Advertisement

Modeling and Reasoning over Declarative Data-Aware Processes with Object-Centric Behavioral Constraints

  • Alessandro Artale
  • Alisa Kovtunova
  • Marco MontaliEmail author
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11675)

Abstract

Existing process modeling notations ranging from Petri nets to BPMN have difficulties capturing the data manipulated by processes. Process models often focus on the control flow, lacking an explicit, conceptually well-founded integration with real data models, such as ER diagrams or UML class diagrams. To overcome this limitation, Object-Centric Behavioral Constraints (OCBC) models were recently proposed as a new notation that combines full-fledged data models with control-flow constraints inspired by declarative process modeling notations such as DECLARE and DCR Graphs. We propose a formalization of the OCBC model using temporal description logics. The obtained formalization allows us to lift all reasoning services defined for constraint-based process modeling notations without data, to the much more sophisticated scenario of OCBC. Furthermore, we show how reasoning over OCBC models can be reformulated into decidable, standard reasoning tasks over the corresponding temporal description logic knowledge base.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially supported by the UNIBZ CRC projects PWORM and REKAP.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci.-Res. Dev. 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Data Science in Action. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49851-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Li, G., Montali, M.: Object-centric behavioral constraints. CoRR Technical report, CoRR (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05740
  4. 4.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Ryzhikov, V., Zakharyaschev, M.: Reasoning over extended ER models. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 277–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75563-0_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artale, A., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S.: Evolving objects in temporal information systems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50(1–2), 5–38 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-Lite family and relations. JAIR 36, 1–69 (2009) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Artale, A., Kontchakov, R., Ryzhikov, V., Zakharyaschev, M.: Complexity of reasoning over temporal data models. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER). LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 277–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Artale, A., Kontchakov, R., Ryzhikov, V., Zakharyaschev, M.: A cookbook for temporal conceptual data modeling with description logics. ACM Transactivity Comput. Logic (TOCL) 15(3), 25 (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Artale, A., Mazzullo, A., Ozaki, A.: Do you need infinite time? In: Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2019, to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bagheri Hariri, B., Calvanese, D., Montali, M., De Giacomo, G., De Masellis, R., Felli, P.: Description logic knowledge and action bases. JAIR 46, 651–686 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. J. 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-Lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: Proceedings of 32nd PODS. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chesani, F., et al.: Compliance in business processes with incomplete information and time constraints: a general framework based on abductive reasoning. Fundamenta Informaticae 159(3), 1–37 (2018)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Franconi, E., Mosca, A., Solomakhin, D.: ORM2: formalisation and encoding in OWL2. In: Herrero, P., Panetto, H., Meersman, R., Dillon, T. (eds.) OTM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7567, pp. 368–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33618-8_51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabbay, D., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Studies in Logic. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonzalez, P., Griesmayer, A., Lomuscio, A.: Verification of GSM-based artifact-centric systems by predicate abstraction. In: Barros, A., Grigori, D., Narendra, N.C., Dam, H.K. (eds.) ICSOC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9435, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48616-0_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levesque, H.J.: Foundations of a functional approach to knowledge representation. Artif. Intell. J. 23, 155–212 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, G., de Carvalho, R.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Automatic discovery of object-centric behavioral constraint models. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2017. LNBIP, vol. 288, pp. 43–58. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59336-4_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, G., de Murillas, E.G.L., de Carvalho, R.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Extracting object-centric event logs to support process mining on databases. In: Mendling, J., Mouratidis, H. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNBIP, vol. 317, pp. 182–199. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92901-9_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maggi, F.M., Westergaard, M., Montali, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Runtime verification of LTL-based declarative process models. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 131–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montali, M., Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Storari, S.: Declarative specification and verification of service choreographies. ACM Trans. TWEB 4(1), 3 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.: DECLARE: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007), pp. 287–298. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of database-driven systems: a new frontier. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp. 1–13 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Temporalizing description logics. In: Frontiers of Combining Systems, pp. 379–401. Research Studies Press-Wiley (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Artale
    • 1
  • Alisa Kovtunova
    • 1
  • Marco Montali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
    • 2
  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Process and Data ScienceRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations