On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models
Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis.
KeywordsCompliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification
This work has in part been funded through NICTA and through the SUPER project. SUPER (FP6- 026850, http://www.ip-super.org) is funded through the European Union’s 6th Framework Programme, within Information Society Technologies (IST) priority. NICTA is funded by the Australian Government as represented by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence program.
- Aalst, W. (1999b). Interorganizational workflows: An approach based on message sequence charts and petri nets. Systems Analysis Modelling Simulation, 34(3), 335–367.Google Scholar
- Ankolekar, A., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J. R., Lassila, O., Martin, D., McDermott, D., et al. (2002). DAML-S: Web service description for the semantic web. In ISWC.Google Scholar
- Awad, A., Decker, G., & Weske, M. (2008). Efficient compliance checking using bpmn-q and temporal logic. In M. Dumas, M. Reichert, & M. C. Shan (Eds.), Business process management, 6th international conference, BPM 2008. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5240, pp. 326–341). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., & Wolter, F. (2005). Integrating description logics and action formalisms: First results. In AAAI.Google Scholar
- Berthelot, G. (1987). Transformations and decompositions of nets. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, & G. Rozenberg (Eds.), Advances in petri nets 1986 part I: Petri nets, central models and their properties. LNCS (Vol. 254, pp. 360–376). New York, Springer.Google Scholar
- Chopra, A. K., & Sing, M. P. (2007). Producing compliant interactions: Conformance, coverage and interoperability. Declarative agent languages and technologies IV. In M. Baldoni, & U. Endriss (Eds.), LNAI (Vol. 4327, pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Coalition, T. O. S. (2003). OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services. In M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. McDermott, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, B. Parsia, T. Payne, E. Sirin, N. Srinivasan, K. Sycara & D. Martin (Eds.),OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. OWL-S 1.1. http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/. Version 1.1
- Fensel, D., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Stollberg, M., Roman, D., de Bruijn, J., et al. (2006). Enabling semantic web services: The web service modeling ontology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Garcia-Valles, F., & Colom, J. (1999). Implicit places in net systems. In Petri nets and performance Models, 1999. Proceedings. The 8th international workshop (pp. 104–113).Google Scholar
- Giacomo, G. D., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., & Rosati, R. (2006). On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In AAAI.Google Scholar
- Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S., & Weber, I. (2008). Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In BPD-08: 4th international workshop on business process design. Google Scholar
- Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S. (2006). Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In P. C. K. Hung (Ed.), 10th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2006) (pp. 221–232). IEEE Computing Society. doi: 10.1109/EDOC.2006.22.
- Holzmann, G. (2003). The spin model checker—Primer and reference manual. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Lutz, C., & Sattler, U. (2002). A proposal for describing services with DLs. In DL.Google Scholar
- Ly, L. T., Rinderle, S., & Dadam, P. (2006). Semantic correctness in adaptive process management systems. In BPM06: Proc. 4th int’l conf. on business process management (pp. 193–208). Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
- OASIS (2007). Web services business process execution language version 2.0. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bpel/.
- OMG (2008). Business process modeling notation—BPMN 1.1. OMG specification. http://www.bpmn.org/.
- Roman, D., & Kifer, M. (2007). Reasoning about the behaviour of semantic web services with concurrent transaction logic. In VLDB (pp. 627–638).Google Scholar
- Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., & Namiri, K. (2007). Modelling control objectives for business process compliance. In Proc. 5th international conference on business process management. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
- van der Aalst, W. M. P., de Beer, H. T., & van Dongen, B. F. (2005). Process mining and verification of properties: An approach based on temporal logic. OTM conferences (1). In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, M. S. Hacid, J. Mylopoulos, B. Pernici, Ö. Babaoglu, et al. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3760, pp. 130–147). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- van der Aalst, W. M. P., & van Hee, K. (2002). Workflow management: Models, methods, and systems (cooperative information systems). Cambridge: MIT. http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike04-20&path=ASIN/0262011891.Google Scholar
- Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F. (2007). Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models though sese decomposition. In B. Krämer, K. Lin, P. Narasimhan (Eds.), 5th international conference on service-oriented computing (ICSOC). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4749, pp. 43–55). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J. (2008). Semantic business process validation. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on semantic business process management (SBPM’08).Google Scholar
- Winslett, M. (1988). Reasoning about actions using a possible models approach. In AAAI.Google Scholar
- zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M., Kemp, G. (2007). Business process and business rule modeling languages for compliance management: A representational analysis. In Proc. 26th international conference on conceptual modelling - ER2007 - tutorials, posters, panels and industrial contributions. Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar