Advertisement

Verification of Vortex Workflows

  • Xiang Fu
  • Tevfik Bultan
  • Richard Hull
  • Jianwen Su
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2031)

Abstract

Vortex is a workflow language to support decision making activities. It centers around gathering and computing attributes of input objects. The semantics of Vortex is declarative, and the dependency graphs of Vortex programs are acyclic. This paper discusses the application of symbolic model checking techniques to verification of Vortex programs. As a case study we used a Vortex program MIHU for online customer support. The control structure and the declarative semantics of Vortex programs enabled us to develop various optimization techniques for the purpose of verification. These techniques include constructing a disjunctive transition BDD, variable pruning, projection of initial constraints, and predicate abstraction.

Keywords

Model Check Dependency Graph Decision Module Boolean Variable Execution Sequence 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Ailamaki, Y. Ioannidis, and M. Livny. Scientific workow management by database management. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Statistical and Scientific Database Management, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Bultan, R. Gerber, and C. League. Composite model checking: Verification with type-specific symbolic representations. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 9(1):3–50, January 2000.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Chan, R. J. Anderson, P. Beame, S. Burns, F. Modugno, D. Notkin, and J. D. Reese. Model checking large software specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(7):498–520, July 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. A. Ellis. Information control nets: A mathematical model of office information ow. In ACM Proc. Conf. Simulation, Modeling and Measurement of Computer Systems, pages 225–240, August 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Garey and D. Johnson. Computers and Intractability A Guide to the theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick, and A. Sheth. An overview of workow management: From process modeling to workow automation infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3(2):119–154, April 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Graf and H. Saïdi. Construction of abstract state graph with PVS. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, pages 72–83, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hull, F. Llirbat, E. Simon, J. Su, G. Dong, B. Kumar, and G. Zhou. Declarative workows that support easy modification and dynamic browsing. In Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Krishnakumar and A. Sheth. Managing heterogeneous multi-systems tasks to support enterprise-wide operations. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3(2), 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. P. Kurshan. Program verification. Notices of the AMS, 47(5):534–545, May 2000.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. L. McMillan. Symbolic model checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Medeiros, G. Vossen, and M. Weske. Wasa: a workow-based architecture to support scientific database applications. In Proc. 6th DEXA Conference, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Muth, D. Wodtke, J. Weissenfels, G. Weikum, and A. Kotz-Dittrich. Enterprisewide workow management based on state and activity charts. In Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute on Workow Management Systems and Interoperability, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Saïdi. Model checking guided abstraction and analysis. In Proceedings of Statica Analysis Symposium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst and A. H. M. ter Hofstede. Verification of workow task structures: A Petri-net-based approach. Information Systems, 25(1), 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Workow management coalition. http://www.aiim.org/wfmc, 2000.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiang Fu
    • 1
  • Tevfik Bultan
    • 1
  • Richard Hull
    • 2
  • Jianwen Su
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Bell Laboratories, Lucent TechnologiesMurray Hill

Personalised recommendations