Towards a Shared Ledger Business Collaboration Language Based on Data-Aware Processes

  • Richard Hull
  • Vishal S. Batra
  • Yi-Min Chen
  • Alin Deutsch
  • Fenno F. Terry Heath III
  • Victor Vianu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9936)

Abstract

Shared ledger technologies, as exemplified by Blockchain, provide a new framework for supporting business collaborations that is based on having a high-reliability, shared, trusted, privacy-preserving, nonrepudiable data repository that includes programmable logic in the form of “smart contracts”. The framework has the potential to dramatically transform business collaboration across numerous industry sectors, including finance, supply chain, food production, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare. Widespread adoption of this technology will be accelerated by the development of business-level languages for specifying smart contracts. This paper proposes that data-aware business processes, and in particular the Business Artifact paradigm, can provide a robust basis for a shared ledger Business Collaboration Language (BCL). The fundamental rationale for adopting data-aware processes is that shared ledgers focus on both data and process in equal measure. The paper examines potential advantages of the artifact-based approach from two perspectives: conceptual modeling, and opportunities for formal reasoning (verification). Broad research challenges for the development, understanding, and usage of a shared ledger BCL are highlighted.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Barthelmess, P., Ellis, C., Wainer, J.: Proclets: a framework for lightweight interacting workflow processes. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 10(4), 443–481 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abiteboul, S., Bidoit, N.: Non first normal form relations: an algebra allowing data restructuring. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 33(3), 361–393 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abiteboul, S., Vianu, V.: Collaborative data-driven workflows: think global, act local. In: International Symposyum on Principles of Database Systems (PODS) (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharya, K., Caswell, N.S., Kumaran, S., Nigam, A., Wu, F.Y.: Artifact-centered operational modeling: lessons from customer engagements. IBM Syst. J. 46(4), 703–721 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C.E., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boaz, D., Limonad, L., Gupta, M.: BizArtifact: Artifact-centric Business Process Management (open-source code base), June 2013. http://sourceforge.net/projects/bizartifact/. Accessed 20 July 2016
  8. 8.
    Boaz, D., Heath, T., Gupta, M., Limonad, L., Sun, Y., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: The ACSI hub: a data-centric environment for service interoperation. In: Proceedings of BPM Demo Sessions (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), version 2.0, 3 January 2011. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0. Accessed 10 July 2016
  10. 10.
    Brown, R.G.: Introducing R3 Corda\(^{\rm TM}\): A Distributed Ledger Designed for Financial Services. http://r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-distributed-ledger-designed-for-financial-services. Accessed 20 July 2016
  11. 11.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: International Symposyum Principles of Database Systems (PODS) (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chao, T., Cohn, D., Flatgard, A., Hahn, S., Linehan, M., Nandi, P., Nigam, A., Pinel, F., Vergo, J., Wu, F.: Artifact-based transformation of IBM global financing. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohn, D., Dhoolia, P., Heath III, F., Pinel, F., Vergo, J.: Siena: from powerpoint to web app in 5 minutes. In: Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 722–723. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32, 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. Inf. Syst. 38, 561–584 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deutsch, A., Vianu, V.: WAVE: automatic verification of data-driven web services. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 31(3), 35–39 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Patrizi, F., Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT) (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of database-centric systems. SIGMOD Rec. 43(3), 5–17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deutsch, A., Li, Y., Vianu, V.: Verification of hierarchical artifact systems. In: International Symposyum on Principles of Database Systems (PODS) (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diaz, M. (ed.): Petri Nets: Fundamental Models, Verification and Applications. Wiley, Jersey City (2009)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Introducing the Digital Asset Modeling Language. https://digitalasset.com/press/introducing-daml.html. Accessed 20 July 2016
  22. 22.
    A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized ApplicationPlatform (2016). https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper. Accessed 20 July 2016
  23. 23.
    Flood, M.D., Goodenough, O.R.: Contract as automaton: the computational representation of financial agreements, 26 March 2015. https://financialresearch.gov/working-papers/files/OFRwp-2015-04_Contract-as-Automaton-The-Computational-Representation-of-Financial-Agreements.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2016
  24. 24.
    Holzmann, G.J.: An improved protocol reachability analysis technique. Softw. Pract. Exper. 18(2), 137–161 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holzmann, G.J., Bosnacki, D.: Multi-core model checking with SPIN. In: International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hulin, G.: On restructuring nested relations in partitioned normal form. In: International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB) (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hull, R., Narendra, N.C., Nigam, A.: Facilitating workflow interoperation using artifact-centric hubs. In: Baresi, L., Chi, C.-H., Suzuki, J. (eds.) ICSOC-ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 5900, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hull, R., et al.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: Managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-based Systems (DEBS) (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hull, R., Su, J.: Report on NSF Workshop on Data-CentricWorkflows (2012). http://dcw2009.cs.ucsb.edu/report.pdf
  30. 30.
    Hull, R., Su, J., Vaculín, R.: Data management perspectives on business process management: tutorial overview. In: International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hyperledger white paper (2015). www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Hyperledger%20Whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2016
  32. 32.
    Kumaran, S., Nandi, P., Heath III., F.T., Bhaskaran, K., Das, R.: ADoc-oriented programming. In: Symposyum on Applications and the Internet (SAINT) (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Künzle, V., Reichert, M.: PHILharmonicflows: towards a framework for object-aware process management. J. Softw. Maint. 23(4), 205–244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Limonad, L., Boaz, D., Hull, R., Vaculín, R., Heath III., F.T.: A generic business artifacts based authorization framework for cross-enterprise collaboration. In: SRII Global Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu, R., Vaculín, R., Shan, Z., Nigam, A., Wu, F.: Business artifact-centric modeling for real-time performance monitoring. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 265–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Verification of concurrent programs, part i: the temporal framework. Technical Report STAN-CS-81-836, Stanford University (1981)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marin, M., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: Data-centric BPM and the emerging Case Management standard: a short survey. In: Business Process Management, Workshops (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moffitt, V.Z., Stoyanovich, J., Abiteboul, S., Miklau, G.: Collaborative access control in webdamlog. In: ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (2009). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2016
  40. 40.
    Nguyen, T., Fiammante, M.: Match processes to business needs: ApplyBELA to case management, October, 2011. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/solutions/soa/newsletter/october11/bela_case_management.html. Accessed 20 July 2016
  41. 41.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: an approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (1977)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Redding, G., et al.: A flexible, object-centric approach for business process modelling. SOCA 4(3), 191–201 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Redding, G., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Iordachescu, A.: Transforming object-oriented models to process-oriented models. In: ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 132–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Solidity. https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/latest/. Accessed 20 July 2016
  46. 46.
    Strosnider, J., Nandi, P., Kumaran, S., Ghosh, S., Arsanjani, A.: Model-driven synthesis of SOA solutions. IBM Syst. J. 47(3), 415–432 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sun, Y., Su, J., Yang, J.: Universal artifacts: a new approach to business process management (BPM) systems. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 7(1) (2016). Article id. 7Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weber, I., Xu, X.S., Riveret, R., Governatori, G., Ponomarev, A., Mendling, J.: Untrusted business process monitoring and execution using blockchain. In: International Conference Business Process Management (BPM), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 2016Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang, F., Cecchetti, E., Croman, K., Juels, A., Shi, E.: Towncrier: an authenticated data feed for smart contracts. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016 (2016). http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/168. Accessed 20 July 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Hull
    • 1
  • Vishal S. Batra
    • 2
  • Yi-Min Chen
    • 1
  • Alin Deutsch
    • 3
  • Fenno F. Terry Heath III
    • 1
  • Victor Vianu
    • 3
  1. 1.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA
  2. 2.IBM India Research LabNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations