Safety, Liveness and Run-Time Refinement for Modular Process-Aware Information Systems with Dynamic Sub Processes

  • Søren DeboisEmail author
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
  • Tijs Slaats
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9109)


We study modularity, run-time adaptation and refinement under safety and liveness constraints in event-based process models with dynamic sub-process instantiation. The study is part of a larger programme to provide semantically well-founded technologies for modelling, implementation and verification of flexible, run-time adaptable processaware information systems, moved into practice via the Dynamic Condition Response (DCR) Graphs notation co-developed with our industrial partner. Our key contributions are: (1) A formal theory of dynamic subprocess instantiation for declarative, event-based processes under safety and liveness constraints, given as the DCR* process language, equipped with a compositional operational semantics and conservatively extending the DCR Graphs notation; (2) an expressiveness analysis revealing that the DCR* process language is Turing-complete, while the fragment corresponding to DCR Graphs (without dynamic sub-process instantiation) characterises exactly the languages that are the union of a regular and an omega-regular language; (3) a formalisation of run-time refinement and adaptation by composition for DCR* processes and a proof that such refinement is undecidable in general; and finally (4) a decidable and practically useful sub-class of run-time refinements. Our results are illustrated by a running example inspired by a recent Electronic Case Management solution based on DCR Graphs and delivered by our industrial partner. An online prototype implementation of the DCR* language (including examples from the paper) and its visualisation as DCR Graphs can be found at


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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.
    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., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare. Webpage (2010),
  5. 5.
    Anderson, G., Rathke, J.: Dynamic software update for message passing programs. In: Jhala, R., Igarashi, A. (eds.) APLAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7705, pp. 207–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldan, P., Corradini, A., Montanari, U.: Contextual petri nets, asymmetric event structures, and processes. Information and Computation 171, 1–49 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.): SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bravetti, M., Giusto, C.D., Pérez, J.A., Zavattaro, G.: Steps on the road to component evolvability. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Aspects of Component Software, FACS 2010, pp. 295–299 (2012),
  9. 9.
    Bravetti, M., Giusto, C.D., Pérez, J.A., Zavattaro, G.: Adaptable processes. Logical Methods in Computer Science 8(4) (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M., Slaats, T.: A case for declarative process modelling: Agile development of a grant application system. In: EDOCW/AdaptiveCM 2014, pp. 126 – 133. IEEE (September 2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Safety, liveness and run-time refinement for modular process-aware information systems with dynamic sub processes (full version) (2015),
  12. 12.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2014), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T., Yoshida, N.: Type checking liveness for collaborative processes with bounded and unbounded recursion. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esparza, J., Melzer, S.: Model checking LTL using constraint programming. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fecher, H., Majster-Cederbaum, M.: Event structures for arbitrary disruption. Fundam. Inf. 68(1-2), 103–130 (2005)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Vaandrager, F.W.: Bundle event structures and CCSP. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 57–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES. EPTCS. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 82(5-7), 164–185 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoogers, P.W., Kleijn, H.C.M., Thiagarajan, P.S.: An event structure semantics for general petri nets. Theoretical Computer Science 153(1-2), 129–170 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janneck, J.W., Esser, R.: Higher-order petri net modelling: Techniques and applications. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets: Formal Methods in Software Engineering and Defence Systems, CRPIT 2002, pp. 17–25 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katoen, J.P.: Quantitative and qualitative extensions of event structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede (April 1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langerak, R.: Transformations and Semantics for LOTOS. Universiteit Twente (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Langerak, R., Brinksma, E., Katoen, J.-P.: Causal ambiguity and partial orders in event structures. In: Mazurkiewicz, A., Winkowski, J. (eds.) CONCUR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1243, pp. 317–331. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Latvala, T., Mäkelä, M.: LTL model checking for modular petri nets. In: Cortadella, J., Reisig, W. (eds.) ICATPN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3099, pp. 298–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Minsky, M.L.: Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. Prentice-Hall (1967)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach, LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mukkamala, R.R.: A Formal Model For Declarative Workflows: Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. Ph.D. thesis, IT University of Copenhagen (June 2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Towards trustworthy adaptive case management with dynamic condition response graphs. In: EDOC, pp. 127–136. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Object Management Group BPMN Technical Committee: Business Process Model and Notation, version 2.0,
  31. 31.
    Pinna, G., Poign, A.: On the nature of events: another perspective in concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science 138(2), 425–454 (1995), meeting on the mathematical foundation of programing semanticsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems - Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Mulyar, N.: Workflow control-flow patterns: A revised view (2006),
  34. 34.
    Sibertin-Blanc, C., Mauran, P., Padiou, G.: Safe Adaptation of Component Coordination. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Coordination and Adaption Techniques for Software Entities, vol. 189, pp. 69–85 (juillet 2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Slaats, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M.: Exformatics declarative case management workflows as DCR graphs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 339–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Winskel, G.: Events in Computation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh (1980)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Expressiveness and understandability considerations of hierarchy in declarative business process models. In: Bider, I., et al. (eds.) EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren Debois
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
    • 1
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenKøbenhavn SDenmark
  2. 2.Exformatics A/SKøbenhavn SDenmark

Personalised recommendations