Skip to main content

On the design of ontology-driven workflow flexibilization mechanisms


Workflow management systems usually interpret a workflow definition rigidly. However, there are real life situations where users should be allowed to deviate from the prescribed static workflow definition for various reasons, including lack of information and unavailability of the required resources. To flexibilize workflow execution, this paper first proposes mechanisms that allow execution to proceed in the presence of incomplete information, by adopting presuppositions, and in the presence of negative information, by suggesting execution alternatives. Then, the paper presents an architecture for a workflow system, driven by ontologies that capture semantic relationships between workflows and resources. The architecture includes a component which uses matching techniques to find alternatives for workflows and resources.


  1. Gustavo Alonso, Divyakant Agrawal, Amr El Abbadi, and C. Mohan. Functionality and Limitations of Current Workflow Management Systems.IEEE Expert, 2(5), 1997.

  2. Gustavo Alonso and Hans-Joerg Schek. Research Issues in Large Workflow Management Systems. Technical Report 1996PA-as96-nsfws, Institute for Information Systems, Switzerland, April 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Valeria De Antonellis, Michele Melchiori, and Pierluigi Plebani. An Approach to Web Service Compatibility in Cooperative Processes. In2003 Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT’03 Workshops), pages 95–100, Orlando, Florida, January 2003. IEEE.

  4. Ilia Bider and Maxim Khomyakov. Is it Possible to Make Workflow Management Systems Flexible? Dynamical Systems Approach to Business Processes. InProceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Groupware (CRIWG’ 2000), pages 138–141, Madiera, Portugal, October 2000.

  5. G. Canals, C. Godart, F. Charoy, P. Molli, and H. Skaf. COO Approach to Support Cooperation in Software Developments. InIEEE Proceedings in Software Engineering, volume 145, pages 79–84, April/June 1998.

  6. Marco A. Casanova, Tatiana A. S. Coelho, Marcelo Tílio M. de Carvalho, Eduardo T. L. Corseuil, Hérica Nobrega, Fábio M. Dias, and Carlos H. Levy. The Design of XPAE — An Emergency Plan Definition Language. InIV Simpósio Brasileiro de Geoinformática (GeoInfo’ 2002), Caxambu, Minas Gerais, Dezembro 2002.

  7. Marco A. Casanova, Marcelo Tílio M. de Carvalho, and Juliana Freire. The Architecture of an Emergency Plan Deployment System. InIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Geoinformática (GeoInfo’ 2001), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 2001.

  8. Fabio Casati, Stefano Ceri, Barbara Pernici, and Giuseppe Pozzi. Workflow Evolution. In Bernhard Thalheim, editor,International Conference on Conceptual Modeling / the Entity Relationship Approach (15th ER’ 96), pages 438–455, Cottbus, Germany, October 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

  9. Wesley W. Chu, Q. Chen, and M. Merzbacher.Studies in Logic and Computation 3: Nonstandard Queries and Nonstandard Answers, volume 3, chapter CoBase: a Cooperative Database System, pages 41-72. Oxford University Press, New York, 1994. Edited by R. Demolombe and T. Imielinski.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wesley W. Chu and Wenlei Mao. CoSent: a Cooperative Sentinel for Intelligent Information Systems, March 2000. Computer Science Department — University of California, LA.

  11. David Garlan, Robert T. Monroe, and David Wile. ACME: An Architecture Description Interchange Language. InProceedings of the 1997 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research (CASCON’97), pages 169–183, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 1997. IBM Press.

  12. Dimitrios Georgakopoulos, Mark F. Hornick, and Amit P. Sheth. An Overview of Workflow Management: from Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure.Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3(2):119–153, April 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Daniela Grigori, François Charoy, and Claude Gobart. Flexible Data Management and Execution to Support Cooperative Workflow: the COOApproach. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications (CODAS 2001), pages 124–131, April 2001.

  14. J. J. Halliday, S. K. Shrivastava, and S. M. Wheater. Flexible Workflow Management in the OPENflow System. InProceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC ’01), pages 82–92. IEEE, September 2001.

  15. David Hollingsworth. TheWorkflow Reference Model. The Workflow Management Coalition Specification TC00-1003, Workflow Management Coalition, Hampshire, UK, January 1995.

  16. Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Harold Boley, Said Tabet, Benjamin Grosof, and Mike Dean. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission, May 2004. http:/ / SUBM-SWRL-20040521/Overview.html.

  17. HP. Jena 2 — A Semantic Web Framework . http://, 2004.

  18. G. Joeris. Defining Flexible Workflow Execution Behaviors. InEnterprise-wide and Cross-enterprise Workflow Management — Concepts, Systems, Applications, GI Workshop Proceedings — Informatik ’99, pages 49–55, 1999. Ulmer Informatik Berichte Nr. 99-07.

  19. Peter Mangan and Shazia Sadiq. On Building Workflow Models for Flexible Processes. InACM International Conference Proceeding Series — Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Conference on Database Technologies (ADC’2002), volume 5, pages 103–109, Melbourne, Australia, January/February 2002. Australian Computer Society, Inc. Darlinghurst.

    Google Scholar 

  20. David Martin, Mark Burstein, Jerry Hobbs, Ora Lassila, Drew McDermott, Sheila McIlraith, Srini Narayanan, Massimo Paolucci, Bijan Parsia, Terry Payne, Evren Sirin, Naveen Srinivasan, and Katia Sycara. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Member Submission, November 2004. SUBM-OWL-S20041122/Overview.html.

  21. Gary J. Nutt. The Evolution Toward FlexibleWorkflow Systems. InDistributed Systems Engineering, volume 3, pages 276–294, December 1996.

  22. Tatiana A. S. C. Vieira.Execução Flexível de Workflows. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics — Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, RJ — Brazil, August 2005. In Portuguese.

    Google Scholar 

  23. W3C. OWL Web Ontology Language — Overview. W3C Recommendation, February 2004. http://www.w3. org/ TR/owl-features/.

  24. MathiasWeske. Flexible Modeling and Execution of Work-flow Activities. InProceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume 7, pages 713–722, January 1998.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vieira, T.A.S.C., Casanova, M.A. & Ferrão, L.G. On the design of ontology-driven workflow flexibilization mechanisms. J Braz Comp Soc 11, 33–43 (2005).

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • workflow
  • flexibilization
  • ontology
  • matching