Advertisement

Automatic Fragment Identification in Workflows Based on Sharing Analysis

  • Dragan Ivanović
  • Manuel Carro
  • Manuel Hermenegildo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6470)

Abstract

In Service-Oriented Computing (SOC), fragmentation and merging of workflows are motivated by a number of concerns, among which we can cite design issues, performance, and privacy. Fragmentation emphasizes the application of design and runtime methods for clustering workflow activities into fragments and for checking the correctness of such fragment identification w.r.t. to some predefined policy. We present a fragment identification approach based on sharing analysis and we show how it can be applied to abstract workflow representations that may include descriptions of data operations, logical link dependencies based on logical formulas, and complex control flow constructs, such as loops and branches. Activities are assigned to fragments (to infer how these fragments are made up or to check their well-formedness) by interpreting the sharing information obtained from the analysis according to a set of predefined policy constraints.

Keywords

Logic Program Data Item Abstract Interpretation Horn Clause Abstract Domain 
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. [AP08]
    Awad, A., Puhlmann, F.: Structural Detection of Deadlocks in Business Process Models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) International Conference on Business Information Systems. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 239–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [BlZ04]
    Bi, H.H., leon Zhao, J.: Applying Propositional Logic to Workflow Verification. Information Technology and Management 5, 293–318 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. [BMM06]
    Baresi, L., Maurino, A., Modafferi, S.: Towards Distributed BPEL Orchestrations. ECEASST 3 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. [CC77]
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract Interpretation: a Unified Lattice Model for Static Analysis of Programs by Construction or Approximation of Fixpoints. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 1977), pp. 238–252. ACM Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  5. [FYG09]
    Fdhila, W., Yildiz, U., Godart, C.: A Flexible Approach for Automatic Process Decentralization Using Dependency Tables. In: ICWS, pp. 847–855 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. [HBCetalchar+ 10]
    Hermenegildo, M.V., Bueno, F., Carro, M., López, P., Mera, E., Morales, J.F., Puebla, G.: An Overview of Ciao and its Design Philosophy. Technical Report CLIP2/2010.0, Technical University of Madrid (UPM), School of Computer Science, Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) (March 2010)Google Scholar
  7. [Jea07]
    Jordan, D et al.: Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Technical report, IBM, Microsoft, et. al (2007)Google Scholar
  8. [JL92]
    Jacobs, D., Langen, A.: Static Analysis of Logic Programs for Independent And-Parallelism. Journal of Logic Programming 13(2,3), 291–314 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [Kha07]
    Khalaf, R.: Note on Syntactic Details of Split BPEL-D Business Processes. Technical Report 2007/2, Institut für Architektur von Anwendungssystemen, Universität Stuttgart, Universitätsstrasse 38, 70569 Stuttgart,Germany (July 2007)Google Scholar
  10. [KL06]
    Khalaf, R., Leymann, F.: E Role-based Decomposition of Business Processes using BPEL. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, ICWS 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. [Llo87]
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [MH91]
    Muthukumar, K., Hermenegildo, M.: Combined Determination of Sharing and Freeness of Program Variables Through Abstract Interpretation. In: International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1991), pp. 49–63. MIT Press, Cambridge (June 1991)Google Scholar
  13. [MH92]
    Muthukumar, K., Hermenegildo, M.: Compile-time Derivation of Variable Dependency Using Abstract Interpretation. Journal of Logic Programming 13(2/3), 315–347 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [MS93]
    Marriott, K., Søndergaard, H.: Precise and efficient groundness analysis for logic programs. Technical report 93/7, Univ. of Melbourne (1993)Google Scholar
  15. [Obj09]
    Object Management Group. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.2 (January 2009)Google Scholar
  16. [TF07]
    Tan, W., Fan, Y.: Dynamic Workflow Model Fragmentation for Distributed Execution. Comput. Ind. 58(5), 381–391 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [vdAP06]
    van der Aalst, W., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. In: The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures number 06291 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (2006)Google Scholar
  18. [vdAtH05]
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Wor08]
    The Workflow Management Coalition. XML Process Definition Language (XPDL) Version 2.1 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. [WRRM08]
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features - Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 66(3), 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [YG07]
    Yildiz, U., Godart, C.: Information Flow Control with Decentralized Service Compositions. In: ICWS, pp. 9–17 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. [ZBDtH06]
    Zaha, J.M., Barros, A.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Let’s Dance: A Language for Service Behavior Modeling. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4275, pp. 145–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragan Ivanović
    • 1
  • Manuel Carro
    • 1
  • Manuel Hermenegildo
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceT. University of Madrid (UPM)Spain
  2. 2.IMDEA Software InstituteSpain

Personalised recommendations