Advertisement

Formal Modeling and SMT-Based Parameterized Verification of Data-Aware BPMN

  • Diego Calvanese
  • Silvio Ghilardi
  • Alessandro GianolaEmail author
  • Marco Montali
  • Andrey Rivkin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11675)

Abstract

We propose DAB – a data-aware extension of BPMN where the process operates over case and persistent data (partitioned into a read-only database called catalog and a read-write database called repository). The model trades off between expressiveness and the possibility of supporting parameterized verification of safety properties on top of it. Specifically, taking inspiration from the literature on verification of artifact systems, we study verification problems where safety properties are checked irrespectively of the content of the read-only catalog, and accepting the potential presence of unboundedly many tuples in the catalog and repository. We tackle such problems using an array-based backward reachability procedure fully implemented in MCMT – a state-of-the-art array-based SMT model checker. Notably, we prove that the procedure is sound and complete for checking safety of DABs, and single out additional conditions that guarantee its termination and, in turn, show decidability of checking safety.

References

  1. 1.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: Proceedings of the PODS, pp. 1–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calvanese, D., Ghilardi, S., Gianola, A., Montali, M., Rivkin, A.: Formal modeling and SMT-based parameterized verification of data-aware BPMN (extended version). Technical report arXiv:1906.07811 (2019)
  3. 3.
    Calvanese, D., Ghilardi, S., Gianola, A., Montali, M., Rivkin, A.: Formal modeling and SMT-based parameterized verification of multi-case data-aware BPMN. Technical report arXiv:1905.12991 (2019)
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., Ghilardi, S., Gianola, A., Montali, M., Rivkin, A.: From model completeness to verification of data aware processes. In: Lutz, C., Sattler, U., Tinelli, C., Turhan, A.Y., Wolter, F. (eds.) Description Logic, Theory Combination, and All That. LNCS, vol. 11560, pp. 212–239. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22102-7_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., Ghilardi, S., Gianola, A., Montali, M., Rivkin, A.: Model completeness, covers and superposition. In: Automated Deduction - CADE 27, LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11716. Springer, Cham (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Combi, C., Oliboni, B., Weske, M., Zerbato, F.: Conceptual modeling of processes and data: connecting different perspectives. In: Trujillo, J., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 236–250. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    de Leoni, M., Felli, P., Montali, M.: A holistic approach for soundness verification of decision-aware process models. In: Trujillo, J., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 219–235. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_17CrossRefGoogle 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: Proceedings of 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: Proceedings of the PODS, pp. 179–194 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Ghilardi, S., Nicolini, E., Ranise, S., Zucchelli, D.: Towards SMT model checking of array-based systems. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71070-7_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghilardi, S., Ranise, S.: Backward reachability of array-based systems by SMT solving: termination and invariant synthesis. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 6(4), 1–48 (2010) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghilardi, S., Ranise, S.: MCMT: a model checker modulo theories. In: Giesl, J., Hähnle, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6173, pp. 22–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14203-1_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Li, Y., Deutsch, A., Vianu, V.: VERIFAS: a practical verifier for artifact systems. PVLDB 11(3), 283–296 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, A., Pufahl, L., Fahland, D., Weske, M.: Modeling and enacting complex data dependencies in business processes. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 171–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montali, M., Rivkin, A.: DB-Nets: on the marriage of colored Petri Nets and relational databases. ToPNoC 28(4), 91–118 (2017)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Reichert, M.: Process and data: two sides of the same coin? In: Meersman, R., et al. (eds.) OTM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7565, pp. 2–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33606-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosa-Velardo, F., de Frutos-Escrig, D.: Decidability and complexity of Petri nets with unordered data. Theor. Comput. Sci. 412(34), 4439–4451 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sidorova, N., Stahl, C., Trcka, N.: Soundness verification for conceptual workflow nets with data: early detection of errors with the most precision possible. Inf. Syst. 36(7), 1026–1043 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Calvanese
    • 1
  • Silvio Ghilardi
    • 2
  • Alessandro Gianola
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marco Montali
    • 1
  • Andrey Rivkin
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di MatematicaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations