Efficient Compliance Checking Using BPMN-Q and Temporal Logic

  • Ahmed Awad
  • Gero Decker
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5240)


Compliance rules describe regulations, policies and quality constraints business processes must adhere to. Given the large number of rules and their frequency of change, manual compliance checking can become a time-consuming task. Automated compliance checking of process activities and their ordering is an alternative whenever business processes and compliance rules are described in a formal way. This paper introduces an approach for automated compliance checking. Compliance rules are translated into temporal logic formulae that serve as input to model checkers which in turn verify whether a process model satisfies the requested compliance rule. To address the problem of state-space explosion we employ a set of reduction rules. The approach is prototypically realized and evaluated.


Business Process Model Checker Temporal Logic Reduction Rule Open Account 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law 107-204 (116 Statute 745), United States Senate and House of Representatives in Congress (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: A Language to Query Business Processes. In: EMISA, pp. 115–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and Analysis of Business Process Models in BPMN. Information and Software Technology (IST) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eshuis, H.: Semantics and Verification of UML Activity Diagrams for Workflow Modeling. PhD thesis, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT) University of Twente (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic model checking of uml activity diagrams. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Tool support for verifying uml activity diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(7), 437–447 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esparza, J.: Decidability of model checking for infinite-state concurrent systems. Acta Informatica 34(2), 85–107 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Förster, A., Engels, G., Schattkowsky, T.: Activity diagram patterns for modeling quality constraints in business processes. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 2–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Förster, A., Engels, G., Schattkowsky, T., Straeten, R.V.D.: A pattern-driven development process for quality standard-conform business process models. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing VL (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Förster, A., Engels, G., Schattkowsky, T., Straeten, R.V.D.: Verification of business process quality constraints based on visual process patterns. In: TASE, pp. 197–208. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghose, A., Koliadis, G.: Auditing business process compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Compliant and Flexible Business Processes with Business Rules. In: 7th Workshop on Business Process Modeling (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing Compliant Business Processes from Obligations and Permissions. In: 2nd Workshop on Business Processes Design (BPD 2006), Proceedings, Business Process Management Workshops (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: EDOC 2006, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 221–232. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hornus, S., Schnoebelen, P.: On solving temporal logic queries. In: Kirchner, H., Ringeissen, C. (eds.) AMAST 2002. LNCS, vol. 2422, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laroussinie, F., Schnoebelen, P.: A hierarchy of temporal logics with past. Theoretical Computer Science 148(2), 303–324 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lui, Y., Müller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business process models. IBM Systems Journal 46(2), 335–362 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. PhD thesis, Institute of Information Systems and New Media Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (WU Wien) Austria (May 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: Pattern-based design and validation of business process compliance. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 59–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu, S.S.R., Governatori, G.: Compliance aware business process design. In: 3rd International Workshop on Business Process Design (BPD 2007), in Conjunction with 5th International Conference on Business Process Management (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadiq, S.W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadiq, W., Orlowska, M.E.: Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 117–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt, K.: Lola a low level analyser. In: Nielsen, M., Simpson, D. (eds.) ICATPN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1825, p. 465. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Beer, H.T., van Dongen, B.F.: Process mining and verification of properties: An approach based on temporal logic. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 130–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu, J., Manh, T.P., Han, J., Jin, Y., Han, Y., Wang, J.: Pattern based property specification and verification for service composition. In: Aberer, K., Peng, Z., Rundensteiner, E.A., Zhang, Y., Li, X. (eds.) WISE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4255, pp. 156–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zuck, L.: Past Temporal Logic. PhD thesis, Weizmann Intitute, Rehovet, Israel (August 1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Awad
    • 1
  • Gero Decker
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Process Technology Group Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations