From EPC Standard

Graphical Notation
There is no image yet, do you want to upload one?
IsSubClassOf IsSubClassOf::OR Operator
Successors hasSuccessor::Function, hasSuccessor::Event, hasSuccessor::Operator, hasSuccessor::Process interface
Predecessors hasPredecessor::Function, hasPredecessor::Operator, hasPredecessor::Process interface
HasIncomingControlFlow hasIncomingControlFlow::1
HasOutgoingControlFlow hasOutgoingControlFlow::2, hasOutgoingControlFlow::n
HasResource hasResource::0
HasAttribute hasAttribute::0
Edit the Properties

Brief Information

This is an autogenerated section!

You are not able to edit this information by hand, but by edit the Form (and therefore the properties) of this page. Please refer to the Edit the properties link at the bottom of the info box. {{#show: OR-Split | ?Is a | Intro=The OR-Split is a }}. {{#show: OR-Split | ?contains | Intro=It contains }}. {{#show: OR-Split | ?hasSuccessor | Intro=Possible succeeding element(s) is/are  }}. {{#show: OR-Split | ?hasPredecessor | Intro=Previous element(s) can be }}. {{#show: OR-Split | ?hasIncomingControlFlow | Intro=The cardinalities are  | Outro= (incoming)}} {{#show: OR-Split | ?hasOutgoingControlFlow | Intro=and  | Outro= (outgoing) respectively }}. {{#show: OR-Split | ?refersTo | Intro=The OR-Split refers to }}. {{#show: OR-Split | ?attachedTo | Intro=The OR-Split is attached to a }}.

Short Description

An OR-Split Operator is a subtype of an OR Operator.
It is responsible for splitting the control flow up in at least two different branches, due to an nonexclusive choice.[1]
That is why OR-Split has just one incoming arc and multiple outgoing arcs:
Cos = {c ∈ C | l(c) = or ∧ |cin| = 1} as the set of OR-Split operators.[2]

The OR-Split represents a choice between one or more of several alternative branches within the process. It waits to get the control flow on its incoming arc before allowing it to continue on one or more of its outgoing arcs.[3]
The EPC syntax requires an OR-Split to be triggered by a function and followed by multiple events.
Due to the semantics of events as passive elements, they lack the ability to determine the event(s) that should follow and therefore cannot be the predecessor of an OR-Split.[4][5][6]


  • [*1] N. Cuntz and E. Kindler, “On the Semantics of EPCs: Efficient Calculation and Simulation,” Bus. Process Manag., pp. 398–403, 2005.
  • [*2] E. Kindler "On the semantics of EPCs: resolving the vicious circle", Data & Knowledge Engineering - Special issue: Business process management archive Volume 56 Issue 1, 2006, pp.23-40.
  • [*3]R. Dijkman, “Diagnosing differences between business process models,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 5240 LNCS, pp. 261–277, 2008.
  • [*4] JG. Keller, M. Nüttgens, and A.-W. Scheer, “Semantische Prozeßmodellierung auf der Grundlage „Ereignisgesteuerter Prozeßketten (EPK)“,” Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik ( IWi ), Univ. des Saarlandes, no. 89, 1992.
  • [*5] M. Fellmann, S. Bittmann, A. Karhof, C. Stolze, and O. Thomas, “Do We Need a Standard for EPC Modelling? The State of Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Quality,” in 5th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA), 2013, pp. 103–116.
  • [*6] J. Mendling, H. M. W. Verbeek, B. F. van Dongen, W. M. P. van der Aalst, and G. Neumann, “Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model,” Data Knowl. Eng., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 312–329, 2008.