Self-Healing is an emerging exigency for Information Systems where processes are everyday more complicated and where many autonomous actors are involved. Roughly, self-healing mechanisms can be viewed as a set of automatic recovery actions fired at run-time according to the detected fault. These actions can be at infrastructure level, i.e. transparently to the process, or they can be defined in the workflow model and executed by the workflow engine. In the Service Oriented Computing world Ws-BPEL is the most used language for web-service orchestration, but standard recovery mechanisms provided by Ws-BPEL are not enough to implement, with reasonable effort, lots of suitable recovery actions.

This paper presents an approach where a designer defines a Ws-BPEL process annotated with some information about recovery actions and then a preprocessing phase, starting from this “annotated”Ws-BPEL, generates a “standard” Ws-BPEL, that is a file understandable for a standard Ws-BPEL engine. This approach has the advantage of avoiding any change in the engine using the standard capabilities to define specific behaviors that will realize recovery actions, but at the end are still a set of Ws-BPEL basic and structured activities.


Recovery Action Alternative Behavior Incoming Message Transformation Algorithm Event Handler 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Arkin, A., et al.: Business process modeling language BPML 1.0 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Facilitating flexibility and dynamic exception handling in workflows through worklets. In: Short Paper Proceedings at (CAiSE), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 161 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. Data Knowl. Eng. 24(3), 211–238 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Roller, D., Thatte, S., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, version 1.0 (2002),
  8. 8.
    Eder, J., Liebhart, W.: Workflow recovery. In: Proc. of IFCIS Int. Conf. on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS), Brussels, Belgium, pp. 124–134. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esfandiari, E., Tosic, V.: Towards a web service composition management framework. In: Proc. of Int. Conf. on Web Services (ICWS), Orlando FL, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M.F., Manola, F.: Customizing transaction models and mechanisms in a programmable environment supporting reliable workflow automation. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 8(4), 630–649 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grefen, P., Pernici, B., Sanchez, G. (eds.): Database Support for Workflow Management - The WIDE Project. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grigori, D., Casati, F., Dayal, U., Shan, M.C.: Improving business process quality through exception understanding, prediction, and prevention. In: Proceedings of Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Roma, Italy (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hagen, C., Alonso, G.: Exception handling in workflow management systems. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 26(10), 943–958 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamadi, R., Benatallah, B.: Recovery nets: Towards self-adaptive workflow systems. In: Zhou, X., Su, S., Papazoglou, M.P., Orlowska, M.E., Jeffery, K. (eds.) WISE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3306, pp. 439–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, J., Verma, K., Rajasekaran, P., Sheth, A., Aggarwal, R., Sivashanmugam, K.: Adding semantics to wsdl. White paper (2004),
  16. 16.
    Modafferi, S., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Pernici, B.: A methodology for designing and managing context-aware workflows. In: Proc. of IFIP TC 8 Working Conference on Mobile Information Systems (MOBIS), Leeds, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pernici, B. (ed.): Mobile Information Systems Infrastructure and Design for Adaptivity and Flexibility. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Kreher, U., Dadam, P.: Adaptive process management with ADEPT2. In: Proc. of Int. Conf. on Data Engineering ICDE, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 1113–1114 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wächter, H., Reuter, A.: The ConTract model. In: Elmagarmid, A.K. (ed.) Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, pp. 219–263. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Modafferi
    • 1
  • Eugenio Conforti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations