Advertisement

Dynamic Condition Response Graphs for Trustworthy Adaptive Case Management

  • Thomas Hildebrandt
  • Morten Marquard
  • Raghava Rao Mukkamala
  • Tijs Slaats
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8186)

Abstract

By trustworthy adaptive case management we mean that it should be possible to adapt processes and goals at runtime while guaranteeing that no deadlocks and livelocks are introduced. We propose to support this by applying a formal declarative process model, DCR Graphs, and exemplify its operational semantics that supports both run time changes and formal verification. We show how these techniques are being implemented in industry as a component of the Exformatics case management tools. Finally we discuss the planned future work, which will aim to allow changes to be tested for conformance wrt policies specified either as linear time logic (LTL) or DCR Graphs, extend the language with time and data and offer extended support for cross-organizational case management systems.

Keywords

Case Management Process Fragment Declarative Process Plan Future Work Linear Time Logic 
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.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: PLACES. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Safe distribution of declarative processes. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming (JLAP) (May 2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2013.05.005
  5. 5.
    Hull, R.: Formal study of business entities with lifecycles: Use cases, abstract models, and results. In: Bravetti, T., Bultan, M. (eds.) 7th International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods. LNCS, vol. 6551 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mukkamala, R.R.: A Formal Model For Declarative Workflows: Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. PhD thesis, IT University of Copenhagen (June 2012), http://www.itu.dk/people/rao/phd-thesis/DCRGraphs-rao-PhD-thesis.pdf
  7. 7.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Towards trustworthy adaptive case management with dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International EDOC Conference, EDOC (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mundbrod, N., Kolb, J., Reichert, M.: Towards a system support of collaborative knowledge work. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 31–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sirbu, A., Marconi, A., Pistore, M., Eberle, H., Leymann, F., Unger, T.: Dynamic composition of pervasive process fragments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Web Services, ICWS 2011, pp. 73–80. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slaats, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M.: Exformatics declarative case management workflows as dcr graphs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 339–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swenson, K.D.: Mastering the Unpredictable: How Adaptive Case Management Will Revolutionize the Way That Knowledge Workers Get Things Done. Meghan-Kiffer Press (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 283–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Hildebrandt
    • 1
  • Morten Marquard
    • 2
  • Raghava Rao Mukkamala
    • 1
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Exformatics A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations