{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.007942238267148015, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.537735849056604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Workflow data patterns

Workow systems seek to provide an implementation vehicle for complex, recurring business processes. Notwithstanding this common objective, there are a variety of distinct features offered by commercial workow management systems. These differences result in significant variations in the ability of distinct tools to represent and implement the plethora of requirements that may arise in contemporary business processes. Many of these requirements recur quite frequently during the requirements analysis activity for workow systems and abstractions of these requirements serve as a useful means of identifying the key components of workow languages. Previous work has identified a number of workow control patterns which characterise the range of control ow constructs that might be encountered when modelling and analysing workow. In this paper, we describe a series of workow data patterns that aim to capture the various ways in which data is represented and utilised in workows. By delineating these patterns in a form that is independent of specific workow technologies and modelling languages, we are able to provide a comprehensive treatment of the workow data perspective and we subsequenty use these patterns as the basis for a detailed comparison of a number of commercially available workow management systems and business process modelling languages.