@phdthesis{Polyvyanyy2012,
  author    = {Polyvyanyy, Artem},
  title     = {Structuring process models},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59024},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {One can fairly adopt the ideas of Donald E. Knuth to conclude that process modeling is both a science and an art. Process modeling does have an aesthetic sense. Similar to composing an opera or writing a novel, process modeling is carried out by humans who undergo creative practices when engineering a process model. Therefore, the very same process can be modeled in a myriad number of ways. Once modeled, processes can be analyzed by employing scientific methods. Usually, process models are formalized as directed graphs, with nodes representing tasks and decisions, and directed arcs describing temporal constraints between the nodes. Common process definition languages, such as Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) and Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) allow process analysts to define models with arbitrary complex topologies. The absence of structural constraints supports creativity and productivity, as there is no need to force ideas into a limited amount of available structural patterns. Nevertheless, it is often preferable that models follow certain structural rules. A well-known structural property of process models is (well-)structuredness. A process model is (well-)structured if and only if every node with multiple outgoing arcs (a split) has a corresponding node with multiple incoming arcs (a join), and vice versa, such that the set of nodes between the split and the join induces a single-entry-single-exit (SESE) region; otherwise the process model is unstructured. The motivations for well-structured process models are manifold: (i) Well-structured process models are easier to layout for visual representation as their formalizations are planar graphs. (ii) Well-structured process models are easier to comprehend by humans. (iii) Well-structured process models tend to have fewer errors than unstructured ones and it is less probable to introduce new errors when modifying a well-structured process model. (iv) Well-structured process models are better suited for analysis with many existing formal techniques applicable only for well-structured process models. (v) Well-structured process models are better suited for efficient execution and optimization, e.g., when discovering independent regions of a process model that can be executed concurrently. Consequently, there are process modeling languages that encourage well-structured modeling, e.g., Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) and ADEPT. However, the well-structured process modeling implies some limitations: (i) There exist processes that cannot be formalized as well-structured process models. (ii) There exist processes that when formalized as well-structured process models require a considerable duplication of modeling constructs. Rather than expecting well-structured modeling from start, we advocate for the absence of structural constraints when modeling. Afterwards, automated methods can suggest, upon request and whenever possible, alternative formalizations that are "better" structured, preferably well-structured. In this thesis, we study the problem of automatically transforming process models into equivalent well-structured models. The developed transformations are performed under a strong notion of behavioral equivalence which preserves concurrency. The findings are implemented in a tool, which is publicly available.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{SchneiderSchroederEsselbach2012,
  author    = {Schneider, Anne-Kathrin and Schr{\"o}der-Esselbach, Boris},
  title     = {Perspectives in modelling earthworm dynamics and their feedbacks with abiotic soil properties},
  series = {Applied soil ecology : a section of agriculture, ecosystems \& environment},
  volume    = {58},
  journal   = {Applied soil ecology : a section of agriculture, ecosystems \& environment},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0929-1393},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.02.020},
  pages     = {29 -- 36},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Effects of earthworms on soil abiotic properties are well documented from several decades of laboratory and mesocosm experiments, and they are supposed to affect large-scale soil ecosystem functioning. The prediction of the spatiotemporal occurrence of earthworms and the related functional effects in the field or at larger scales, however, is constrained by adequate modelling approaches. Correlative, phenomenological methods, such as species distribution models, facilitate the identification of factors that drive species' distributions. However, these methods ignore the ability of earthworms to select and modify their own habitat and therefore may lead to unreliable predictions. Understanding these feedbacks between earthworms and abiotic soil properties is a key requisite to better understand their spatiotemporal distribution as well as to quantify the various functional effects of earthworms in soil ecosystems. Process-based models that investigate either effects or responses of earthworms on soil environmental conditions are mostly applied in ecotoxicological and bioturbation studies. Process-based models that describe feedbacks between earthworms and soil abiotic properties explicitly are rare. In this review, we analysed 18 process-based earthworm dynamic modelling studies pointing out the current gaps and future challenges in feedback modelling. We identify three main challenges: (i) adequate and reliable process identification in model development at and across relevant spatiotemporal scales (individual behaviour and population dynamics of earthworms), (ii) use of information from different data sources in one model (laboratory or field experiments, earthworm species or functional type) and (iii) quantification of uncertainties in data (e.g. spatiotemporal variability of earthworm abundances and soil hydraulic properties) and derived parameters (e.g. population growth rate and hydraulic conductivity) that are used in the model.},
  language  = {en}
}