Advertisement

An Alternative Way to Analyze Workflow Graphs

  • W. M. P. van der Aalst
  • A. Hirnschall
  • H. M. W. Verbeek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2348)

Abstract

At the CAiSE conference in Heidelberg in 1999, Wasim Sadiq and Maria Orlowska presented an algorithm to verify workflow graphs [19]. The algorithm uses a set of reduction rules to detect structural conflicts. This paper shows that the set of reduction rules presented in [19] is not complete and proposes an alternative algorithm. The algorithm translates workflow graphs into so-called WF-nets. WF-nets are a class of Petri nets tailored towards workflow analysis. As a result, Petri-net theory and tools can be used to verify workflow graphs. In particular, our workflow verification tool Woflan [21] can be used to detect design errors. It is shown that the absence of structural conflicts, i.e., deadlocks and lack of synchronization, conforms to soundness of the corresponding WF-net [2]. In contrast to the algorithm presented in [19], the algorithm presented in this paper is complete. Moreover, the complexity of this alternative algorithm is given.

Keywords

Output Node Input Node Reduction Rule Input Place Rank Theorem 
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.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst. Verification of Workflow Nets. In P. Azéma and G. Balbo, editors, Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997, volume 1248 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 407–426. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst. The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. The Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 8(1):21–66, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Best. Structure Theory of Petri Nets: the Free Choice Hiatus. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Advances in Petri Nets 1986 Part I: Petri Nets, central models and their properties, volume 254 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 168–206. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Casati, F. S. Ceri B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi. Conceptual Modeling of Workflows. In M.P. Papazoglou, editor, Proceedings of the 14th International Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modeling Conference, volume 1021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 341–354. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Cheng, J. Esparza, and J. Palsberg. Complexity results for 1-safe nets. In R.K. Shyamasundar, editor, Foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science, volume 761 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 326–337. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Desel and J. Esparza. Free Choice Petri Nets, volume 40 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. A. Ellis and G. J. Nutt. Modelling and Enactment of Workflow Systems. In M. Ajmone Marsan, editor, Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1993, volume 691 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–16. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. H. T. Hack. Analysis production schemata by Petri nets. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. H. M. ter Hofstede, M. E. Orlowska, and J. Rajapakse. Verification Problems in Conceptual Workflow Specifications. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 24(3):239–256, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Kemper. Linear Time Algorithm to Find a Minimal Deadlock in a Strongly Connected Free-Choice Net. In M. Ajmone Marsan, editor, Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1993, volume 691 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 319–338. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Kindler and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Liveness, Fairness, and Recurrence. Information Processing Letters, 70(6):269–274, June 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Kuo, M. Lawley, C. Liu, and M. E. Orlowska. A General Model for Nested Transactional Workflows. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Advanced Transaction Models and Architecture (ATMA’ 96), pages 18–35, Bombay, India, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Lawrence, editor. Workflow Handbook 1997, Workflow Management Coalition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Lin, Z. Zhao, H. Li, and Z. Chen. A Novel Graph Reduction Algorithm to Identify Structural Conflicts. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-35). IEEE Computer Society Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Murata. Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(4):541–580, April 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Reichert and P. Dadam. ADEPTflex: Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflow without Loosing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(2):93–129, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. Reisig and G. Rozenberg, editors. Lectures on Petri Nets I: Basic Models, volume 1491 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Sadiq and M. E. Orlowska. On Correctness Issues in Conceptual Modeling of Workflows. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS’ 97), pages 19–21, Cork, Ireland, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Sadiq and M. E. Orlowska. Applying Graph Reduction Techniques for Identifying Structural Conflicts in Process Models. In M. Jarke and A. Oberweis, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’ 99), volume 1626 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 195–209. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Sadiq and M. E. Orlowska. Analyzing Process Models using Graph Reduction Techniques. Information Systems, 25(2):117–134, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. M. W. Verbeek, T. Basten, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. Diagnosing Workflow Processes using Woflan. The Computer Journal, 44(4):246–279, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
  • A. Hirnschall
    • 1
  • H. M. W. Verbeek
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology and Management Department of Information and TechnologyEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations