Concurrency and Asynchrony in Declarative Workflows

  • Søren DeboisEmail author
  • Thomas Hildebrandt
  • Tijs Slaats
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9253)


Declarative or constraint-based business process and workflow notations, in particular DECLARE and Dynamic Condition Response (DCR) graphs, have received increasing interest in the last decade as possible means of addressing the challenge of supporting at the same time flexibility in execution, adaptability and compliance. However, the definition of concurrent semantics, which is a necessary foundation for asynchronously executing distributed processes, is not obvious for formalisms such as DECLARE and DCR Graphs. This is in stark contrast to the very successful Petri-net–based process languages, which have an inherent notion of concurrency. In this paper, we propose a notion of concurrency for declarative process models, formulated in the context of DCR graphs, and exploiting the so-called “true concurrency” semantics of Labelled Asynchronous Transition Systems. We demonstrate how this semantic underpinning of concurrency in DCR Graphs admits asynchronous execution of declarative workflows both conceptually and by reporting on a prototype implementation of a distributed declarative workflow engine. Both the theoretical development and the implementation is supported by an extended example; moreover, the theoretical development has been verified correct in the Isabelle-HOL interactive theorem prover.


Independence Relation Concurrent Activity Remote Event Rest Service Statistical Appraisal 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stehr, M.-O., Kim, M., Talcott, C.: Toward distributed declarative control of networked cyber-physical systems. In: Yu, Z., Liscano, R., Chen, G., Zhang, D., Zhou, X. (eds.) UIC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6406, pp. 397–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P., et al.: Principles of model checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debois, S.: DCR Workbench (2015).
  4. 4.
    Debois, S.: Isabelle-hol formalisation of present paper (2015).
  5. 5.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Safety, liveness and run-time refinement for modular process-aware information systems with dynamic sub processes. In: Bjørner, N., de Boer, F. (eds.) FM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9109, pp. 143–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Debois, S.: Thomas hildebrandt, tijs slaats, and morten marquard. a case for declarative process modelling: agile development of a grant application system. In: EDOC Workshops 2014, pp. 126–133. IEEE, September 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, 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) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Arrott, M., Specht, B., Singh, M.P.: Engineering foreign exchange processes via commitment protocols. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007), pp. 514–521. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(2), 6:1–6:45 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desai, N., Singh, M.P.: On the enactability of business protocols. In: AAAI 2008, pp. 1126–1131. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fahland, D.: Synthesizing petri nets from LTL specifications - an engineering approach. In: Philippi, S., Pinl, A. (eds.) Proc. of Algorithmen und Werkzeuge Petrinetze (AWPN), Arbeitsbericht aus dem Fach Informatik, Nr. 25/2007, pp. 69–74. Universitt Koblenz-Landau, Germany, September 2007Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fahland, D.: Towards analyzing declarative workflows. In: Autonomous and Adaptive Web Services, number 07061 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI). Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richard, H., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles (invited talk). In: Bravetti, M. (ed.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Johnson, M.J., Norman, T.J., O’Brien, P., Wiegand, M.E.: Agent-based Business Process Management. Int’l. J. of Cooperative Inf. Sys. 05(02n03), 105–130 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukkamala, R.R.: A Formal Model For Declarative Workflows - Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. PhD thesis, IT University of Copenhagen, March 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T.T.: From dynamic condition response structures to büchi automata. In: TASE, pp. 187–190. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nipkow, T., Wenzel, M., Paulson, L.C.: Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prescher, J., Di Ciccio, C., Mendling, J.: From declarative processes to imperative models. In: SIMPDA 2014, pp. 162–173 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh, M.P.: Synthesizing distributed constrained events from transactional workflow specifications. In: Proc. of the Twelfth Int’l Conf. on Data Eng., pp. 616–623. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swenson, K.D.: Mastering the Unpredictable: How Adaptive Case Management Will Revolutionize the Way That Knowledge Workers Get Things Done. Meghan-Kiffer (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare. Webpage (2010).
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Winskel, G., Nielsen, M.: Models for concurrency. In: Handbook of Logic and the Foundations of Computer Science, vol. 4, pp. 1–148. OUP (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: AAMAS 2002, pp. 527–534. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zielonka, W.: Notes on finite asynchronous automata. Informatique Théorique et Applications 21(2), 99–135 (1987)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle 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 CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Exformatics A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations