Advertisement

Verifying Timed BPMN Processes Using Maude

  • Francisco Durán
  • Gwen Salaün
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10319)

Abstract

A business process is a collection of structured activities producing a particular product or software. BPMN is a workflow-based graphical notation for specifying business processes. Formally analyzing such processes is a crucial challenge in order to avoid erroneous executions of the corresponding software. In this paper, we focus on timed business processes where execution time can be associated to several BPMN constructs. We propose an encoding of timed business processes into the Maude language, which allows one to automatically verify several properties of interest on processes such as the maximum/minimum/average execution time or the timed degree of parallelism that provides a valuable guide for the problem of resource allocation. The analysis is achieved using the rewriting-based tools available in Maude, which also provides other techniques (e.g., reachability analysis and model checking) for verifying BPMN specifications. We applied our approach on a large set of BPMN processes for evaluation purposes.

Keywords

Business Process Model Check Linear Temporal Logic Process Algebra Reachability Analysis 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by MINECO/FEDER project TIN2014-52034-R and Universidad de Málaga, Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Arbab, F., Kokash, N., Meng, S.: Towards using reo for compliance-aware business process modeling. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2008. CCIS, vol. 17, pp. 108–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88479-8_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouhoula, A., Jouannaud, J.-P., Meseguer, J.: Specification and proof in membership equational logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(1), 35–132 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruni, R., Corradini, A., Ferrari, G., Flagella, T., Guanciale, R., Spagnolo, G.: Applying process analysis to the Italian eGovernment enterprise architecture. In: Carbone, M., Petit, J.-M. (eds.) WS-FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7176, pp. 111–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29834-9_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capel Tuñón, M.I., Mendoza Morales, L.E.: Automating the transformation from BPMN models to CSP+T specifications. In: Proceedings of SEW 2012, pp. 100–109. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christiansen, D.R., Carbone, M., Hildebrandt, T.: Formal semantics and implementation of BPMN 2.0 inclusive gateways. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework, How to Specify, Program and Verify Systems in Rewriting Logic. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71999-1 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eker, S., Meseguer, J., Sridharanarayanan, A.: The Maude LTL model checker. In: Proceedings of WRLA 2002. ENTCS, vol. 71, pp. 115–142. Elsevier (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Saber, N., Boronat, A.: BPMN formalization and verification using Maude. In: Proceedings of BM-FA 2014, pp. 1–8. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Patterns for timed property specifications. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 153(2), 117–133 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Güdemann, M., Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Ye, L.: VerChor: a framework for the design and verification of choreographies. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 9(4), 647–660 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC: International Standard 19510, Information technology - Business Process Model and Notation (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Konrad, S., Cheng, B.H.C.: Real-time Specification Patterns. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2005, pp. 372–381. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing web service based business processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mateescu, R., Salaün, G., Ye, L.: Quantifying the parallelism in BPMN processes using model checking. In: Proceedings of CBSE 2014, pp. 159–168. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morales, L.E.M., Tuñón, M.I.C., Pérez, M.A.: A formalization proposal of timed BPMN for compositional verification of business processes. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 73, pp. 388–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19802-1_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mendoza Morales, L.E., Capel Tuñón, M.I., Pérez, M.A.: Conceptual framework for business processes compositional verification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(2), 149–161 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theor. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meseguer, J., Palomino, M., Martí-Oliet, N.: Equational abstractions. In: Baader, F. (ed.) CADE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2741, pp. 2–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45085-6_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J.: Semantics and pragmatics of real-time Maude. High. Order Symb. Comput. 20(1–2), 161–196 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) - Version 2.0, January 2011Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Checking the realizability of BPMN 2.0 choreographies. In: Proceedings of SAC 2012, pp. 1927–1934. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Krishna, A.: Checking business process evolution. In: Kouchnarenko, O., Khosravi, R. (eds.) FACS 2016. LNCS, vol. 10231, pp. 36–53. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57666-4_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raedts, I., Petkovic, M., Usenko, Y.S., van der Werf, J.M., Groote, J.F., Somers, L.: Transformation of BPMN models for behaviour analysis. In: Proceedings of MSVVEIS 2007, pp. 126–137 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun, Y., Su, J.: Computing degree of parallelism for BPMN processes. In: Kappel, G., Maamar, Z., Motahari-Nezhad, H.R. (eds.) ICSOC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7084, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25535-9_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F.: Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2(2), 182–192 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Maibaum, T., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88194-0_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wong, P., Gibbons, J.: Verifying business process compatibility. In: Proceedings of QSIC 2008, pp. 126–131. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A relative timed semantics for BPMN. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 229(2), 59–75 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MálagaMálagaSpain
  2. 2.University of Grenoble Alpes, LIG, CNRSGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations