Advertisement

Deadlock-Freeness Verification of Business Process Configuration Using SOG

  • Souha Boubaker
  • Kais KlaiEmail author
  • Katia Schmitz
  • Mohamed Graiet
  • Walid Gaaloul
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10601)

Abstract

Configurable process models are increasingly used in many industries as reference processes shared between different process tenants. These processes are configured and adapted according to their specific needs through configurable elements (i.e. the variation points). Since configuration decisions are taken prior to execution, incorrect ones may lead to critical behavioral issues such as deadlocks. In this work, we propose a formal behavioral model based on the Symbolic Observation Graph (SOG) allowing to find the set of correct configuration choices while avoiding the state-space explosion problem. This set of configuration choices, jointly provided with the configurable process, will support and help business analysts in deriving deadlock-free variants.

Keywords

Business process management Configurable process model Process variants Formal verification 

References

  1. 1.
    Aalst, W.V.D., et al.: Preserving correctness during business process model configuration. Formal Asp. Comput. 22(3–4), 459–482 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aalst, W.V.D., et al.: Soundness of workflow nets: classification, decidability, and analysis. Formal Asp. Comput. 23(3), 333–363 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aalst, W.V.D., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aalst, W.V.D., Lohmann, N., Rosa, M.L.: Ensuring correctness during process configuration via partner synthesis. Inf. Syst. 37(6), 574–592 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Assy, N.: Automated support of the variability in configurable process models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris-Saclay, France (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Assy, N., Gaaloul, W.: Extracting Configuration Guidance Models from Business Process Repositories. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 198–206. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boubaker, S., et al.: A formal guidance approach for correct process configuration. In: Service-Oriented Computing - 14th International Conference, pp. 483–498 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandes, U., et al.: GraphML Progress Report Structural Layer Proposal, pp. 501–512 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardoso, J.S.: Business process control-flow complexity: Metric, evaluation, and validation. Int. J. Web Serv. Res. 5(2), 49–76 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Gottschalk, F., et al.: Configurable workflow models. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 17(02), 177–221 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haddad, S., Ilié, J.-M., Klai, K.: Design and evaluation of a symbolic and abstraction-based model checker. In: Wang, F. (ed.) ATVA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3299, pp. 196–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30476-0_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hallerbach, A., et al.: Guaranteeing soundness of configurable process variants in provop. In: IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, CEC, pp. 98–105 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallerbach, A., et al.: Capturing variability in business process models: the provop approach. J. Softw. Maintenance 22(6–7), 519–546 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klai, K., Tata, S., Desel, J.: Symbolic abstraction and deadlock-freeness verification of inter-enterprise processes. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(5), 467–482 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    La Rosa, M., et al.: Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(2), 251–274 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosemann, M., Aalst, W.V.D.: A configurable reference modelling language. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Der Aalst, W., et al.: Configurable Process Models as a Basis for Reference Modeling, pp. 512–518. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verbeek, H., Basten, T., Aalst, W.V.D.: Diagnosing workflow processes using woflan. Comput. J. 44(4), 246–279 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Souha Boubaker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kais Klai
    • 3
    Email author
  • Katia Schmitz
    • 3
  • Mohamed Graiet
    • 4
  • Walid Gaaloul
    • 1
  1. 1.Telecom SudParis, UMR 5157 SamovarUniversite Paris-SaclayParisFrance
  2. 2.ENIT, UR-OASISUniversity of Tunis El ManarTunisTunisia
  3. 3.LIPN, CNRS UMR 7030University of Paris 13VilletaneuseFrance
  4. 4.ISIMMMonastir UniversityMonastirTunisia

Personalised recommendations