way to go. During preparation, several bugs had to be ironed out by the vendors
before being able the run this demonstration successfully. However, the fact that most
of these bugs were rather minor indicates that there are already several tools available
on the market which have no fundamental problems in exchanging even executable
business processes.

7 Conclusion and Outlook

With the ever-increasing relevancy of BPMN, it becomes more and more important to
share and exchanges processes across organizations and tools. BPMN already pro-
vides a solid foundation for exchanging BPMN processes. However, due to the ex-
pressive power and the resulting complexity of BPMN, many aspects are unclear and
non-obvious interchange issues arise. Therefore, using carefully designed test cases
helps in finding theses aspects.
A number of proposals for the further development of BPMN have been created.
These proposals have the potential to improve the interoperability of BPMN business
processes substantially. However, during the design process of BPMN, several key
decisions have been made. For example, model elements like expressions are inten-
tionally not standardized in order to ensure BPMN applies to a wide area of scenarios.
As these decisions are the result of a carefully crafted compromise between interoper-
ability and flexibility, this type of limitation is likely to stay for the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, the BPMN MIWG initiated an ongoing process for developing test
cases, methods, and tools which assist both vendors in improving the compatibility
across tools. The interoperability demonstrations are a good indicator that this process
already provides substantial benefits for the BPM and BPMN community.
BPMN MIWG is an open group. All interested parties – and particularly solution
developers – are very much invited to contribute towards better BPMN Interoperabil-
ity. Similarly, academic research projects and companies interested in BPMN inter-
change are invited to contribute to this effort as well.

References
1. Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: Business Process Modeling Survey. December 2011. BPTrends
(2011). http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/surveys/Process_Modeling_Survey-
Dec_11_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 1 January 2014
2. Kurz, M., Menge, F., Misiak, Z.: Diagram Interchangeability in BPMN 2. Recommended
reading for the OCEB 2 BPMN 2 certification program (2014). http://www.omg.org/oceb-
2/documents/BPMN_Interchange.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2015
3. Bonnet, F., Decker, G., Dugan, L., Kurz, M., Misiak, Z., Ringuette, S.: Making BPMN a
true lingua franca. BPTrends (2014). http://www.bptrends.com/making-bpmn-a-true-lingua-
franca/. Accessed 22 May 2015
4. BPMN MIWG: BPMN MIWG Website (2015). http://www.omgwiki.org/bpmn-miwg/.
Accessed 22 May 2015
5. Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), 2nd
edn.(formal/2011-01-03). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF/ (2011). Accessed 13
July 2013
6. BPMN MIWG: BPMN MIWG Automated Tools. Start Page (2015).
https://github.com/bpmn-miwg/bpmn-miwg-tools. Accessed 22 May 2015
7. BPMN MIWG: List of Issues provided by BPMN MIWG (2015). https://github.com/bpmn-
miwg/bpmn-miwg-tools/issues. Accessed 22 May 2015
8. BPMN MIWG: List of proposals for the BPMN RTF (2015). https://github.com/bpmn-
miwg/bpmn-miwg-test-
suite/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Proposal+for+RTF%22. Accessed
22 May 2015