Where Did I Go Wrong?

Explaining Errors in Business Process Models
  • Niels Lohmann
  • Dirk Fahland
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8659)

Abstract

Business process modeling is still a challenging task — especially since more and more aspects are added to the models, such as data lifecycles, security constraints, or compliance rules. At the same time, formal methods allow for a detection of errors in the early modeling phase. Detected errors are usually explained with a path from the initial to the error state. These paths can grow unmanageably and make the understanding and fixing of errors very time consuming. This paper addresses this issue and proposes a novel explanation of errors: Instead of listing the actions on the path to the error, only the decisions that lead to it are reported and highlighted in the original model. Furthermore, we exploit concurrency to create a compact artifact to explain errors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers 8(1), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models through SESE decomposition. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. Comput. J. 44(4), 246–279 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science edn. Springer (1985)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, E., Dijkman, R.: Petri net transformations for business processes – A survey. In: Jensen, K., van der Aalst, W.M.P. (eds.) Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II. LNCS, vol. 5460, pp. 46–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahland, D.: Translating UML2 activity diagrams to Petri nets. Informatik-Berichte 226, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf, K.: Generating petri net state spaces. In: Kleijn, J., Yakovlev, A. (eds.) ICATPN 2007. LNCS, vol. 4546, pp. 29–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Accorsi, R., Lehmann, A.: Automatic information flow analysis of business process models. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 172–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busi, N., Gorrieri, R.: Structural non-interference in elementary and trace nets. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 19(6), 1065–1090 (2009)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lohmann, N., Mennicke, S., Sura, C.: The Petri Net API: A collection of Petri net-related functions. In: AWPN, CEUR Workshop Proceedings 643, CEUR-WS.org, pp. 148–155 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lohmann, N.: Correcting deadlocking service choreographies using a simulation-based graph edit distance. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gambini, M., La Rosa, M., Migliorini, S., ter Hofstede, A.: Automated error correction of business process models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 148–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bondavalli, A., Cin, M.D., Latella, D., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Savoia, G.: Dependability analysis in the early phases of uml-based system design. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 16(5), 265–275 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Csertán, G., Huszerl, G., Majzik, I., Pap, Z., Pataricza, A., Varró, D.: VIATRA - visual automated transformations for formal verification and validation of uml models. In: ASE 2002, pp. 267–270. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hegedüs, Á., Bergmann, G., Ráth, I., Varró, D.: Back-annotation of simulation traces with change-driven model transformations. In: SEFM 2010, pp. 145–155. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F.: Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdisc. Rew.: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2(2), 182–192 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Simplifying discovered process models in a controlled manner. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 585–605 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Lohmann
    • 1
  • Dirk Fahland
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations