Advertisement

An Operational Semantics for StAC, a Language for Modelling Long-Running Business Transactions

  • Michael Butler
  • Carla Ferreira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2949)

Abstract

This paper presents the StAC language and its operational semantics. StAC (Structured Activity Compensation) is a business process modelling language and a distinctive feature of the language is its support for compensation. A compensation is an action taken to recover from error or cope with a change of plan, especially when rollback of a process is not possible. StAC is similar to a process algebraic language such as Hoare’s CSP or Milner’s CCS but has additional operators dealing with compensation and with exception handling. In this paper we present an operational semantics for the language.

Keywords

Business Process Boolean Function Parallel Process Operational Semantic Business Process Execution Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bocchi, L., Laneve, C., Zavattaro, G.: A calulus for long-running transactions. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 124–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butler, M., Ferreira, C.: A process compensation language. In: Grieskamp, W., Santen, T., Stoddart, B. (eds.) IFM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1945, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chessell, M., Vines, D., Griffin, C.: An introduction to compensation with business process beans. Technical report, Transaction Processing Design and New Technology Development Group, IBM UK Laboratories (August 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chessell, M., Vines, D., Griffin, C., Butler, M., Ferreira, C., Henderson, P.: Extending the concept of transaction compensation. IBM Systems Journal 41(4), 743–758 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chessell, M., Vines, D., Griffin, C., Green, V., Warr, K.: Business process beans: System design and architecture document. Technical report, Transaction Processing Design and New Technology Development Group, IBM UK Laboratories (January 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Roller, D., Thatte, S., Weerawarana, S.: Business process execution language for web services, version 1.1, http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-bpel/ (2003)
  8. 8.
    Dijkstra, E.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferreira, C.: Precise Modelling of Business Processes with Compensation. PhD thesis, University of Southampton (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferreira, C., Butler, M.: Using B Refinement to Analyse Compensating Business Processes. In: Bert, D., Bowen, J.P., King, S. (eds.) ZB 2003. LNCS, vol. 2651, pp. 477–496. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray, J., Reuter, A.: Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, C.: Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korth, H., Levy, E., Silberschatz, A.: A formal approach to recovery by compensating transactions. In: 16th VLDB Conference, Brisbane, Australia (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metha, B., Levy, M., Meredith, G., Andrews, T., Beckman, B., Klein, J., Mital, A.: BizTalk Server 2000 Business Process Orchestration. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 24(1), 35–39 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes, I and II. Inform. and Comput. 100(1), 1–40, 41–77 (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plotkin, G.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department (September 1981)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spivey, J.: The Z Notation. Prentice Hall, New York (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wachter, H., Reuter, A.: The ConTract model. In: Elmagarmid, A. (ed.) Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Butler
    • 1
  • Carla Ferreira
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations