Distributed and Parallel Databases

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 271–343 | Cite as

Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models

Article

Abstract

The verification of control-flow soundness is well understood as an important step before deploying business process models. However, the control flow does not capture what the process activities actually do when they are executed. Semantic annotations offer the opportunity to take this into account. Inspired by semantic Web service approaches such as OWL-S and WSMO, we consider process models in which the individual activities are annotated with logical preconditions and effects, specified relative to an ontology that axiomatizes the underlying business domain. Verification then addresses the overall process behavior, arising from the interaction between control-flow and behavior of individual activities. To this end, we combine notions from the workflow community with notions from the AI actions and change literature. We introduce a formal execution semantics for annotated business processes. We point out four verification tasks that arise, concerning precondition/effect conflicts, reachability, and executability. We examine the borderline between classes of processes that can, or cannot, be verified in polynomial time. For precondition/effect conflicts, we show that the borderline is the same as that of the logic underlying the ontology axioms. For reachability and executability, we identify a class of processes that can be verified in polynomial time by a fixpoint algorithm which we design for that purpose. We show that this class of processes is maximal in the sense that, when generalizing it in any of the most relevant directions, the validation tasks become computationally hard.

Keywords

Business process management Semantic technologies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ankolekar, A., et al.: DAML-S: Web service description for the semantic web. In: ISWC, 2002 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aho, A.V., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison–Wesley/Longman, Boston (1986) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aspvall, B., Plass, M., Tarjan, R.: A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified boolean formulas. Inf. Process. Lett. 8, 121–123 (1979) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003) MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., Wolter, F.: Integrating description logics and action formalisms: first results. In: AAAI, 2005 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckstein, C., Klausner, J.: A planning framework for workflow management. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1999 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Behrmann, G., Bengtsson, J., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL implementation secrets. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT’02), pp. 3–22, 2002 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berthelot, G.: Transformations and decompositions of nets. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Advances in Petri Nets 1986 Part I: Petri Nets, Central Models and Their Properties. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 254, pp. 360–376. Springer, Berlin (1987) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Atluri, V.: The specification and enforcement of authorization constraints in workflow management systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2(1), 65–104 (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison–Wesley, Reading (2005) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-friendly semantic annotation in business process modeling. In: Hf-SDDM-07: Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking—in Workshop Proceedings at WISE-07, December 2007 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-friendly semantic annotation in business process modeling. In: Hf-SDDM’07: Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking at WISE’07, Nancy, France, December 2007 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Born, M., Hoffmann, J., Kaczmarek, T., Kowalkiewicz, M., Markovic, I., Scicluna, J., Weber, I., Zhou, X.: Semantic annotation and composition of business processes with Maestro. In: European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC) Demo Track, June 2008 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Born, M., Hoffmann, J., Kaczmarek, T., Kowalkiewicz, M., Markovic, I., Scicluna, J., Weber, I., Zhou, X.: Supporting execution-level business process modeling with semantic technologies. In: Database Systems for Advanced Applications (DASFAA-09) Demo Track, 2009 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brewka, G., Hertzberg, J.: How to do things with worlds: on formalizing actions and plans. J. Log. Comput. 3(5), 517–532 (1993) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bryant, R.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35, 677–691 (1986) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burch, J., Clarke, E., Mcmillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 1–33, 1990 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Conradi, R., Liu, C., Hagaseth, M.: Planning support for cooperating transactions in EPOS. Inf. Syst. 20(4), 317–336 (1995) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fensel, D., et al.: Enabling Semantic Web Services: The Web Service Modeling Ontology. Springer, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Da Rold, C.: European IT services survey signals irreversible changes. Technical Report Markets Note, M-20-0616, Gartner Research, 19 June 2003 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In: AAAI, 2006 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 13(3), 289–332 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press, New York (1995) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Edelkamp, S., Lluch-Lafuente, A., Leue, S.: Directed explicit-state model checking in the validation of communication protocols. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. (2004) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Een, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT solver. In: Giunchiglia, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT-03), Portofino, Italy, May 2003 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 57(2–3), 227–270 (1992) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garcia-Valles, F., Colom, J.M.: Implicit places in net systems. In: Petri Nets and Performance Models, 1999. Proceedings. The 8th International Workshop on, pp. 104–113 (1999) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S., Weber, I.: Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In: BPD-08: 4th International Workshop on Business Process Design, September 2008 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hepp, M., Hinkelmann, K., Karagiannis, D., Klein, R., Stojanovic, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Business Process and Product Lifecycle Management (SBPM 2007), Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 115(1), 107–138 (1999) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoffmann, J., Weber, I., Scicluna, J., Kaczmarek, T., Ankolekar, A.: Combining scalability and expressivity in the automatic composition of semantic web services. In: ICWE’08: 8th International Conference on Web Engineering, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA, July 2008 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoffmann, J., Weber, I., Governatori, G.: On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models. Information Systems Frontiers, Special Issue on Governance, Risk, and Compliance, 2009 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Holzmann, G.: The Spin Model Checker—Primer and Reference Manual. Addison–Wesley, Reading (2003) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Holzmann, G., Peled, D.: An improvement in formal verification. In: Formal Description Techniques, pp. 197–211 (1994) Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Horn, A.: On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. J. Symb. Log. (1951) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Howell, R., Rosier, L.: Problems concerning fairness and temporal logic for conflict-free Petri nets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 64(3), 305–329 (1989) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    IBM. Insurance Application Architecture (IAA), v 7.1 (2004). http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/financialservices/doc/content/solution/278918103.html, accessed: 28.10.2008
  40. 40.
    Jaccheri, M.L., Conradi, R.: Techniques for process model evolution in EPOS. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 19(12), 1145–1156 (1993) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Heft 89, Saarbrücken, Germany, January 1992. http://www.iwi.uni-sb.de/iwi-hefte/heft089.pdf
  42. 42.
    Kindler, E.: Model-based software engineering and process-aware information systems. Trans. Petri Nets Other Models Concurr. II 2, 27–45 (2009). Special Issue on Concurrency in Process-Aware Information Systems CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Koliadis, G., Ghose, A.: Verifying semantic business process models in inter-operation. In: IEEE Intl. Conf. Services Computing (SCC 2007), pp. 731–738, 2007 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kovalyov, A., Esparza, J.: A polynomial algorithm to compute the concurrency relation of free-choice signal transition graphs. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES’96, pp. 1–6, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1996 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kumaran, S., Liu, R., Wu, F.Y.: On the duality of information-centric and activity-centric models of business processes. In: Proc. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE-08), pp. 32–47, 2008 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lin, F., Reiter, R.: State constraints revisited. J. Log. Comput. 4(5), 655–678 (1994) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: A proposal for describing services with DLs. In: DL, 2002 Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Semantic correctness in adaptive process management systems. In: BPM06: Proc. 4th Int’l Conf. on Business Process Management, pp. 193–208, Vienna, Austria, 2006 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Integration and verification of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 3–23 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Markovic, I., Karrenbrock, M.: Semantic web service discovery for business process models. In: Hf-SDDM’07: Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking at WISE’07, Nancy, France, December 2007 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP—a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(5), 506–521 (1999) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 6. Springer, Berlin (2008) Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of EPCs with OR-joins based on state and context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2007), Trondheim, Norway. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Berlin (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Meyer, H.: On the semantics of service compositions. In: Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, First International Conference (RR-07), pp. 31–42, 2007 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Design Automation (DAC-01), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2001. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001) Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: A model-driven approach for internal controls compliance in business processes. In: SBPM-07: Proc. Workshop on Semantic Business Process and Product Lifecycle Management, Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007. ISSN 1613-0073 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.: Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services. In: 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW-02), pp. 77–88, 2002 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0, April 2007 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation, V1.1. http://www.bpmn.org/, January 2008. OMG Available Specification, Document Number: formal/2008-01-17
  60. 60.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society Press, Providence (1977) Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Investigations on soundness regarding lazy activities. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) Business Process Management, 4th International Conference, BPM 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4102, pp. 145–160. Springer, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: ADEPT workflow management system: flexible support for enterprise-wide business processes. In: BPM, 2003 Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: ADEPT workflow management system: flexible support for enterprise-wide business processes (tool presentation). In: BPM03: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Business Process Management, Eindhoven, Netherlands, June 2003, pp. 370–379. Springer, Berlin (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Kreher, U., Dadam, P.: Adaptive process management with ADEPT2. In: ICDE, 2005 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distrib. Parallel Databases 16(1), 91–116 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H., de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: Web service modeling ontology. Appl. Ontol. 1(1) (2005) Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ryndina, K., Küster, J.M., Gall, H.: Consistency of business process models and object life cycles. In: MoDELS Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4364, pp. 80–90. Springer, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. J. Inf. Syst. 30(5), 349–378 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS Business Process Modelling. Springer, Berlin (2000) Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sinur, J., Hill, J.B.: Align BPM and SOA Initiatives Now to Increase Chances of Becoming a Leader by 2010. Gartner Predicts 2007, 10 November 2006 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Strichman, O.: Accelerating bounded model checking of safety formulas. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 24(1), 5–24 (2004) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services (2003) Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack on state explosion. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’90), pp. 156–165, 1990 Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Berlin (1997) Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Interorganizational workflows: an approach based on message sequence charts and Petri nets. Syst. Anal. Model. Simul. 34(3), 335–367 (1999) MATHGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    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
  78. 78.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems (Cooperative Information Systems). MIT Press, Cambridge (2002) Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.M.W.: An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In: Banks-Pidduck, A., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.): Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’02). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Berlin (2002) Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Beer, H.T., van Dongen, B.F.: Process mining and verification of properties: an approach based on temporal logic. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Hacid, M.-S., Mylopoulos, J., Pernici, B., Babaoglu, Ö., Jacobsen, H.-A., Loyall, J.P., Kifer, M., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) OTM Conferences (1). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3760, pp. 130–147. Springer, Berlin (2005) Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models though SESE decomposition. In: Krämer, B., Lin, K.J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.): 5th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Berlin (2007) Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) Business Process Management, 6th International Conference, BPM 2008, Milan, Italy, September 2–4, 2008. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Berlin (2008) Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. Comput. J. 44(4), 246–279 (2001) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J., Nitzsche, J.: Towards a methodology for semantic business process modeling and configuration. In: Proceedings of the ICSOC 2007 Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2008) Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the semantic consistency of executable process models. In: ECOWS-08: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE European Conference on Web Services, pp. 102–111, November 2008 Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Semantic business process validation. In: SBPM-08: 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Business Process Management at ESWC-08, June 2008 Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Weber, I., Markovic, I., Drumm, C.: A conceptual framework for semantic business process configuration. J. Inf. Sci. Technol. (JIST) 5(2), 3–20 (2008) Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models. Technical report, 2009. Available at http://www.imweber.de/texte/tr-dpd.pdf
  89. 89.
    Weber, I., Barros, A., May, N., Hoffmann, J., Kaczmarek, T.: Composing services for third-party service delivery. In: ICWS-09: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, Application and Industry Track, Los Angeles, CA, July 2009 Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Weber, I., Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J.: Approximate compliance checking for annotated process models. In: Advances in Enterprise Engineering—Proceedings of the GRCIS workshop at CAiSE’08, June 2008 Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Winslett, M.: Reasoning about actions using a possible models approach. In: AAAI, 1988 Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zhao, W., Hauser, R., Bhattacharya, K., Bryant, B.R., Cao, F.: Compiling business processes: untangling unstructured loops in irreducible flow graphs. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2(1), 68–91 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’08), 2008 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.INRIACentre de Recherche Nancy—Grand EstNancyFrance
  3. 3.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations