Specification and Verification of Complex Business Processes - A High-Level Petri Net-Based Approach

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9253)

Abstract

The Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) has been widely used as a tool for business process modeling. However, BPMN suffers from a lack of standard formal semantics. This weakness can lead to inconsistencies, ambiguities, and incompletenesses within the developed models. In this paper we propose a formal semantics of BPMN using recursive ECATNets. Owing to this formalism, a large set of BPMN features such cancellation, multiple instantiation of subprocesses and exception handling can be covered while taking into account the data flow aspect. The benefits and usefulness of this modelling are illustrated through two examples. Moreover, since recursive ECATNets semantics is expressed in terms of conditional rewriting logic, one can use the Maude LTL model checker to verify several behavioral properties related to BPMN models.

Keywords

Business process modelling BPMN RECATNets Conditional rewriting logic Maude language and tool 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barkaoui, K., Hicheur, A.: Towards analysis of flexible and collaborative workflow using recursive ECATNets. In: ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 232–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkaoui, K., Boucheneb, H., Hicheur, A.: Modelling and analysis of time-constrained flexible workflows with time recursive ECATNet. In: Bruni, R., Wolf, K. (eds.) Web Services and Formal Methods. LNCS, vol. 5387, pp. 19–36. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hicheur, A.: Modélisation et Analyse des Processus Workflows Reconfigurables et Distribués par les ECATNets Récursifs. Ph.D. dissertation. CEDRIC-CNAM, Paris (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billington, J., Christensen, S., van Hee, K.M., Kindler, E., Kummer, O., Petrucci, L., Post, R., Stehno, C., Weber, M.: The petri net markup language: concepts, technology, and tools. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Best, E. (eds.) ICATPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2679, pp. 483–505. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and Analysis of Business Process Models in BPMN. Information and Software Technology 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dufourd, C., Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) ICALP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1443, pp. 103–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eker, S., Meseguer, J., Sridharanarayanan, A.: The Maude LTL Model Checker. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 71, 162–187 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haddad, S., Poitrenaud, D.: Recursive Petri nets - Theory and application to discrete event systems. Acta Informatica 44(7–8), 463–508 (2007)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bzivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL : A model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming (EST) 72(1–2), 31–39 (2008). Special Issue on Second issue of experimental software and toolkitsMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science 96(1), 73–155 (1992)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morimoto, S.: A survey of formal verification for business process modeling. In: Bubak, M., van Albada, G.D., Dongarra, J., Sloot, P.M.A. (eds.) ICCS 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5102, pp. 514–522. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. M. G. (OMG). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. Technical report, January 2011Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ou-Yang, C., Lin, Y.D.: BPMN-based business process model feasibility analysis: a Petri net approach. International Journal of Production Research 46(14), 3763–3781 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ouyang, C., Verbeek, E., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Breutel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: WofBPEL: A tool for automated analysis of BPEL processes. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 484–489. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View. Technical report, BPM Center (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verbeek, H.M.W.E., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Woflan 2.0 A petri-net-based workflow diagnosis tool. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, pp. 475–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ye, J., Sun, S., Song, W., Wen, L.: Formal semantics of BPMN process models using YAWL. In: Second International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application (IITA), vol. 2, pp. 70–74, December 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Kheldoun
    • 1
  • Kamel Barkaoui
    • 2
  • Malika Ioualalen
    • 1
  1. 1.MOVEP, Computer Science DepartmentUSTHBAlgiersAlgeria
  2. 2.CEDRIC-CNAMCedex 03, ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations