An Open Platform for Business Process Modeling and Verification

  • Antonio De Nicola
  • Michele Missikoff
  • Maurizio Proietti
  • Fabrizio Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6261)


In this paper we present the BPAL platform that includes a logicbased language for business process (BP) modeling and a reasoning mechanism providing support for several tasks. Firstly, the definition of a BP meta-model (MM) consisting of a set of rules that guide the BP designers in their work. Secondly, given a BP, the BPAL platform allows for the automatic verification of the compliance (well-formedness) of a given BP w.r.t. the defined MM. Finally, the execution semantics of a BP is given in term of its instances (referred to as traces) to provide services for i) checking if the actual execution of a BP has been carried out in accordance with the corresponding definition, ii) simulating executions by trace generation. The proposed platform is open since it can easily be enhanced by adding other logic-based modeling, reasoning, and querying functionalities.


business process modeling language Horn logic BPAL 


  1. 1.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Formal semantics and automated analysis of BPMN process models. Preprint 7115. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1491. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Montali, M., Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Verification from Declarative Specifications Using Logic Programming. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 440–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: the SCIFF framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logics 9(4), 1–43 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conrad, B., Gruninger, M.: Psl: A semantic domain for flow models. Software and Systems Modeling 4(2), 209–231 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation. Version 2.0 (August 2009),
  8. 8.
    De Nicola, A., Lezoche, M., Missikoff, M.: An Ontological Approach to Business Process Modeling. In: 3rd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IICAI 2007), Pune, India (Dicembre 17 -19, 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer, Berlin (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Process-Aware Information Systems. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eder, J., Gruber, W.: A Meta Model for Structured Workflows Supporting Workflow Transformations. In: Manolopoulos, Y., Návrat, P. (eds.) ADBIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2435, pp. 326–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Combi, C., Gambini, M.: Flaws in the Flow: The Weakness of Unstructured Business Process Modeling Languages Dealing with Data. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5870, pp. 42–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Dongen, B.F., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Structural Patternsfor Soundness of Business Process Models. In: Proceedings of EDOC 2006, Hong Kong, China. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D’Antonio, F., Missikoff, M., Taglino, F.: Formalizing the OPAL eBusiness ontology design patterns with OWL. In: Third International Conference on Interoperability for Enterprise Applications and Software, I-ESA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheer, A.W., Thomas, O., Adam, O.: Process Modeling Using Event-Driven Process Chains. In: Dumas, M., van der AAlst, W., ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (eds.) Process-Aware Information Systems, pp. 119–145 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The XSB Logic Programming System. Version 3.1 (August 2007),
  17. 17.
    Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: Concurrency and Communication in Transaction Logic. In: Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roman, D., Kifer, M.: Reasoning about the Behavior of Semantic Web Services with Concurrent Transaction Logic. In: VLDB (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio De Nicola
    • 1
  • Michele Missikoff
    • 1
  • Maurizio Proietti
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IASI-CNRRomeItaly
  2. 2.DIEI, Universita degli Studi de L.AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations