Advertisement

Revisiting Model-Driven Engineering for Run-Time Verification of Business Processes

  • Wei Dou
  • Domenico Bianculli
  • Lionel Briand
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8769)

Abstract

Run-time verification has been widely advocated in the last decade as a key technique to check whether the execution of a business process and its interactions with partner services comply with the application requirements. Despite the substantial research performed in this area, there are very few approaches that leverage model-driven engineering (MDE) methodologies and integrate them in the development process of applications based on business process descriptions. In this position paper we describe our vision and present the research roadmap for adopting MDE techniques in the context of run-time verification of business processes, based on our early experience with a public service partner in the domain of eGovernment. We maintain that within this context, the adoption of MDE would contribute in three ways: 1) expressing, at a logical level, complex properties to be checked at run time using a domain-specific language; 2) transforming such properties in a format that can leverage state-of-the-art, industrial-strength tools in order to check these properties; 3) integrating such property checker in run-time verification engines, specific to a target run-time platform, without user’s intervention.

Keywords

Business Process Business Process Model Property Checker Business Process Execution Business Process Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baresi, L., Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C., Guinea, S., Spoletini, P.: Validation of web service compositions. IET Softw. 1(6), 219–232 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Di Nitto, E.: Test and Analysis of Web Services. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baresi, L., Di Nitto, E., Ghezzi, C.: Toward open-world software: Issue and challenges. IEEE Computer 39(10), 36–43 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bianculli, D., Filieri, A., Ghezzi, C., Mandrioli, D.: Syntactic-semantic incrementality for agile verification. Sci. Comput. Program (2013) (in press), doi:10.1016/j.scico.2013.11.026Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C.: Towards a methodology for lifelong validation of service compositions. In: SDSOA 2008, pp. 7–12. ACM (May 2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bianculli, D., Ghezzi, C., Pautasso, C., Senti, P.: Specification patterns from research to industry: a case study in service-based applications. In: ICSE 2012, pp. 968–976. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Incremental evaluation of OCL constraints. In: Martinez, F.H., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Incremental integrity checking of UML/OCL conceptual schemas. J. Syst. Softw. 82(9), 1459–1478 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canfora, G., Di Penta, M.: Service-oriented architectures testing: A survey. In: De Lucia, A., Ferrucci, F. (eds.) ISSSE 2006-2008. LNCS, vol. 5413, pp. 78–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chomicki, J.: Efficient checking of temporal integrity constraints using bounded history encoding. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 20, 149–186 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dou, W., Bianculli, D., Briand, L.: A model-based approach to trace checking of temporal properties with OCL. Tech. Rep. TR-SnT-2014-5, SnT Centre - University of Luxembourg (March 2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dou, W., Bianculli, D., Briand, L.: OCLR: a more expressive, pattern-based temporal extension of OCL. In: Cabot, J., Rubin, J. (eds.) ECMFA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8569, pp. 51–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: ICSE 1999, pp. 411–420. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcia, M., Möller, R.: Incremental evaluation of OCL invariants in the essential MOF object model. In: Modellierung 2008. LNI, vol. 127, pp. 11–26 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giblin, C., Müller, S., Pfitzmann, B.: From regulatory policies to event monitoring rules: Towards model-driven compliance automation. Tech. Rep. Research Report RZ-3662, IBM Research GmbH (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Patterns for timed property specifications. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 153(2), 117–133 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holmes, T., Mulo, E., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: Model-aware monitoring of SOAs for compliance service engineering. In: Service Engineering, pp. 117–136. Springer Vienna (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Josuttis, N.: SOA in Practice: The Art of Distributed System Design. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koetter, F., Kochanowski, M.: Goal-oriented model-driven business process monitoring using proGoalML. In: Abramowicz, W., Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. (eds.) BIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 117, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Konrad, S., Cheng, B.H.C.: Real-time specification patterns. In: ICSE 2005, pp. 372–381. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Menet, L., Lamolle, M., Le Dc, C.: Incremental validation of models in a MDE approach applied to the modeling of complex data structures. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 120–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Momm, C., Gebhart, M., Abeck, S.: A model-driven approach for monitoring business performance in web service compositions. In: ICIW 2009, pp. 343–350. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG: BPMN 2.0 specification (January 2011), http://www.bpmn.org
  25. 25.
    Salaün, G.: Analysis and verification of service interaction protocols - a brief survey. In: TAV-WEB 2010. EPTCS, vol. 35, pp. 75–86 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vajk, T., Mezei, G., Levendovszky, T.: An incremental OCL compiler for modeling environments. ECEASST 15 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, T., Jeng, J.J.: Model driven development of business process monitoring and control systems. In: Chen, C.-S., Filipe, J., Seruca, I., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2005, pp. 161–166 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Dou
    • 1
  • Domenico Bianculli
    • 1
  • Lionel Briand
    • 1
  1. 1.SnT CentreUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations