Applied Intelligence

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 125–147 | Cite as

Exception Handling in Workflow Systems

  • Zongwei Luo
  • Amit Sheth
  • Krys Kochut
  • John Miller


In this paper, defeasible workflow is proposed as a framework to support exception handling for workflow management. By using the “justified” ECA rules to capture more contexts in workflow modeling, defeasible workflow uses context dependent reasoning to enhance the exception handling capability of workflow management systems. In particular, this limits possible alternative exception handler candidates in dealing with exceptional situations. Furthermore, a case-based reasoning (CBR) mechanism with integrated human involvement is used to improve the exception handling capabilities. This involves collecting cases to capture experiences in handling exceptions, retrieving similar prior exception handling cases, and reusing the exception handling experiences captured in those cases in new situations.

case-based reasoning (CBR) context-dependent reasoning exception handling ontology workflow system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick, and A. Sheth, “An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure,” Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 119-154, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Sheth, D. Georgakopoulos, S. Joosten, M. Rusinkiewicz, W. Scacchi, J. Wileden, and A. Wolf, “Report from the NSF workshop on workflow and process automation in information systems,” Technical Report, University of Georgia, UGA-CS-TR-96-003, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Jablonski and C. Bussler, Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation, International Thomson Publishing, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cichocki, A. Helal, M. Rusinkiewicz, and D. Woelk, Work-flow and Process Automation: Concepts and Technology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. ISBN 0-7923-8099-1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Aamodt, “Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches,” Artificial Intelligence Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, IOS Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Meier and J. Paton, Clinical Decision Making in Neonatal Intensive Care, Grune & Stratton: Orlando, Florida, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Marek and M. Truszczynski, Non-Monotonic Logic, Context-Dependent Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Ceri, P. Grefen, and G. Sanchez, “WIDE: A distributed architecture for workflow management,” in Proceedings of RIDE 1997, Birmingham, UK, April 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Kappel, S. Rausch-Schott, and W. Retschitzegger, Coordination in Workflow Management Systems-A Rule-based Approach, Springer, 1998. LNCS 1364.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Baralist, S. Ceri, and S. Paraboschi, “Improved rule analysis by means of triggering and activation graphs,” in Proc.of the Second Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, Athens, Greece, September 1995, edited by T. Sellis, vol. LNCS 985, pp. 165-181.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Paton (ed.), Active Rules in Database Systems, Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.Worah, A. Sheth, K.Kochut, and J. Miller, “An error handling framework for the ORBWork workflow enactment service of METEOR,” Technical Report, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Georgia, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Sheth, K.J. Kochut, J. Miller, D. Worah, S. Das, C. Lin, D. Palaniswami, J. Lynch, and Shevchenko, “Supporting state-wide immunization tracking using multi-paradigm workflow technology,” in Proc.of the 22nd.Intnl.Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Bombay, India, September 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Ansari, L. Ness, M. Rusinkiewicz, and A. Sheth, “Using flexible transactions to support multi-system telecommunication applications,” in Proc.of the 18th Intl.Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Vancouver, Canada, August 1992, pp. 65-76.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Sheth and S. Joosten (eds.), in Workshop on Workflow Management: Research, Technolog, Products, Applications and Experiences, Athens, GA, August 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Krishnakumars and A. Sheth, “Managing heterogeneous multi-system tasks to support enterprise-wide operations,” Journal of Distributed and Parallel Database Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Eder and W. Liebhart, “Contributions to exception handling in workflow systems,” in EDBT Workshop on Workflow Management Systems, Valencia, Spain, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Worah and A. Sheth, “Transactions in transactional work-flows,” in Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, edited by S. Jajodia and L. Kerschberg, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Borgida and T. Murata, “Tolerating exceptions in workflows: A unified framework for data and processes,” in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference onWork Activities Coordination and Collaboration,WACC'99, San Francisco, CA, February 22-25, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joint Workflow Management Facility Revised Submission to BODTF RFP #2 Workflow Management Facility-CoCreate, Concentus, CSE, DAT, DEC, DSTC, EDS, FileNet, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Genesis, IBM, ICL, NIIIP, Oracle, Plexus, SNI, SSA, Xerox, Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Ludwig and K. Whittingham, “Virtual enterprise coordinator-Agreement-driven gateways for cross-organizational workflow management,” in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration, WACC'99, San Francisco, CA, Februrary 22-25, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Saastamoinen, “On the handling of exceptions in information systems,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Klein, C. Dellarocas, and A. Bernstein (eds.), Online Proceedings of CSCW98Workshop Towards AdaptiveWorkflow Systems, Seattle, WA, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Casati, “A discussion on approaches to handling exceptions in workflows,” in CSCW98, Towards Adaptive Workflow Workshop, Seattle, WA, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Chiu, K. Karlapalem, and Q. Li, “Exception handling with workflow evolution in ADOME-WFMS: A taxonomy and resolution techniques,” in CSCW98, Towards Adaptive Workflow Workshop, Seattle, WA, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Gray and A. Reuter, Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Hagen and G. Alonso, “Flexible exception handling in the OPERA process support system,” in 18th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Voorhoeve and W. Aalst, “Ad-hoc workflow: Problems and solutions,” in DEXA Workshop, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. Wedekind, “Specifying indefinite workflow functions in adhoc dialogs,” in DEXA Workshop, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Strong and S. Miller, “Exceptions and exception handling in computerized information processes,” ACM Trans.Information System, vol. 13, no. 2, 1995, pp. 206-233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zongwei Luo
    • 1
  • Amit Sheth
    • 2
  • Krys Kochut
    • 3
  • John Miller
    • 4
  1. 1.Large Scale Distributed Information System Lab, 415 GSRC, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia AthensUSA
  2. 2.Large Scale Distributed Information System Lab, 415 GSRC, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia AthensUSA
  3. 3.Large Scale Distributed Information System Lab, 415 GSRC, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia AthensUSA
  4. 4.Large Scale Distributed Information System Lab, 415 GSRC, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia AthensUSA

Personalised recommendations