The 4C Spectrum of Fundamental Behavioral Relations for Concurrent Systems

  • Artem Polyvyanyy
  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Raffaele Conforti
  • Marcello La Rosa
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8489)

Abstract

The design of concurrent software systems, in particular process-aware information systems, involves behavioral modeling at various stages. Recently, approaches to behavioral analysis of such systems have been based on declarative abstractions defined as sets of behavioral relations. However, these relations are typically defined in an ad-hoc manner. In this paper, we address the lack of a systematic exploration of the fundamental relations that can be used to capture the behavior of concurrent systems, i.e., co-occurrence, conflict, causality, and concurrency. Besides the definition of the spectrum of behavioral relations, which we refer to as the 4C spectrum, we also show that our relations give rise to implication lattices. We further provide operationalizations of the proposed relations, starting by proposing techniques for computing relations in unlabeled systems, which are then lifted to become applicable in the context of labeled systems, i.e., systems in which state transitions have semantic annotations. Finally, we report on experimental results on efficiency of the proposed computations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Winkler, S.: Information flow between requirement artifacts. Results of an empirical study. In: Sawyer, P., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 232–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Process-Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. Wiley (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russell, N. (eds.): Modern Business Process Automation — YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sassone, V., Nielsen, M., Winskel, G.: Models for concurrency: Towards a classification. TCS 170(1-2), 297–348 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reisig, W.: Elements of Distributed Algorithms: Modeling and Analysis with Petri Nets. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2.1.2. Technical report (November 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hack, M.: Decidability Questions for Petri Nets. Outstanding Dissertations in the Computer Sciences. Garland Publishing, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nielsen, M., Plotkin, G.D., Winskel, G.: Petri nets, event structures and domains, Part I. TCS 13, 85–108 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weidlich, M., van der Werf, J.M.: On profiles and footprints – relational semantics for Petri nets. In: Haddad, S., Pomello, L. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7347, pp. 148–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunham, M.H.: Data Mining: Introductory and Advanced Topics. Prentice-Hall (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dijkman, R.M., La Rosa, M., Reijers, H.A.: Managing large collections of business process models — current techniques and challenges. Computers in Industry 63(2), 91–97 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petri, C.A.: Non-Sequential Processes. ISF, GMD (1977)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Ouyang, C., La Rosa, M., Song, L., Wang, J., Polyvyanyy, A.: APQL: A process-model query language. In: Song, M., Wynn, M.T., Liu, J. (eds.) AP-BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 159, pp. 23–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Polyvyanyy, A., La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Indexing and efficient instance-based retrieval of process models using untanglings. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 439–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kunze, M., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Behavioral similarity – A proper metric. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Dongen, B.F., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zha, H., Wang, J., Wen, L., Wang, C., Sun, J.: A workflow net similarity measure based on transition adjacency relations. Computers in Industry 61(5), 463–471 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goltz, U., Reisig, W.: The non-sequential behavior of Petri nets. IANDC 57(2/3) (1983)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Desel, J.: Validation of process models by construction of process nets. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 110–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayr, E.W.: Persistence of vector replacement systems is decidable. Acta Inf. 15, 309–318 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kosaraju, S.R.: Decidability of reachability in vector addition systems (preliminary version). In: STOC, pp. 267–281. ACM (1982)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rackoff, C.: The covering and boundedness problems for vector addition systems. TCS 6, 223–231 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Escrig, D.F.: Decidability of home states in place transition systems, Internal Report. Dpto. Informatica y Automatica. Univ. Complutense de Madrid (1986)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Best, E., Devillers, R.R., Kiehn, A., Pomello, L.: Concurrent bisimulations in Petri nets. Acta Inf. 28(3), 231–264 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Weidlich, M.: Towards a compendium of process technologies: The jBPT library for process model analysis. In: CAiSE Forum. CEUR, vol. 998 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Analysis on demand: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. DKE (5), 448–466 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: A partial order event model for concurrent objects. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S. (eds.) CONCUR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1664, pp. 415–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining — Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, T., Maruster, L.: Workflow mining: Discovering process models from event logs. TKDE 16(9), 1128–1142 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Desai, N., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Process compliance analysis based on behavioural profiles. IS 36(7), 1009–1025 (2011)MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Propagating changes between aligned process models. JSS 85(8), 1885–1898 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kindler, E., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Liveness, fairness, and recurrence in Petri nets. IPL 70(6), 269–274 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artem Polyvyanyy
    • 1
  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 2
  • Raffaele Conforti
    • 1
  • Marcello La Rosa
    • 1
    • 3
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.NICTA Queensland LabBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations