Local Enforceability in Interaction Petri Nets

  • Gero Decker
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4714)

Abstract

In scenarios where a set of independent business partners engage in complex conversations, global interaction models are a means to specify the allowed interaction behavior from a global perspective. In these models atomic interactions serve as basic building blocks and behavioral dependencies are defined between them. Global interaction models might not be locally enforceable, i.e. they specify constraints that cannot be enforced during execution without additional synchronization interactions. As this property has only been defined textually so far, this paper presents a formal definition. For doing so, this paper introduces interaction Petri nets, a Petri net extension for representing global interaction models. Algorithms for deriving the behavioral interface for each partner and for enforceability checking are provided.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification, Final Adopted Specification. Technical report, Object Management Group (OMG) (February 2006), http://www.bpmn.org/
  2. 2.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, version 1.1. Technical report, OASIS (May 2003), http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bpel
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: A priori conformance verification for guaranteeing interoperability in open environments. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294, pp. 339–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busi, N., Gorrieri, R., Guidi, C., Lucchi, R., Zavattaro, G.: Choreography and Orchestration: A Synergic Approach for System Design. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Traverso, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3826, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carbone, M., Honda, K., Yoshida, N.: Structured communication-centred programming for web services. In: Proceedings 16th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP) as part of the European Joint Conferences on Software Theory and Practice (ETAPS), Braga, Portugal (March 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Behavioral Consistency for B2B Process Integration. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M.: Service-oriented Design: A Multi-viewpoint Approach. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(4), 337–368 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Conversation protocols: A formalism for specification and analysis of reactive electronic services. Theoretical Computer Science 328(1-2), 19–37 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Synchronizability of conversations among web services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(12), 1042–1055 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ITU-T. Message sequence chart. Recommendation Z.120, ITU-T (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kavantzas, N., Burdett, D., Ritzinger, G., Lafon, Y.: Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation. Technical report (November 2005), http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10
  12. 12.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing Web Service based Business Processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A Calculus of Mobile Processes. Information and Computation 100, 1–40 (1992)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Basten, T.: Inheritance of workflows: an approach to tackling problems related to change. Theor. Comput. Sci. 270(1-2), 125–203, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: Decserflow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: The P2P Approach to Interorganizational Workflows. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.v.d., van Hee, K.v. (eds.): Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems (Cooperative Information Systems). The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics. J. ACM 43(3), 555–600 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaha, J.M., Barros, A., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: A Language for Service Behavior Modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) CoopIS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4276, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zaha, J.M., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Barros, A., Decker, G.: Service Interaction Modeling: Bridging Global and Local Views. In: Proceedings 10th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2006), Hong Kong (October 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gero Decker
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso-Plattner-Institute, University of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations