Skip to main content

Better Algorithms for Analyzing and Enacting Declarative Workflow Languages Using LTL

  • Conference paper
Business Process Management (BPM 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 6896))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Declarative workflow languages are easy for humans to understand and use for specifications, but difficult for computers to check for consistency and use for enactment. Therefore, declarative languages need to be translated to something a computer can handle. One approach is to translate the declarative language to linear temporal logic (LTL), which can be translated to finite automata. While computers are very good at handling finite automata, the translation itself is often a road block as it may take time exponential in the size of the input. Here, we present algorithms for doing this translation much more efficiently (around a factor of 10,000 times faster and handling 10 times larger systems on a standard computer), making declarative specifications scale to realistic settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bryant, R.E.: Graph Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Verification of Choreographies During Execution Using the Reactive Event Calculus. In: Bruni, R., Wolf, K. (eds.) WS-FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5387, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Declare webpage, http://declare.sf.net

  4. Etessami, K., Holzmann, G.J.: Optimizing Büchi Automata. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) CONCUR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1877, pp. 153–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S., Stockmeyer, L.: Some simplified NP-complete graph problems. Theoretical Computer Science 1, 237–267 (1976)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Gerth, R., Peled, D., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Simple On-the-fly Automatic Verification of Linear Temporal Logic. In: Proc. of Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, pp. 3–18 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Giannakopoulou, D., Havelund, K.: Automata-Based Verification of Temporal Properties on Running Programs. In: Proc. of ASE 2001, pp. 412–416. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hopcroft, J.E.: An n log n algorithm for minimizing states in a finite automaton. Technical report, Stanford University (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kamp, H.W.: Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order. PhD thesis, University of California (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kimura, S., Clarke, E.M.: A parallel algorithm for constructing binary decision diagrams. In: Proc. of ICCD 1990, pp. 220–223 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Object Management Group (OMG). Business Process Modeling Notation (BPML). Version 2.0. OMG Avaiable Specification

    Google Scholar 

  13. Paige, R., Tarjan, R.E.: Three Partition Refinement Algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 16(6), 973–989 (1987)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Pei, M., Bonaki, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Enacting Declarative Languages Using LTL: Avoiding Errors and Improving Performance. In: van de Pol, J., Weber, M. (eds.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 6349, pp. 146–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Pei, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Chung, S. (ed.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ravikumar, B., Xiong, X.: A Parallel Algorithm for Minimization of Finite Automata. In: Proc. of IPPS 1996, pp. 187–191. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Westergaard, M. (2011). Better Algorithms for Analyzing and Enacting Declarative Workflow Languages Using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6896. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23058-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23059-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics