Advertisement

Monitoring Business Constraints with Linear Temporal Logic: An Approach Based on Colored Automata

  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
  • Marco Montali
  • Michael Westergaard
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6896)

Abstract

Today’s information systems record real-time information about business processes. This enables the monitoring of business constraints at runtime. In this paper, we present a novel runtime verification framework based on linear temporal logic and colored automata. The framework continuously verifies compliance with respect to a predefined constraint model. Our approach is able to provide meaningful diagnostics even after a constraint is violated. This is important as in reality people and organizations will deviate and in many situations it is not desirable or even impossible to circumvent constraint violations. As demonstrated in this paper, there are several approaches to recover after the first constraint violation. Traditional approaches that simply check constraints are unable to recover after the first violation and still foresee (inevitable) future violations. The framework has been implemented in the process mining tool ProM.

Keywords

Runtime Verification Monitoring Linear Temporal Logic Declare Automata 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient Compliance Checking Using BPMN-Q and Temporal Logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL Semantics for Runtime Verification. Logic and Computation 20(3), 651–674 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Verification of Choreographies During Execution Using the Reactive Event Calculus. In: Bruni, R., Wolf, K. (eds.) WS-FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5387, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dadam, P., Reichert, M.: The ADEPT project: a decade of research and development for robust and flexible process support. Computer Science - R&D 23(2), 81–97 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Havelund, K.: Automata-Based Verification of Temporal Properties on Running Programs. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2001), pp. 412–416. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.W.: Compliance Checking Between Business Processes and Business Contracts. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), pp. 221–232. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sergot, M.J.: A Logic-Based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lichtenstein, O., Pnueli, A., Zuck, L.D.: The glory of the past. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Logic of Programs, London, UK, pp. 196–218. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montali, M.: Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models. LNBIP, vol. 56. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007), pp. 287–300. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Schonenberg, H., Mans, R., Russell, N., Mulyar, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Towards a Taxonomy of Process Flexibility. In: Bellahsene, Z., Woo, C., Hunt, E., Franch, X., Coletta, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Forum at the CAiSE 2008 Conference. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 344, pp. 81–84 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Song, M.: Beyond process mining: From the past to present and future. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 38–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westergaard, M.: Better Algorithms for Analyzing and Enacting Declarative Workflow Languages Using LTL. In: Rinderle, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Modelling and Verification of a Protocol for Operational Support using Coloured Petri Nets. In: Proc. of ATPN 2011 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
    • 1
  • Marco Montali
    • 2
  • Michael Westergaard
    • 1
  • Wil M. P. van der Aalst
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations