xoEPC - Jan Mendling

3.4. EPC Semantics 63
mann propose a transformation semantics for EPCs based on YAWL [MMN06a], we will
discuss how the OR-join behavior is formalized in YAWL. In [AH05], the authors pro-
pose a definition of the transition relation R(P ) with a reference to a second transition
relation P that ignores all OR-joins. A similar semantics that is calculated on history-
logs of the process is proposed by Van Hee, Oanea, Serebrenik, Sidorova, and Voorhoeve
in [HOS + 06]. The consequence of this definition can be illustrated using the example
EPCs.
• Figure 3.6(a): The single OR-join on the loop can fire.
• Figure 3.6(b): The two OR-joins on the loop can fire.
• Figure 3.7: The three OR-joins on the loop can fire.
• Figure 3.8(a): The OR-join c2 must wait for the second token between e3 and f3.
• Figure 3.8(b): Both OR-joins can fire.
• Figure 3.9(a): The OR-join c1 must wait for the second token between e3 and f3.
• Figure 3.9(b): Both OR-joins can fire.
Kindler criticizes that each choice for defining P “appears to be arbitrary or ad hoc in
some way” [Kin06] and uses the pair (P, Q) instead. The example EPCs illustrate that
the original YAWL semantics provide for a limited degree of synchronization. Consider,
for example, the vicious circle EPC with three OR-joins: all are allowed to fire, but if
one does, the subsequent OR-join has to wait. Furthermore, the refined EPCs exhibit
different behavior from their unrefined counterparts since OR-joins are ignored, i.e. they
are considered unable to fire.
Wynn, Edmond, Van der Aalst, and Ter Hofstede illustrate that the OR-join semantics
in YAWL exhibit some non-intuitive behavior when OR-joins depend upon each other
[WEAH05]. Therefore, they present a novel approach based on a mapping to Reset nets.
Whether or not an OR-join can fire (i.e. R(P )), is determined depending on (a) a cor-
responding Reset net (i.e. P ) that treats all OR-joins as XOR-joins 3 , and (b) a predicate
3 In fact, [WEAH05] proposes two alternative treatments for the “other OR-joins” when evaluating an
OR-join: treat them either as XOR-joins (optimistic) or as AND-joins (pessimistic). However, the authors
select the optimistic variant because the XOR-join treatment of other OR-joins more closely match the
informal semantics of the OR-join.