Advertisement

Can I Execute My Scenario in Your Net? VipTool Tells You!

  • Robin Bergenthum
  • Jörg Desel
  • Gabriel Juhás
  • Robert Lorenz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4024)

Abstract

This paper describes the verification module (the VipVerify Module) of the VipTool [4]. VipVerify allows to verify whether a given scenario is an execution of a system model, given by a Petri net. Scenarios can be graphically specified by means of Labeled Partial Orders (LPOs). A specified LPO is an execution of a Petri net if it is a (partial) sequentialization of an LPO generated by a process of the net. We have shown in [2] that the executability of an LPO can be tested by a polynomial algorithm. The VipVerify Module implements this algorithm. If the test is positive, the corresponding process is computed and visualized. If the test is negative, a maximal executable prefix of the LPO is computed and visualized, together with a corresponding process and the set of those following events in the LPO which are not enabled to occur after the occurrence of the prefix. Further, the VipVerify Module allows to test in polynomial time whether a scenario equals an execution with minimal causality. A small case study illustrates the verification of scenarios w.r.t. business process models.

Keywords

Business Process Polynomial Algorithm Business Process Model Message Sequence Chart Event Agreement 
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.
    Lorenz, R., Juhás, G.: Towards Synthesis of Petri nets from Scenarios. In: Donatelli, S., Thiagarajan, P.S. (eds.) ICATPN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4024, pp. 302–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) (accepted)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Juhás, G., Lorenz, R., Desel, J.: Can I Execute my Scenario in your Net? In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 289–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desel, J., Juhás, G., Lorenz, R., Neumair, C.: Modeling and Validation with VipTool. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 380–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.): Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Desel, J.: Validation of Process Models by Construction of Process Nets. In: [5], pp. 110–128Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desel, J.: Model Validation - A Theoretical Issue? In: Esparza, J., Lakos, C.A. (eds.) ICATPN 2002. LNCS, vol. 2360, pp. 23–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freytag, T.: Softwarevalidierung durch Auswertung von Petrinetz-Abläufen. Dissertation, Karlsruhe (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ford Jr., L.R., Fulkerson, D.R.: Maximal Flow Through a Network. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 8, 399–404 (1955)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karzanov, A.V.: Determining the Maximal Flow in a Network by the Method of Preflows. Soviet Math. Doc. 15, 434–437 (1974)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg, A., Rao, S.: Beyond the Flow Decomposition Barrier. Journal of the ACM 45(5), 783–797 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goltz, U., Reisig, W.: The Non-Sequential Behaviour of Petri Nets. Information and Control 57(2-3), 125–147 (1983)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goltz, U., Reisig, W.: Processes of Place/Transition Nets. LNCS, vol. 154, pp. 264–277. Springer, Heidelberg (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schröter, C., Schwoon, S., Esparza, J.: The Model-Checking Kit. LNCS, vol. 2676, pp. 463–472. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H., Pnueli, A.: Synthesis Revisited: Generating Statechart Models from Scenario-Based Requirements. In: Kreowski, H.-J., Montanari, U., Orejas, F., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) Formal Methods in Software and Systems Modeling. LNCS, vol. 3393, pp. 309–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Ben-Abdallah, H., Leue, S.: MESA: Support for Scenario-Based Design of Concurrent Systems. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 118–135. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lettrari, M., Klose, J.: Scenario-Based Monitoring and Testing of Real-Time UML Models. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Khendek, F., Zhang, X.J.: From MSC to SDL: Overview and an Application to the Autonomous Shuttle Transport System. In: Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.) Scenarios: Models, Transformations and Tools. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 228–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mansurov, N.: Automatic synthesis of SDL from MSC and its applications in forward and reverse engineering. Comput. Lang. 27(1), 115–136 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Damm, W., Klose, J.: Verification of a Radio-Based Signaling System Using the STATEMATE Verification Environment. Formal Methods in System Design 19(2), 121–141 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klose, J., Wittke, H.: An Automata Based Interpretation of Live Sequence Charts. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 512–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Bergenthum
    • 1
  • Jörg Desel
    • 1
  • Gabriel Juhás
    • 2
  • Robert Lorenz
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Angewandte InformatikKatholische Universität Eichstätt-IngolstadtEichstättGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information TechnologySlovak University of TechnologyBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations