Formalization and Verification of EPCs with OR-Joins Based on State and Context

  • Jan Mendling
  • Wil van der Aalst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4495)

Abstract

The semantics of the OR-join in business process modeling languages like EPCs or YAWL have been discussed for a while. Still, the existing solutions suffer from at least one of two major problems. First, several formalizations depend upon restrictions of the EPC to a subset. Second, several approaches contradict the modeling intuition since the structuredness of the process does not guarantee soundness. In this paper, we present a novel semantical definition of EPCs that addresses these aspects yielding a formalization that is applicable for all EPCs and for which structuredness is a sufficient condition for soundness. Furthermore, we introduce a set of reduction rules for the verification of an EPC-specific soundness criterion and present a respective implementation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Heft 89, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken, Germany (1992)Google Scholar
  2. Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: Resolving the vicious circle. Data Knowl. Eng. 56, 23–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Applying graph reduction techniques for identifying structural conflicts in process models. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  4. Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.: On structured workflow modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 431–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  5. van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W., Verbeek, H.M.W.: Verification of EPCs: Using reduction rules and petri nets. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Esparza, J.: Reduction and synthesis of live and bounded free choice petri nets. Information and Computation 114, 50–87 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. van der Aalst, W., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.: An Alternative Way to Analyze Workflow Graphs. In: Banks-Pidduck, A., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C., Ozsu, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, R., Scheer, A.W.: Modellierung von Prozessketten mittels Petri-Netz-Theorie. Heft 107, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken (1994)Google Scholar
  9. Rittgen, P.: Paving the Road to Business Process Automation. In: Proc. of ECIS 2000, pp. 313–319 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. Langner, P., Schneider, C., Wehler, J.: Petri Net Based Certification of Event driven Process Chains. In: Desel, J., Silva, M. (eds.) ICATPN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1420, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  11. Leymann, F., Altenhuber, W.: Managing business processes as an information resource. IBM Systems Journal 33, 326–348 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. van der Aalst, W.: Formalization and Verification of Event-driven Process Chains. Information and Software Technology 41, 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dehnert, J., Rittgen, P.: Relaxed Soundness of Business Processes. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 151–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  14. Nüttgens, M., Rump, F.J.: Syntax und Semantik Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). In: Desel, J., Weske, M. (ed.) Promise’02. vol. 21 of LNI. pp. 64–77 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Kindler, E.: On the semantics of EPCs: A vicious circle. In: Nüttgens, M., Rump, F. J. ed.: Proc. of EPK’02. pp. 71–79 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30, 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hee, K., Oanea, O., Serebrenik, A., Sidorova, N., Voorhoeve, M.: Workflow model compositions perserving relaxed soundness. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 225–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mendling, J., Moser, M., Neumann, G.: Transformation of yEPC Business Process Models to YAWL. In: Proc. of ACM SAC 2, 1262–1267 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.: Towards EPC Semantics based on State and Context. In: Nüttgens, M., Rump, F. J., Mendling, J. (ed.) Proc. of EPK’06, pp. 25–48 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. Wynn, M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Achieving a General, Formal and Decidable Approach to the OR-join in Workflow using Reset nets. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 423–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  21. Leuschel, M., Lehmann, H.: Coverability of reset petri nets and other well-structured transition systems by partial deduction. In: Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Lloyd, J.W., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1861, pp. 101–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Well-structured Transition Systems everywhere! Theoretical Computer Science 256, 63–92 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Wynn, M., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Edmond, D.: Verifying Workflows with Cancellation Regions and OR-joins: An Approach Based on Reset Nets and Reachability Analysis. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 389–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, H., Zhao, Z., Li, H., Chen, Z.: A novel graph reduction algorithm to identify structural conflicts. In: Proc. of HICSS. 289 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. Ph.D. Thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (2007)Google Scholar
  26. Rump, F.J.: Geschäftsprozessmanagement auf der Basis ereignisgesteuerter Pro-zessketten - Formalisierung, Analyse und Ausführung von EPKs. Teubner (1999)Google Scholar
  27. van Dongen, B., Medeiros, A., Verbeek, H., Weijters, A., van der Aalst, W.: The ProM framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Support. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 444–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  28. van der Aalst, W.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  29. Keller, G., Teufel, T.: SAP(R) R/3 Process Oriented Implementation: Iterative Process Prototyping. Addison-Wesley, London (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Mendling
    • 1
  • Wil van der Aalst
    • 2
  1. 1.Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Augasse 2-6, 1090 ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations