From EPC Standard

Graphical Notation
There is no image yet, do you want to upload one?
IsSubClassOf IsSubClassOf::XOR 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: XOR-Split | ?Is a | Intro=The XOR-Split is a }}. {{#show: XOR-Split | ?contains | Intro=It contains }}. {{#show: XOR-Split | ?hasSuccessor | Intro=Possible succeeding element(s) is/are  }}. {{#show: XOR-Split | ?hasPredecessor | Intro=Previous element(s) can be }}. {{#show: XOR-Split | ?hasIncomingControlFlow | Intro=The cardinalities are  | Outro= (incoming)}} {{#show: XOR-Split | ?hasOutgoingControlFlow | Intro=and  | Outro= (outgoing) respectively }}. {{#show: XOR-Split | ?refersTo | Intro=The XOR-Split refers to }}. {{#show: XOR-Split | ?attachedTo | Intro=The XOR-Split is attached to a }}.

Short Description

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

The XOR-Split represents an exclusive choice between one of several alternative branches within the process. As a result, an XOR-Split triggers exactly one of several possible following events. It depends on the process conditions which one of the possible branches will be activated.[3][4][5]


  • [*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] 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.
  • [*4] R. Laue and J. Mendling, “Structuredness and its significance for correctness of process models,” Inf. Syst. Ebus. Manag., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 287–307, Jun. 2009.
  • [*5] V. Gruhn and R. Laue, “Forderungen an hierarchische EPK-Schemata,” EPK 2007 Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Ereignisgesteuerten Prozessketten, no. November, pp. 59–76, 2007.