<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>RePROSitory: a Repository platform for sharing business PROcess modelS</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Flavio Corradini</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Fabrizio Fornari</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Andrea Polini</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Barbara Re</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Francesco Tiezzi</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>School of Science and Technology, University of Camerino</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The BPM community can certainly bene t from the adoption of open science principles. The availability of business process models can make BPM research results more controllable, replicable, and comparable. Unfortunately, in our experience, it is quite di cult to nd open collections of models suitable to e ectively validate research proposals in the BPM eld. To address this issue, we have developed a web-based repository of process models, named RePROSitory, for sharing BPMN models, making them accessible to the community. We have started to systematically populate the repository with a collection of BPMN models, manually selected from the literature. The experience of models retrieval from RePROSitory is enhanced by the implementation of more than two hundreds quality metrics. These allow researchers to select from RePROSitory a set of models that they judge more suitable for the experiments they want to run.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Open science principles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] ask for reproducibility of experiments reported in
published research works. They can certainly contribute to enhance the quality
and relevance of the research carried out by the BPM community. These
principles intend to improve the capability of checking, and possibly re-validating,
the results of a reported research e ort. Referring to research on business
processes, this demands for a common set of models to conduct research, validate
methodologies and techniques, and compare tools performance.
      </p>
      <p>
        We focus our contribution on models designed using the BPMN 2.0
notation, which has acquired a clear predominance among the various proposals. Up
to now, the community can bene t from few available BPMN model
repositories for conducting experiments. The most important ones are \BPM Academic
Initiative Model Collection"(https://bpmai.org/) and \Camunda BPMN for
Research" (https://github.com/camunda/bpmn-for-research). These
repositories are of great value for the entire BPM community, as they make available
a huge amount of models that anyone can access to support their studies. In
the past, we used those repositories for validating our research work (e.g., the
framework in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ]). Despite this, these model repositories present several issues.
First of all, from a study we conducted on the two repositories, we discovered
that around 14% of the models present issues related to the usage of the BPMN
syntax, leading then to models that do not conform with the standard. Moreover,
most of the models coming from the two repositories get low results in relation
to common quality attributes. Typical issues concern, the usage of sequence and
message ows. These elements are often drawn without a speci ed source or
target, as well as some sequence ows cross pool boundaries, while message ows
are used to connect elements inside the same pool. In addition, these repositories
do not provide any advanced mechanism for ltering the stored models.
      </p>
      <p>In this paper, in line with the European vision fostering open science,1 we
aim at promoting it in the BPM research eld. With a web-based and open
repository, named RePROSitory, we want to o er to the members of the BPM
community the possibility of sharing and retrieving BPMN models of interest for
their research works. The experience of models retrieval from RePROSitory is
enhanced by a component that, for each uploaded model, computes more than
two hundred well-established metrics coming from the literature (e.g., [3{8]),
providing users with an identikit of the stored models. The metrics range from
what we call \basic metrics", concerning the number of BPMN elements present
in a model (e.g., occurrences of tasks, of a given kind of gateway, or of pools), to
\advanced metrics" (e.g., control- ow complexity, cross-connectivity, and layout
complexity). We have also contributed in enriching the collection of publicly
available BPMN models by releasing on RePROSitory, 174 models coming from
previous editions of the BPM conference, since the release of the BPMN 2.0
standard. The access to these models will constitute the basis for speeding up
experimentation activities and will allow researchers to compare results of their
approaches over a shared common benchmark of models.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>RePROSitory Main Features</title>
      <p>The RePROSitory homepage is the user's main access point. It provides the
possibility to register a new account or to log in using an already existing one,
so to fully access the platform functionalities.</p>
      <p>The RePROSitory interface for logged users is shown in Fig. 1. It reports a list
of information about the latest models that have been uploaded, and the most
downloaded ones. Furthermore, it gives the user the possibility to customize
available graphs according to di erent kinds of parameters, thus allowing to
have a more impacting view on the models contained in the repository (i.e., the
user can modify what is displayed on the x- and y-axes to compare di erent
metrics of the stored models). The interface presents an interactive sidebar that
allows the user to navigate RePROSitory functionalities; a user can access: the
Uploaded Model List to see the list of all the models uploaded on the platform
and eventually export them, the Upload Model feature to upload models to the
platform, the Search Model feature to navigate the models, and the Metrics
List for getting an insight on the supported metrics and their source. Notably,
Upload Model and Search Model constitute the main functionalities provided by
RePROSitory and described below.</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>1 Open Science: https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm</title>
        <p>Upload Model. When a user uploads a model on RePROSitory, the model
is sent to the BPMN Model Validator component, which checks if the BPMN
syntax has been properly used, thus ensuring that no violation of the BPMN
standard is present. In case a violation is detected, the model is automatically
rejected. Instead, if the model passes the validation, it goes through the BPMN
Metrics Extractor. This component computes the values for the 245 supported
metrics, which constitute the parameters a user can tune for ltering models,
and it shows the resulting values to the user. This result is also made available
for download in the form of a .json le. The model, together with the extracted
metrics and the model information provided by the user, is then stored in a
staging area of the RePROSitory platform, waiting for the quality and conformity
check by an administrator and for the subsequent approval/rejection decision
for sharing it on the platform. We consider valuable the involvement of a human
administrator in the initial process of populating the RePROSitory platform, in
order to avoid the incorporation of somehow problematic models. For the future,
we intend to leave the repository completely open so that researchers will be able
to share and retrieve also low-quality models.</p>
        <p>Search Model. It is one of the richest and complex features of RePROSitory.
It provides two di erent ways of ltering the models in the repository: by models
details and by metric values as in Fig. 2. Filtering by model details allows
the user to apply a lter based on models information, such as model id, source,
name, year, paper, doi, type, application domain, business process life-cycle phase,
and modeling tool. Filtering by metrics allows the user to specify customized
parameters based on model metrics. A combination of comparison operators and
values is used for each considered metric. Once all the desired lters have been
applied, by pressing the Filter button the models that satisfy the parameters are
returned. When selecting one model, the user is provided with a preview of the
model. Upon pressing the download button, the user is able to download a .zip
archive containing the selected model and the extracted metrics.
The maturity of RePROSitory can be analyzed from a technological perspective
and from that of the quality and quantity of its content.</p>
        <p>The technologies at the basis of the RePROSitory architecture are
wellestablished frameworks for the development of web-based applications: Angular,
a Javascript framework that we have used for the development of the front-end,
and Node.js, a cross-platform JavaScript runtime environment that we used for
the back-end. The use of these state-of-the-art frameworks ensures high stability
and performance of the tool.</p>
        <p>
          In addition, to check that the models shared on RePROSitory are compliant
with the BPMN standard, we have implemented a BPMN validator. As basis
for this component we have exploited the Camunda BPMN Model API2, which
are largely used in BPMN tooling. Finally, to enable models ltering on
RePROSitory, we have integrated a BPMN Metrics Extractor3. This is a Java
web-service that we have developed to calculate metrics values for BPMN
models. It is based on a collection of 245 metrics derived from the literature [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ], and
again takes advantage of the functionalities provided by the Camunda BPMN
Model API. Calculation of some business process metrics is already provided by
well-known tools, such as: ProM (http://www.promtools.org), APROMORE
(https://apromore.org), PromniCAT
(https://bpmai.org/BPMAcademicInitiative/BpmTools). However, the number of metrics they are able to calculate
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>2 https://github.com/camunda/camunda-bpmn-model 3 https://github.com/PROSLab/BPMNMetricsExtractor</title>
        <p>is signi cantly lower then ours and, most of all, they are not leveraged as a means
for classifying models as we are promoting them.</p>
        <p>Let us focus now on the maturity of the content of RePROSitory
considering quality and quantity of the models currently available on our platform. The
models have been selected together with relevant information (title, publication
year, model type, etc.), after a careful screening of the main track proceedings
of the last seven editions of the BPM Conference. Our manual selection of
models should ensure a certain quality of the shared models. Since each model has
been reproduced by us, to avoid introducing syntactical errors in this phase,
each model has been drawn by using Camunda BPMN Modeler, and validated
using our BPMN Validator. From the quantity point of view, up to now we have
collected and uploaded on RePROSitory 174 models, retrieved from 56 papers,
which are available for being accessed and downloaded with the respective
calculated metrics. The amount of models we have gathered does not pretend to
be exhaustive; however, we are committed to extend the model retrieval also
to other conferences and journal papers. In addition, we hope to receive in the
future the contribution from other members of the community who perceive, as
we do, RePROSitory as a valuable resource for their research.
4</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Screencast and Website</title>
      <p>RePROSitory is accessible at http://pros.unicam.it/reprository together
with a detailed User Guide explaining how to use RePROSitory. A screencast
is available on the PROS Lab channel at https://youtu.be/MCYmV9sCREc; it
shows a typical user experience on the platform.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Corradini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.:
          <article-title>BProVe: a formal veri cation framework for business process models</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: ASE</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>217</volume>
          {
          <issue>228</issue>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Corradini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.:
          <article-title>A formal approach to modeling and veri cation of business process collaborations</article-title>
          .
          <source>Sci. Comput</source>
          . Program.
          <volume>166</volume>
          ,
          <issue>35</issue>
          {
          <fpage>70</fpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Corradini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          et al.:
          <article-title>A guidelines framework for understandable BPMN models</article-title>
          .
          <source>Data &amp; Knowledge Engineering</source>
          <volume>113</volume>
          , 129{
          <fpage>154</fpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Khlif</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Makni</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zaaboub</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ben-Abdallah</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.:
          <article-title>Quality metrics for business process modeling</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: ACS</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>195</volume>
          {
          <fpage>200</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>WSEAS</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kluza</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nalepa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lisiecki</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Square Complexity Metrics for Business Process Models</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Advances in Business ICT, AISC</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>257</volume>
          , pp.
          <volume>89</volume>
          {
          <fpage>107</fpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lassen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , K.B.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>van der Aalst</surname>
          </string-name>
          , W.M.:
          <article-title>Complexity metrics for Work ow nets</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information and Software Technology</source>
          <volume>51</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <volume>610</volume>
          {
          <fpage>626</fpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mendling</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reijers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cardoso</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>What makes process models understandable? In: BPM, LNCS</article-title>
          , vol.
          <volume>4714</volume>
          , pp.
          <volume>48</volume>
          {
          <fpage>63</fpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reijers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vanderfeesten</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Cohesion and coupling metrics for work ow process design</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: BPM</source>
          , pp.
          <volume>290</volume>
          {
          <fpage>305</fpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9. Woel e,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Olliaro</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Todd</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.H.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Open science is a research accelerator</article-title>
          .
          <source>Nature Chemistry</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          (
          <issue>10</issue>
          ),
          <volume>745</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>