Transactional Behavior of a Workflow Instance

  • Tatiana A. S. C. Vieira
  • Marco A. Casanova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)


Workflow management systems usually interpret a workflow definition rigidly, allowing no deviations during execution. However, there are real life situations where users should be allowed to deviate from the prescribed static workflow definition for various reasons, including lack of information about parameter values and unavailability of the required resources. To flexibilize workflow execution, this paper proposes an exception handling mechanism that allows the execution to proceed when otherwise it would have been stopped. The proposal is introduced as a set of extensions to OWL-S that capture the information required for the flexibilization mechanism. In particular, this paper focus on the transactional behavior of a workflow instance, in the sense that it guarantees that either all actions executed by the instance terminate correctly or they are all abandoned.


Process Instance Abstract Machine State Transition Diagram Application Ontology Abort State 
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.
    Bider, I., Khomyakov, M.: Is it Possible to Make Workflow Management Systems Flexible? Dynamical Systems Approach to Business Processes. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Groupware (CRIWG 2000), Madiera, Portugal, October 2000, pp. 138–141 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canals, G., Godart, C., Charoy, F., Molli, P., Skaf, H.: COO Approach to Support Cooperation in Software Developments. In: IEEE Proceedings in Software Engineering, April/June 1998, vol. 145, pp. 79–84 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow Evolution. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) International Conference on Conceptual Modeling / the Entity Relationship Approach (15th ER 1996), October 1996. LNCS, pp. 438–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu, W.W., Chen, Q., Merzbacher, M.: CoBase: a Cooperative Database SystemStudies. In: Demolombe, R., Imielinski, T. (eds.) in Logic and Computation 3: Nonstandard Queries and Nonstandard Answers, vol. 3, pp. 41–72. Oxford University Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chu, W.W., Mao, W.: CoSent: A Cooperative Sentinel for Intelligent Information Systems (March 2000), Computer Science Department - University of California, LA (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freund, T., Storey, T.: Transactions in the World of Web Services, Part 1: an Overview of WS-Transaction and WS-Coordination. IBM, DeveloperWorks (August 2002),
  7. 7.
    Freund, T., Storey, T.: Transactions in the World of Web Services, Part 2: An Overview of WS-Transaction and WS-Coordination. IBM, DeveloperWorks ( August 2002),
  8. 8.
    Grigori, D., Charoy, F., Gobart, C.: Flexible Data Management and Execution to Support Cooperative Workflow: The COO Approach. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications (CODAS 2001), April 2001, pp. 124–131 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halliday, J.J., Shrivastava, S.K., Wheater, S.M.: Flexible Workflow Management in the OPENflow System. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2001), pp. 82–92. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joeris, G.: Defining Flexible Workflow Execution Behaviors. In: Enterprise-wide and Cross-enterprise Workflow Management - Concepts, Systems, Applications, GI Workshop Proceedings - Informatik 1999, pp. 49–55 (1999); Ulmer Informatik Berichte Nr. 99-07Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mangan, P., Sadiq, S.: On Building Workflow Models for Flexible Processes. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series - Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Conference on Database Technologies (ADC 2002), Melbourne, Australia, January/February 2002, vol. 5, pp. 103–109. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., McDermott, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sirin, E., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K.: OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Member Submission (November 2004),
  13. 13.
    Nutt, G.J.: The Evolution Toward Flexible Workflow Systems. Distributed Systems Engineering 3, 276–294 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tatiana, A.S.C.: Vieira. Execução Flexível de Workflows. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics - Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - Brazil (August 2005) (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weske, M.: Flexible Modeling and Execution of Workflow Activities. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 1998, vol. 7, pp. 713–722 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatiana A. S. C. Vieira
    • 1
  • Marco A. Casanova
    • 1
  1. 1.Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations