@unpublished{WeskeYangMaglio2012,
  author    = {Weske, Mathias and Yang, Jian and Maglio, Paul P.},
  title     = {Special issue service oriented computing (ICSOC) guest editors' introduction},
  series = {International journal of cooperative information systems},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {International journal of cooperative information systems},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {World Scientific},
  address   = {Singapore},
  issn      = {0218-8430},
  doi       = {10.1142/S0218843012020017},
  pages     = {1 -- 2},
  year      = {2012},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeidlichMendlingWeske2012,
  author    = {Weidlich, Matthias and Mendling, Jan and Weske, Mathias},
  title     = {Propagating changes between aligned process models},
  series = {The journal of systems and software},
  volume    = {85},
  journal   = {The journal of systems and software},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0164-1212},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.044},
  pages     = {1885 -- 1898},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {There is a wide variety of drivers for business process modelling initiatives, reaching from organisational redesign to the development of information systems. Consequently, a common business process is often captured in multiple models that overlap in content due to serving different purposes. Business process management aims at flexible adaptation to changing business needs. Hence, changes of business processes occur frequently and have to be incorporated in the respective process models. Once a process model is changed, related process models have to be updated accordingly, despite the fact that those process models may only be loosely coupled. In this article, we introduce an approach that supports change propagation between related process models. Given a change in one process model, we leverage the behavioural abstraction of behavioural profiles for corresponding activities in order to determine a change region in another model. Our approach is able to cope with changes in pairs of models that are not related by hierarchical refinement and show behavioural inconsistencies. We evaluate the applicability of our approach with two real-world process model collections. To this end, we either deduce change operations from different model revisions or rely on synthetic change operations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@unpublished{DumasReckerWeske2012,
  author    = {Dumas, Marlon and Recker, Jan and Weske, Mathias},
  title     = {Management and engineering of process-aware information systems: Introduction to the special issue},
  series = {INFORMATION SYSTEMS},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {INFORMATION SYSTEMS},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD},
  address   = {OXFORD},
  issn      = {0306-4379},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.is.2011.09.003},
  pages     = {77 -- 79},
  year      = {2012},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LuebbeWeske2012,
  author    = {Luebbe, Alexander and Weske, Mathias},
  title     = {Determining the effect of tangible business process modeling},
  year      = {2012},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeidlichDijkmanWeske2012,
  author    = {Weidlich, Matthias and Dijkman, Remco and Weske, Mathias},
  title     = {Behaviour equivalence and compatibility of business process models with complex correspondences},
  series = {The computer journal : a publication of the British Computer Society},
  volume    = {55},
  journal   = {The computer journal : a publication of the British Computer Society},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0010-4620},
  doi       = {10.1093/comjnl/bxs014},
  pages     = {1398 -- 1418},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Once multiple models of a business process are created for different purposes or to capture different variants, verification of behaviour equivalence or compatibility is needed. Equivalence verification ensures that two business process models specify the same behaviour. Since different process models are likely to differ with respect to their assumed level of abstraction and the actions that they take into account, equivalence notions have to cope with correspondences between sets of actions and actions that exist in one process but not in the other. In this paper, we present notions of equivalence and compatibility that can handle these problems. In essence, we present a notion of equivalence that works on correspondences between sets of actions rather than single actions. We then integrate our equivalence notion with work on behaviour inheritance that copes with actions that exist in one process but not in the other, leading to notions of behaviour compatibility. Compatibility notions verify that two models have the same behaviour with respect to the actions that they have in common. As such, our contribution is a collection of behaviour equivalence and compatibility notions that are applicable in more general settings than existing ones.},
  language  = {en}
}