Advertisement

A First-Order Logic Semantics for Communication-Parametric BPMN Collaborations

  • Sara Houhou
  • Souheib Baarir
  • Pascal PoizatEmail author
  • Philippe Quéinnec
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11675)

Abstract

BPMN is suitable to model not only intra-organization workflows but also inter-organization collaborations. There has been a great effort in providing a formal semantics for BPMN, and then in building verification tools on top of this semantics. However, communication aspects are often discarded in the literature. This is an issue since BPMN has gained interest outside its original scope, e.g., for the IoT, where the configuration of communication modes plays an important role. In this paper, we propose a formal semantics for a subset of BPMN, taking into account inter-process communication and parametric verification with reference to communication modes. As opposed to transformational approaches, that map BPMN into some formal model such as transition systems or Petri nets, we give a direct formalization in First-Order Logic that is then implemented in TLA\(^+\) to enable formal verification. Our approach is tool supported. The tool, as well as the TLA\(^+\) theories, and experiment models are available online.

Keywords

BPMN Formal semantics Collaboration Communication Verification TLA\(^+\) Tool 

References

  1. 1.
    Business Process Modeling Notation. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    fbpmn repository. https://github.com/pascalpoizat/fbpmn, v0.3.0 (c389b6d)
  4. 4.
    Casati, F., et al.: Towards business processes orchestrating the physical enterprise with wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of ICSE (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevrou, F., Hurault, A., Quéinnec, P.: On the diversity of asynchronous communication. Form. Asp. Comput. 28(5), 847–879 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chevrou, F., Hurault, A., Quéinnec, P.: A Modular Framework for Verifying Versatile Distributed Systems. Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corradini, F., et al.: A classification of BPMN collaborations based on safeness and soundness notions. In: Proceedings of EXPRESS/SOS (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corradini, F., et al.: A formal approach to modeling and verification of business process collaborations. Sci. Comput. Program. 166, 35–70 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corradini, F., Muzi, C., Re, B., Rossi, L., Tiezzi, F.: Animating multiple instances in BPMN collaborations: from formal semantics to tool support. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11080, pp. 83–101. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dechsupa, C., Vatanawood, W., Thongtak, A.: Transformation of the BPMN design model into a colored Petri net using the partitioning approach. IEEE Access 6, 38421–38436 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fahland, D., et al.: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houhou, S., et al.: A first-order logic semantics for communication-parametric BPMN collaborations (extended version). http://pardi.enseeiht.fr/BPM19
  14. 14.
    Kheldoun, A., Barkaoui, K., Ioualalen, M.: Formal verification of complex business processes based on high-level Petri nets. Inf. Sci. 385, 39–54 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krishna, A., Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Checking business process evolution. Sci. Comput. Program. 170, 1–26 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lam, V.S.: A precise execution semantics for BPMN. Int. J. Comput. Sci. 39(1), 20–33 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison Wesley, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, S., Ruppen, A., Hilty, L.: The things of the internet of things in BPMN. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 215, pp. 285–297. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19243-7_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen, H.N., Poizat, P., Zaïdi, F.: A symbolic framework for the conformance checking of value-passing choreographies. In: Liu, C., Ludwig, H., Toumani, F., Yu, Q. (eds.) ICSOC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7636, pp. 525–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Gorp, P., Dijkman, R.: A visual token-based formalization of BPMN 2.0 based on in-place transformations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(2), 365–394 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wong, P.Y., Gibbons, J.: Formalisations and applications of BPMN. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(8), 633–650 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ye, J., Sun, S., Song, W., Wen, L.: Formal semantics of BPMN process models using YAWL. In: Proceedings of IITA (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Houhou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Souheib Baarir
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pascal Poizat
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Philippe Quéinnec
    • 4
  1. 1.Sorbonne Université, CNRS, LIP6ParisFrance
  2. 2.LINFI LaboratoryBiskra UniversityBiskraAlgeria
  3. 3.Université Paris Lumières, Université Paris NanterreNanterreFrance
  4. 4.IRIT - Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations