Advertisement

Automatic Business Process Model Extension to Repair Constraint Violations

  • Xavier OriolEmail author
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Montserrat Estañol
  • Ernest Teniente
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11895)

Abstract

Consider an artifact-centric business process model, containing both a data model and a process model. When executing the process, it may happen that some of the data constraints from the data model are violated. Bearing this in mind, we propose an approach to automatically generate an extension to the original business process model that, when executed after a constraint violation, repairs the contents of the data leaving it in a new consistent state.

Keywords

BPMN UML Data-aware processes Integrity constraints repair 

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, M., Cabot, J., Gómez, C., Pelechano, V.: Automatic generation of basic behavior schemas from UML class diagrams. Softw. Syst. Model. 9(1), 47–67 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Resolution of compliance violation in business process models: a planning-based approach. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5870, pp. 6–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05148-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergmann, G.: Translating OCL to graph patterns. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 670–686. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borrego, D., Gasca, R.M., López, M.T.G.: Automating correctness verification of artifact-centric business process models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 62, 187–197 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Diaz, E., Panach, J.I., Rueda, S., Pastor, O.: Towards a method to generate GUI prototypes from BPMN. In: 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 1–12, May 2018Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., Rosa, M.L., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Papazoglou, M.: Root-Cause analysis of design-time compliance violations on the basis of property patterns. In: Maglio, P.P., Weske, M., Yang, J., Fantinato, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6470, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17358-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Estañol, M., Marcos, E., Oriol, X., Pérez, F.J., Teniente, E., Vara, J.M.: Validation of service blueprint models by means of formal simulation techniques. In: Maximilien, M., Vallecillo, A., Wang, J., Oriol, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10601, pp. 80–95. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69035-3_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Estañol, M., Sancho, M., Teniente, E.: Ensuring the semantic correctness of a BAUML artifact-centric BPM. Inf. Softw. Technol. 93, 147–162 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falleri, J., Blanc, X., Bendraou, R., da Silva, M.A.A., Teyton, C.: Incremental inconsistency detection with low memory overhead. Softw. Pract. Exper. 44(5), 621–641 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Hariri, B.B., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Deutsch, A., Montali, M.: Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services. In: PODS 2013, pp. 163–174. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hull, R.: Artifact-centric business process models: brief survey of research results and challenges. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1152–1163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88873-4_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 19510:2013 Information technology - Object Management Group Business Process Model and Notation (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leno, V., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M.: Correlating activation and target conditions in data-aware declarative process discovery. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11080, pp. 176–193. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    López, M.T.G., Gasca, R.M., Pérez-Álvarez, J.M.: Compliance validation and diagnosis of business data constraints in business processes at runtime. Inf. Syst. 48, 26–43 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring business constraints with linear temporal logic: an approach based on colored automata. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oriol, X., Teniente, E.: OCL\(_{\rm univ}\): expressive UML/OCL conceptual schemas for finite reasoning. In: Mayr, H.C., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2017. LNCS, vol. 10650, pp. 354–369. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oriol, X., Teniente, E.: Simplification of UML/OCL schemas for efficient reasoning. J. Syst. Softw. 128, 130–149 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oriol, X., Teniente, E., Tort, A.: Computing repairs for constraint violations in UML/OCL conceptual schemas. Data Knowl. Eng. 99, 39–58 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pastor-Collado, J.A., Olivé, A.: Supporting transaction design in conceptual modelling of information systems. In: Iivari, J., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M. (eds.) CAiSE 1995. LNCS, vol. 932, pp. 40–53. Springer, Heidelberg (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-59498-1_236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of conceptual schemas with OCL constraints. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 21(2), 13:1–13:41 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teniente, E., Olivé, A.: Updating knowledge bases while maintaining their consistency. VLDB J. 4(2), 193–241 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uhl, A., Goldschmidt, T., Holzleitner, M.: Using an OCL impact analysis algorithm for view-based textual modelling. ECEASST 44, 1–20 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models. Distrib. Parallel Databases 27(3), 271–343 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Oriol
    • 2
    Email author
  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Montserrat Estañol
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 2
  1. 1.Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Barcelona Supercomputing CenterBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations