Advertisement

Dealing with Logical Failures for Collaborating Workflows

  • R. Müller
  • E. Rahm
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1901)

Abstract

Logical failures occurring during workflow execution require the dynamic adaptation of affected workflows. The consequences such a dynamic adaptation may have for collaborating workflows have not yet been investigated sufficiently. We propose a rule-based approach for dynamic workflow adaptation to deal with logical failures. In our approach, workflow collaboration is based on agreements specifying the delivery time and quality of objects a workflow expects from its collaboration partners. Our mechanisms decide which collaborating workflows have to be informed when a dynamic adaptation is performed. In particular, we estimate the temporal and qualitative implications a dynamic adaptation has for collaboration partners. Because of the automated handling of logical failures, we expect that our approach significantly improves the robustness and correctness of collaborating workflows. The approach has been developed in the context of collaborative work-flow- based care for cancer patients.

Keywords

Dynamic Adaptation Tumor Remission Collaboration Partner Failure Handling Execution Duration 
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.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Schuster, H., Cichocki, A., Baker, D.: Managing Process and Service Fusion in Virtual Enterprises. Information Systems 24, 429–456 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baralis, E.: Rule Analysis. In: Paton, N. (ed.) Active Rules in Database Systems, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blum, A., Furst, M.L.: Fast Planning Through Planning Graph Analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90, 281–300 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgida, A., Murata, T.: Tolerating Exceptions in Workflows: a Unified Framework for Data and Processes. WACC, 59–68 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bussler, C.: Workflow Interoperability Classification and its Implication to Workflow Management System Architectures. In: EDBT Workflow Workshop, pp. 45–54 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casati, F.: Semantic Interoperability in Interorganizational Workflows. In: WACC Workshop on Cross-Organizational Workflows (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiu, D.K.W., Li, Q., Karlapalem, K.: A Meta Modeling Approach to Workflow Management System Supporting Exception Handling. Information Systems 24, 159–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clancey, W.J.: Heuristic Classification. Artificial Intelligence 25, 289–350 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dogac, A., Kalinichenko, L., Özsu, T., Sheth, A. (eds.): Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eder, J., Panagos, E., Rabinovich, M.I.: Time constraints in workflow systems. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 286–300. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagen, C., Alonso, G.: Beyond the Black Box: Event-based Inter-Process Communication in Process Support Systems. In: ICDCS 1999, pp. 450–457 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinl, P., Horn, S., Jablonksi, S., Neeb, J., Stein, K., Teschke, M.: A Comprehensive Approach to Flexibility in Workflow Management Systems. In: WACC 1999, pp. 79–88 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jajodia, S., Kerschberg, L. (eds.): Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Norman, T.J., O’Brien, P., Odgers, B.: Autonomous Agents for Business Process Management. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14, 145–189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeusfeld, M.A., Quix, C., Jarke, M.: Design and Analysis of Quality Information for Data Warehouses. In: ER 1998, pp. 349–362 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kafeza, E., Karlapalem, K.: Temporally constrained workflows. In: Hui, L.C.K., Lee, D.-L. (eds.) ICSC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1749, pp. 246–255. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein, M., Dellarocas, C.: A Knowledge-Based Approach to Handling Exceptions in Workflow Systems. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Work 9, 399–412 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ludwig, H.: Termination Handling in Inter-Organisational Workflows - An Exception Management Approach. In: Ludwig, H. (ed.) Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing, pp. 122–129 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Müller, R., Heller, B.: A Petri Net-based Model for Knowledge-based Workflows in Distributed Cancer Therapy. In: EDBT Workflow Workshop, pp. 91–99 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marjanovic, O., Orlowska, M.E.: On Modeling and Verification of Temporal Constraints in Production Workflows. Knowledge and Information Systems 1, 157–192 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Müller, R., Rahm, E.: Rule-Based Dynamic Modification of Workflows in a Medical Domain. In: German Database Conference (BTW). Springer, Heidelberg (1999), http://dol.uni-leipzig.de Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwalb, E., Dechter, R.: Processing Disjunctions in Temporal Constraint Networks. Artificial Intelligence 93, 29–61 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTFLEX - Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Worah, D., Sheth, A.: Transactions in Transactional Workflows. In: [13], pp. 3–34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Müller
    • 1
  • E. Rahm
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations