Advertisement

Retry Scopes to Enable Robust Workflow Execution in Pervasive Environments

  • Hanna Eberle
  • Oliver Kopp
  • Tobias Unger
  • Frank Leymann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6275)

Abstract

Recent workflow languages are designed to serve the needs of business processes running in an unambiguous world based on unambiguous data. In contrast to business processes, processes running in a real world environment have to deal with data uncertainty and instability of the execution environment. Building a workflow language for real world flows based on a workflow language for business processes therefore may need additional modeling elements to be able to deal with this uncertainty and instability. Based on a real world process scenario we analyse and derive requirements for workflow language extensions for real world processes. The contributions provided by this paper are at first to investigate, how a workflow language can be extended properly followed up by the definition of workflow language extensions for real world processes, whereas the extensions are motivated by the real world process scenario. In this paper we use the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) as extension foundation.

Keywords

Activity Type Business Process Management Business Process Execution Language Business Process Modeling Notation Pervasive Environment 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Herrmann, K., Rothermel, K., Kortuem, G., Dulay, N.: Adaptable Pervasive Flows - An Emerging Technology for Pervasive Adaptation. In: Workshop on Pervasive Adaptation (PerAda) (October 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Owner inscription on fep edn. Doubleday Business (February 1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS): Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (March 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 1.2 (January 2009), http://www.bpmn.org/
  5. 5.
    Kloppmann, M., Koenig, D., Leymann, F., Pfau, G., Rickayzen, A., von Riegen, C., Schmidt, P., Trickovic, I.: WS-BPEL Extension for Sub-processes – BPEL-SPE. In: IBM, SAP (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steinmetz, T.: Ein Event-Modell für WS-BPEL 2.0 und dessen Realisierung in Apache ODE. Diplomarbeit, University of Stuttgart, Faculty of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Information Technology, Germany (August 2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karastoyanova, D., Khalaf, R., Schroth, R., Paluszek, M., Leymann, F.: BPEL Event Model. Technical Report 2006/10, University of Stuttgart, Faculty of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Information Technology, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leymann, F.: Supporting Business Transactions Via Partial Backward Recovery In Workflow Management Systems. In: BTW, pp. 51–70 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenfield, P., Fekete, A., Jang, J., Kuo, D.: Compensation is Not Enough. In: EDOC 2003: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, Washington, DC, USA, p. 232. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, A., Li, Q., Xiao, M.: A declarative approach to enhancing the reliability of bpel processes. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2007), pp. 272–279. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Altintas, I., Barney, O., Jaeger-Frank, E.: Provenance Collection Support in the Kepler Scientific Workflow System. In: Moreau, L., Foster, I. (eds.) IPAW 2006. LNCS, vol. 4145, pp. 118–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bharathi, S., et al.: Characterization of Scientific Workflows. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science, WORKS (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akram, A., Meredith, D., Allan, R.: Evaluation of bpel to scientific workflows. In: CCGRID 2006: Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 269–274. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IBM: MQSeries WorkflowGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiu, D.K.W., Li, Q.: A Meta Modeling Approach for Workflow Management System Supporting Exception Handling. Information Systems 24, 159–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Workflow Exception Patterns. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 288–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna Eberle
    • 1
  • Oliver Kopp
    • 1
  • Tobias Unger
    • 1
  • Frank Leymann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Architecture of Application SystemsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations