Advertisement

Service Orchestration with Priority Constraints

  • Behnaz Changizi
  • Natallia KokashEmail author
  • Farhad Arbab
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11761)

Abstract

Business process management is an operational management approach that focuses on improving business processes. Business processes, i.e., collections of important activities in an organization, are represented in the form of a workflow, an orchestrated and repeatable pattern of activities amenable to automated analysis and control. Priority is an important concept in modeling workflows. We need priority to model cancelable and compensable tasks within transactional business processes. We use the Reo coordination language to model and formally analyze workflows. In this paper, we propose a constraint-based approach to formalize priority in Reo. We introduce special channels to propagate and block priority flows, define their semantics as constraints, and model priority propagation as a constraint satisfaction problem.

Keywords

Transaction Priority Constraints Coordination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The publication has been prepared with the support of the “RUDN University Program 5–100” and funded by RFBR according to the research projects No. 12-34-56789 and No. 12-34-56789

References

  1. 1.
    Aalst, W.M.P.: Business process management demystified: a tutorial on models, systems and standards for workflow management. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ACPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 1–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27755-2_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business process management: a survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44895-0_1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W., Hofstede, A.H.M.T.: Workflow Patterns: On the Expressive Power of (Petri-net-based) Workflow Languages. Technical Report DAIMI PB-560 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Math. Struct. in Comput. Sci. 14, 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arbab, F.: Puff, the magic protocol. In: Formal Modeling: Actors, Open Systems, Biological Systems - Essays Dedicated to Carolyn Talcott on the Occasion of Her 70th Birthday. pp. 169–206 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arbab, F., Kokash, N., Meng, S.: Towards using reo for compliance-aware business process modeling. In: ISoLA. pp. 108–123 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baier, C., Sirjani, M., Arbab, F., Rutten, J.J.M.M.: Modeling component connectors in reo by constraint automata. Sci. Comput. Program. 61(2), 75–113 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balbo, G.: Introduction to stochastic petri nets. In: Brinksma, E., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.-P. (eds.) EEF School 2000. LNCS, vol. 2090, pp. 84–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44667-2_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bause, F.: Analysis of petri nets with a dynamic priority method. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 215–234. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Best, E., Koutny, M.: Petri net semantics of priority systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 175–215 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonsangue, M., Clarke, D., Silva, A.: A model of context-dependent component connectors. Sci. Comput. Program. 77(6), 685–706 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruni, R., Melgratti, H., Montanari, U.: Theoretical foundations for compensations in flow composition languages. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Butler, M., Hoare, T., Ferreira, C.: A trace semantics for long-running transactions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Communicating Sequential Processes: The First 25 Years. CSP 2004 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Changizi, B., Kokash, N., Arbab, F.: A unified toolset for business process model formalization. In: Proceedings of Formal Engineering Approaches to Software Components and Architectures. ENTCS, Elsevier (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Changizi, B., Kokash, N., Arbab, F.: A constraint-based method to compute semantics of channel-based coordination models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA). IARIA (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Changizi, B., Kokash, N., Arbab, F.: A unified toolset for business process model formalization. In: 7th International Workshop on Formal Engineering approaches to Software Components and Architectures (FESCA 2010), pp. 147–156. ENTCS (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clarke, D., Costa, D., Arbab, F.: Connector colouring I: synchronisation and context dependency. Sci. Comput. Program. 66(3), 205–225 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke, D., Proenca, J., Lazovik, A., Arbab, F.: Channel-based coordination via constraint satisfaction. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(8), 681–710 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dijkman, R., Hofstetter, J., Koehler, J. (eds.): BPMN 2011. LNBIP, vol. 95. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25160-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Füricht, R., Prähofer, H., Hofinger, T., Altmann, J.: A component-based application framework for manufacturing execution systems in c# and.net. In: Proceedings of the Fortieth International Conference on Tools Pacific: Objects for Internet, Mobile and Embedded Applications, pp. 169–178. CRPIT 2002, Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Havey, M.: Essential Business Process Modeling. O’Reilly Media Inc., Newton (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jongmans, S.-S.T.Q., Santini, F., Sargolzaei, M., Arbab, F., Afsarmanesh, H.: Automatic code generation for the orchestration of web services with Reo. In: De Paoli, F., Pimentel, E., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) ESOCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7592, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33427-6_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jongmans, S., Arbab, F.: Overview of thirty semantic formalisms for Reo. Sci. Ann. Comput. Sci. 22, 201–251 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kappé, T., Arbab, F., Talcott, C.L.: A compositional framework for preference-aware agents. In: Proceedings of the The First Workshop on Verification and Validation of Cyber-Physical Systems, V2CPS@IFM 2016, Reykjavík, Iceland, 4–5 June 2016, pp. 21–35 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kokash, N., Arbab, F.: Formal design and verification of long-running transactions with extensible coordination tools. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 6(2), 186–200 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lomazova, I.A., Popova-Zeugmann, L.: Controlling petri net behavior using priorities for transitions. Fundam. Inform. 143(1–2), 101–112 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4439, pp. 82–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72035-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meng, S., Arbab, F.: Web services choreography and orchestration in Reo and constraint automata. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 346–353. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Padberg, J.: Reconfigurable petri nets with transition priorities and inhibitor arcs. In: Parisi-Presicce, F., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) ICGT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9151, pp. 104–120. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21145-9_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reisig, W.: Understanding Petri Nets: Modeling Techniques, Analysis Methods, Case Studies. Springer, Berlin (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33278-4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schumm, D., Turetken, O., Kokash, N., Elgammal, A., Leymann, F., van den Heuvel, W.-J.: Business process compliance through reusable units of compliant processes. In: Daniel, F., Facca, F.M. (eds.) ICWE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6385, pp. 325–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16985-4_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Valero, V., MaciÃ, H., Pardo, J.J., Cambronero, M.E., DÃaz, G.: Transforming web services choreographies with priorities and time constraints into prioritized-time colored petri nets. Sci. Comput. Program. 77(3), 290–313 (2012). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167642311001407, feature-Oriented Software Development (FOSD 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Behnaz Changizi
    • 1
  • Natallia Kokash
    • 2
    Email author
  • Farhad Arbab
    • 3
  1. 1.Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer ScienceLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)MoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.Centrum Wiskunde & InformaticaAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations