Nested Dynamic Condition Response Graphs

  • Thomas Hildebrandt
  • Raghava Rao Mukkamala
  • Tijs Slaats
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7141)

Abstract

We present an extension of the recently introduced declarative process model Dynamic Condition Response Graphs (DCR Graphs) to allow nested sub-graphs and a new milestone relation between events. The extension was developed during a case study carried out jointly with our industrial partner Exformatics, a danish provider of case and workflow management systems. We formalize the semantics by giving first a map from Nested to (flat) DCR Graphs with milestones, and then extending the previously given mapping from DCR Graphs to Büchi-automata to include the milestone relation.

Keywords

Business Process Management Atomic Event Industrial Partner Nest Relation Exclusion Relation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards Formal Analysis of Artifact-Centric Business Process Models. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bussler, C., Jablonski, S.: Implementing agent coordination for workflow management systems using active database systems. In: Proceedings Fourth International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, 1994. Active Database Systems, pp. 53–59 (February 1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohn, D., Hull, R.: Business artifacts: A data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davulcu, H., Kifer, M., Ramakrishnan, C.R., Ramakrishnan, I.V.: Logic based modeling and analysis of workflows. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART, pp. 1–3. ACM Press (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Patrizi, F., Vianu, V.: Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Database Theory, ICDT 2009, pp. 252–267. ACM Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, FMSP 1998, pp. 7–15. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Programming Language Approaches to Concurrency and Communication-cEntric Software, PLACES 2010, EPTCS (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Designing a cross-organizational case management system using dynamic condition response graphs. In: Accepted for IEEE International EDOC Conference (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Designing a cross-organizational case management system using nested dynamic condition response graphs. Technical Report TR-2011-141, IT University of Copenhagen (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lyng, K.M., Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: From paper based clinical practice guidelines to declarative workflow management. In: Proceedings ProHealth 2008 Workshop (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T.: From dynamic condition response structures to büchi automata. In: Proceedings of 4th IEEE International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE 2010) (August 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Tøth, J.B.: The resultmaker online consultant: From declarative workflow management in practice to LTL. In: Proceeding of DDBP (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group BPMN Technical Committee. Business Process Model and Notation, version 2.0 (2010), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/10-06-04.pdf
  14. 14.
    Microsoft Research. Zing model checker. Webpage (2010), http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/zing/
  15. 15.
    Senkul, P., Kifer, M., Toroslu, I.H.: A logical framework for scheduling workflows under resource allocation constraints. In: VLDB, pp. 694–705 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, M.P., Meredith, G., Tomlinson, C., Attie, P.C.: An event algebra for specifying and scheduling workflows. In: Proceedings of DASFAA, pp. 53–60. World Scientific Press (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spin. On-the-fly, ltl model checking with spin. Webpage (2008), http://spinroot.com/spin/whatispin.html
  18. 18.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - R&D 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winskel, G.: Event Structures. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1986. LNCS, vol. 255, pp. 325–392. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Hildebrandt
    • 1
  • Raghava Rao Mukkamala
    • 1
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 1
  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations