Advertisement

Formal Verification of e-Services and Workflows

  • Xiang Fu
  • Tevfik Bultan
  • Jianwen Su
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2512)

Abstract

We study the verification problem for e-service (and workflow) specifications, aiming at efficient techniques for guiding the construction of composite e-services to guarantee desired properties (e.g., deadlock avoidance, bounds on resource usage, response times). Based on e-service frameworks such as AZTEC and e-FLow, decision flow language Vortex, we introduce a very simple e-service model for our investigation of verification issues. We first show how three different model checking techniques are applied when the number of processes is limited to a predetermined number. We then introducepid quantified constraint, a new symbolic representation that can encode infinite many system states, to verify systems with unbounded and dynamic process instantiations. We think that it is a versatile technique and more suitable for verification of e-service specifications. If this is combined with other techniques such as abstraction and widening, it is possible to solve a large category of interesting verification problems for e-services.

Keywords

Model Check Temporal Logic Module Schema Dependency Graph Transition Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Alur, T. A. Henzinger, and P. Ho. Automatic symbolic verification of embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(3): 181–201, March 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Bultan. Action language: A specification language for model checking reactive systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000), pages 335–344, June 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Bultan, R. Gerber, and W. Pugh. Model-checking concurrent systems with unbounded integer variables: Symbolic representations, approximations, and experimental results. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 21(4):747–789, July 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Burch, E. Clarke, K. McMillan, D. Dill, and L. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 428–439, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Casati and M.-C. Shan. Dynamic and adaptive composition of e-services. Information Systems, 26(3):143–163, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Christophides, R. Hull, G. Karvounarakis, A. Kumar, G. Tong, and M. Xiong. Beyond discrete e-services: Composing session-oriented services in telecommunications. In Proc. of Workshop on Technologies for E-Services (TES), Rome, Italy, Sept. 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In D. Kozen, editor, Logic of Programs: Workshop, volume 131 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, May 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Davulcu, M. Kifer, C.R. Ramakrishnan, and I.V. Ramakrishnan. Logic based modeling and analysis. Inpods, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Delzanno. Automatic verification of parameterized cache coherence protocols. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, volume 1855 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 53–68. Springer-Verlag, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Delzanno and T. Bultan. Constraint-based verification of client-server protocols. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. C. Fauvet, M. Dumas, B. Benatallah, and H. Y. Paik. Peer-to-peer traced execution of composite services. In Proc. ofWorkshop on Technologies for E-Services (TES), Rome, Italy, Sept. 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    X. Fu, T. Bultan, R. Hull, and J. Su. Verification of vortex workflows. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 2031 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 143–157. Springer-Verlag, April 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    X. Fu, T. Bultan, and J. Su. Hybrid predicate abstraction for verification of workflow and decision flow systems. Technical report, Computer Science Department, UCSB, January 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Gillmann, J. Weissenfels, G. Weikum, and A. Kraiss. Performance and availability assessment for the configuration of distributed workflow management systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, LNCS 1777, pages 183–202, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Godefroid and D. Pirottin. Refining dependencies improves partial-order verification methods. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, LNCS 697, pages 438–449, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Halbwachs, P. Raymond, and Y. Proy. Verification of linear hybrid systems by means of convex approximations. In B. LeCharlier, editor, Proceedings of International Symposium on Static Analysis, volume 864 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, September 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. J. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, May 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Hull, F. Llirbat, E. Simon, J. Su, G. Dong, B. Kumar, and G. Zhou. Declarative workflows that support easy modification and dynamic browsing. In Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Kelly, V. Maslov, W. Pugh, E. Rosser, T. Shpeisman, and D. Wonnacott. The Omega library interface guide. Technical Report CS-TR-3445, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, March 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Kraiss, F. Schön, G. Weikum, and U. Deppisch. Towards response time guarantees for e-service middleware. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 24(1):58–63, 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. L. McMillan. Symbolic model checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Muth, D. Wodtke, J. Weissenfels, G. Weikum, and A. Kotz-Dittrich. Enterprise-wide workflow management based on state and activity charts. In Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute on Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. C. Oppen. A 22 2 2 pn upper bound on the complexity of Presburger arithmetic. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 16:323–332, 1978.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Pnueli. The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1977.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Pnueli. The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theoretical Computer Science, 13:45–60, 1981.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. Saidi. Model checking guided abstraction and analysis. In Proceedings of Statica Analysis Symposium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Schroeder. Verification of business processes for a correspondence handling center using CCS. In Proc. European Symp. on Validation and Verification of Knowledge Based Systems and Components, June 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst. The application of petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, systems and computers, 8(1):21–26, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst and A. H. M. ter Hofstede. Verification of workflow task structures: A Petri-net-based approach. Information Systems, 25(1), 2000.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. Yavuz-Kahveci, M. Tuncer, and T. Bultan. Composite symbolic library. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, volume 2031 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 335–344. Springer-Verlag, April 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiang Fu
    • 1
  • Tevfik Bultan
    • 1
  • Jianwen Su
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations