Advertisement

Conformance checking in UML artifact-centric business process models

  • Montserrat EstañolEmail author
  • Jorge Munoz-Gama
  • Josep Carmona
  • Ernest Teniente
Regular Paper

Abstract

Business artifacts have appeared as a new paradigm to capture the information required for the complete execution and reasoning of a business process. Likewise, conformance checking is gaining popularity as a crucial technique that enables evaluating whether recorded executions of a process match its corresponding model. In this paper, conformance checking techniques are incorporated into a general framework to specify business artifacts. By relying on the expressive power of an artifact-centric specification, BAUML, which combines UML state and activity diagrams (among others), the problem of conformance checking can be mapped into the Petri net formalism and its results be explained in terms of the original artifact-centric specification. In contrast to most existing approaches, ours incorporates data constraints into the Petri nets, thus achieving conformance results which are more precise. We have also implemented a plug-in, within the ProM framework, which is able to translate a BAUML into a Petri net to perform conformance checking. This shows the feasibility of our approach.

Keywords

Conformance checking Artifact-centric BPM BAUML framework Process mining 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by FONDECYT Iniciación 11170092 and CONICYT Apoyo a la Formación de Redes Internacionales Para Investigadores en Etapa Inicial REDI170136; by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, under projects TIN2017-87610-R and TIN2017-86727-C2-1-R; and by the Secreteria d’Universitats i Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya, under 2017-SGR-1749.

References

  1. 1.
    Adriansyah, A.: Aligning Observed and Modeled Behavior. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagheri Hariri, B., et al.: Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services. In: PODS, pp. 163–174. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borrego, D., Gasca, R.M., López, M.T.G.: Automating correctness verification of artifact-centric business process models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 62, 187–197 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buijs, J.C.A.M.: Flexible Evolutionary Algorithms for Mining Structured Process Models. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buijs, J.C.A.M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Quality dimensions in process discovery: the importance of fitness, precision, generalization and simplicity. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 23(1), 29 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., Montali, M., Estañol, M., Teniente, E.: Verifiable UML artifact-centric business process models. In: CIKM 2014, pp. 1289–1298. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damaggio, E., Deutsch, A., Vianu, V.: Artifact systems with data dependencies and arithmetic. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 37(3), 22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with Guard Stage Milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 561 – 584 (2013). Special section on BPM 2011 conferenceGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Leoni, M., Maggi, F.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: An alignment-based framework to check the conformance of declarative process models and to preprocess event-log data. Inf. Syst. 47, 258–277 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2013.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Estañol, M., Sancho, M., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML artifact-centric business process models. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015, LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 434–449. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Estañol, M., Sancho, M.R., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML data-centric business process models. In: Basu, S., et al. (eds.) Service-Oriented Computing–11th International Conference, ICSOC 2013, LNCS, vol. 8274, pp. 437–445. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Estañol, M., Sancho, M.R., Teniente, E.: Ensuring the semantic correctness of a BAUML artifact-centric BPM. Inf. Softw. Technol. 93, 147–162 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fahland, D., de Leoni, M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance checking of interacting processes with overlapping instances. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. Proceedings, LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 345–361. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fahland, D., Leoni, M.D., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Behavioral conformance of artifact-centric process models. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2011, LNBIP, vol. 87, pp. 37–49. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fahland, D., et al.: Checking Behavioral Conformance of Artifacts. Tech. Rep. BPM-11-07, BPM Center (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerede, C.E., Su, J.: Specification and verification of artifact behaviors in business process models. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC, LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 181–192. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull, R.: Artifact-centric business process models: Brief survey of research results and challenges. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1152–1163. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 19505-2:2012—OMG UML superstructure 2.4.1 (2012). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52854
  20. 20.
    Leoni, M.D., Aalst, W.M.P.V.D., Dongen, B.F.V.: Data- and resource-aware conformance checking of business processes. In: Abramowicz, W., Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. (eds.) Business Information Systems, vol. 87, pp. 48–59. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu, X., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance checking based on partially ordered event data. In: Fournier, F., Mendling, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops—BPM 2014, Revised Papers, LNBIP, vol. 202, pp. 75–88. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mannhardt, F., de Leoni, M., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Balanced multi-perspective checking of process conformance. Computing 98(4), 407–437 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-015-0441-1 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, A., Weske, M.: Weak conformance between process models and synchronized object life cycles. In: Franch, X., Ghose, A.K., Lewis, G.A., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2014, LNCS, vol. 8831, pp. 359–367. Springer, Berlin (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45391-9_25
  24. 24.
    Munoz-Gama, J.: Conformance Checking and Diagnosis in Process Mining—Comparing Observed and Modeled Processes, LNBIP, vol. 270. Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Munoz-Gama, J., Carmona, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Single-entry single-exit decomposed conformance checking. Inf. Syst. 46, 102–122 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olivé, A.: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMG: Object Constraint Language—version 2.4 (2014). http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.4/PDF
  29. 29.
    Popova, V., Fahland, D., Dumas, M.: Artifact lifecycle discovery. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 24(1), 44 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML conceptual schemas with operations. In: CAiSE, pp. 47–62 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Inf. Syst. 33(1), 64–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Solomakhin, D., Montali, M., Tessaris, S., Masellis, R.D.: Verification of artifact-centric systems: decidability and modeling issues. In: Basu, S., et al. (eds.) Service-Oriented Computing–11th International Conference, ICSOC 2013, LNCS, vol. 8274, pp. 252–266. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Störrle, H.: Semantics of control-flow in UML 2.0 activities. In: VL/HCC, pp. 235–242. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Decomposing petri nets for process mining: a generic approach. Distrib. Parallel Databases 31(4), 471–507 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., et al.: Soundness of workflow nets: classification, decidability, and analysis. Form. Asp. Comput. 23(3), 333–363 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Montserrat Estañol
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jorge Munoz-Gama
    • 2
  • Josep Carmona
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (UC)SantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations