Advertisement

Information Systems Modeling: Language, Verification, and Tool Support

  • Artem PolyvyanyyEmail author
  • Jan Martijn E. M. van der Werf
  • Sietse Overbeek
  • Rick Brouwers
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)

Abstract

Information and processes are both important aspects of information systems. Nevertheless, most existing languages for modeling information systems focus either on one or the other. Languages that focus on information modeling often neglect the fact that information is manipulated by processes, while languages that focus on processes abstract from the structure of the information. In this paper, we present an approach for modeling and verification of information systems that combines information models and process models using an automated theorem prover. In our approach, set theory and first-order logic are used to express the structure and constraints of information, while Petri nets of a special kind, called Petri nets with identifiers, are used to capture the dynamic aspects of the systems. The proposed approach exhibits a unique balance between expressiveness and formal foundation, as it allows capturing a wide range of information systems, including infinite state systems, while allowing for automated verification, as it ensures the decidability of the reachability problem. The approach was implemented in a publicly available modeling and simulation tool and used in teaching of Information Systems students.

Keywords

IS modeling Verification of IS models Tools for IS modeling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Artem Polyvyanyy was partly supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP180102839.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Stahl, C.: Modeling Business Processes—A Petri Net-Oriented Approach. Cooperative Information Systems Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Segoufin, L., Vianu, V.: Modeling and verifying active XML artifacts. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 10–15 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abiteboul, S., Vianu, V., Fordham, B.S., Yesha, Y.: Relational transducers for electronic commerce. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 61(2), 236–269 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belardinelli, F., Lomuscio, A., Patrizi, F.: Verification of agent-based artifact systems. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 51, 333–376 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: PODS, pp. 1–12. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese, D., Montali, M., Estañol, M., Teniente, E.: Verifiable UML artifact-centric business process models. In: CIKM. ACM Press (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Giacomo, G., Oriol, X., Estañol, M., Teniente, E.: Linking data and BPMN processes to achieve executable models. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 612–628. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59536-8_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Masellis, R., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Montali, M., Tessaris, S.: Add data into business process verification: bridging the gap between theory and practice. In: AAAI, pp. 1091–1099. AAAI Press (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Li, Y., Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of database-centric systems. SIGLOG News 5(2), 37–56 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deutsch, A., Li, Y., Vianu, V.: Verification of hierarchical artifact systems. In: PODS, pp. 179–194. ACM Press (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esparza, J., Nielsen, M.: Decidability issues for Petri nets–a survey. EATCS Bulletin, vol. 52 (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Estañol, M., Sancho, M.-R., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML artifact-centric business process models. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 434–449. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19069-3_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerede, C.E., Su, J.: Specification and verification of artifact behaviors in business process models. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 181–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74974-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halpin, T.A., Bloesch, A.C.: Data modeling in UML and ORM: a comparison. J. Database Manag. 10(4), 4–13 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hariri, B., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Deutsch, A., Montali, M.: Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services. In: PODS. ACM Press (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Hee, K.M., Sidorova, N., Voorhoeve, M., van der Werf, J.M.E.M.: Generation of database transactions with Petri nets. Fundam. Inform. 93(1–3), 171–184 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull, R., Su, J., Vaculín, R.: Data management perspectives on business process management: tutorial overview. In: SIGMOD, pp. 943–948. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets-Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, vol. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03241-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lasota, S.: Decidability border for Petri nets with data: WQO dichotomy conjecture. In: Kordon, F., Moldt, D. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9698, pp. 20–36. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39086-4_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lazic, R., Newcomb, T.C., Ouaknine, J., Roscoe, A.W., Worrell, J.: Nets with tokens which carry data. Fundam. Inform. 88(3), 251–274 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lipton, R.J.: The reachability problem requires exponential space. Research report, Department of Computer Science, Yale University (1976)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayr, E.W.: Persistence of vector replacement systems is decidable. Acta Inf. 15(3), 309–318 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montali, M., Rivkin, A.: DB-Nets: on the marriage of colored Petri nets and relational databases. In: Koutny, M., Kleijn, J., Penczek, W. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency XII. LNCS, vol. 10470, pp. 91–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55862-1_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Müller, D., Reichert, M., Herbst, J.: Data-driven modeling and coordination of large process structures. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 131–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76848-7_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reijers, H.A., et al.: Evaluating data-centric process approaches: does the human factor factor in? SoSyM 16(3), 649–662 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosa-Velardo, F., de Frutos-Escrig, D.: Decidability and complexity of Petri nets with unordered data. Theor. Comput. Sci. 412, 4439–4451 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sassone, V., Nielsen, M., Winskel, G.: Models for concurrency: towards a classification. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1–2), 297–348 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spielmann, M.: Verification of relational transducers for electronic commerce. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 66(1), 40–65 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sun, S.X., Zhao, J.L., Nunamaker Jr., J.F., Sheng, O.R.L.: Formulating the data-flow perspective for business process management. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(4), 374–391 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutcliffe, G., Schulz, S., Claessen, K., Van Gelder, A.: Using the TPTP language for writing derivations and finite interpretations. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11814771_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van der Werf, J.M.E.M., Polyvyanyy, A.: An assignment on information system modeling. In: Daniel, F., Sheng, Q.Z., Motahari, H. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNBIP, vol. 342, pp. 553–566. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11641-5_44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van der Werf, J.M.E.M., Polyvyanyy, A.: On the decidability of reachability problems for models of information systems. Technical report UU-CS-2018-005, Utrecht University (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Westergaard, M., Kristensen, L.M.: The Access/CPN framework: a tool for interacting with the CPN-tools simulator. In: Franceschinis, G., Wolf, K. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5606, pp. 313–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02424-5_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artem Polyvyanyy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Martijn E. M. van der Werf
    • 2
  • Sietse Overbeek
    • 2
  • Rick Brouwers
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options