Interoperable transactions in business models — A structured approach

  • H. Weigand
  • E. Verharen
  • F. Dignum
Interoperability in Information Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1080)


Recent database research has given much attention to the specification of “flexible” transactions that can be used in interoperable systems. Starting from a quite different angle, Business Process Modelling has approached the area of communication modelling as well (the Language/Action perspective). The main goal of this paper is to provide some useful structuring mechanisms for interoperable transactions based on the Language/Action perspective. The paper thus tries to build a bridge between two rather separated worlds: the research on interoperable transactions on the one hand, and the research on business process models on the other. Extended deontic logic provides the material for this bridge. To better structure the specification, a distinction is proposed between the transaction level, the task level, and the contract.


cooperative information systems business process models communication interoperable transactions deontic logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Alonso et al, 1996]
    G. Alonso, D. Agrawal, A. El Abbadi, M. Kamath, R. Gunthor, C. Mohan, “Advanced Transaction Models in Workflow Contexts”, In: Proc. of the 12th Int Conf on Data Engineering, New Orleans, Lousiana, March 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [Buchmann et al., 1992]
    A. Buchmann, M. Tamer Özsu, M. Hornick, D. Georgakopoulos, F. Manola, “A Transaction Model for Active Distributed Object Systems”, in: Database Transaction Models for advanced applications, A. Elmagarmid (ed), Morgan-Kaufman, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [Dewitz, 1991]
    S.D. Dewitz, “Contracting on a performative network: using information technology as a legal intermediary”, in: Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, R.K.Stamper et al (eds), North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [Dietz,1994]
    J.L.G. Dietz, “Business Modelling for Business Redesign”, in: Proc. of 27th Hawaii Int.l. conf. on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [Dignum & Weigand, 1995]
    F. Dignum and H. Weigand, “Communication and Deontic Logic”, in: Information Systems, Correctness and Reusability, Proc. of ISCORE-94 Workshop, R. Wieringa and R. Feenstra (eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [Dignum & Weigand, 1995]
    F. Dignum and H. Weigand, “Modelling Communication between Cooperative Systems”, in: K.Lyytinen, J.Ivari, M.Rossi (eds), “Advanced Information Systems Engineering” (LNCS-932), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995, pp140–153.(Proc.of CAISE-95).Google Scholar
  7. [Dignum et al.,1996]
    F. Dignum, H. Weigand, E. Verharen, “Meeting the deadline: on the formal specification of temporal deontic constraints”, Proc. of ISMIS'96.Google Scholar
  8. [Elmagarmid,1992]
    A. Elmagarmid (ed.), Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, Morgan-Kaufman, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [Goldkuhl,1995]
    G. Goldkuhl, “Information as Action and Communication”, in: The Infological Equation, Essays in honour of B. Langefors, B. Dahlbom (ed.), Gothenburg Studies in Information Systems, Gothenburg Univ, 1995. (also: Linkoping Univ report LiTH-IDA-R-95-09)Google Scholar
  10. [Medina-Mora et al., 1992]
    R. Medina-Mora, T. Winograd, R. Flores, F. Flores, “The Action Workflow Approach to Workflow Management Technology”, in: Proc. of 4th Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'94), ACM, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [Ngu et al, 1994]
    A. Ngu, R. Meersman and H. Weigand, “Specification and verification of communication for interoperable transactions”, in: Int.l. Journal of Intelligent en Cooperative Information Systems (IJICS) 3 (1), p. 47–56, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [Nodine et al., 1994]
    M.H. Nodine, N. Nakos, S.Zdonik, “Specifying Flexible Tasks in a Multidatabase”, in: Proc. CoopIS-94, March 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [Teufel & Teufel, 1995]
    S. Teufel and B. Teufel, “Bridging Information Technology and Business — Some Modelling Aspects”, in: ACM SIGOIS Bulletin 16 (1), p. 13–17, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [Wächter & Reuter,1992]
    H. Wächter and A. Reuter, “The ConTract Model”, in: Database Transaction Models for advanced applications, A. Elmagarmid (ed), Morgan-Kaufman, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [Weigand, 1993]
    H. Weigand, “Deontic aspects of communication”, in: Proc. of Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON'92), J.-J.Ch. Meyer, R. Wieringa (eds.), Wiley, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [Weigand et al., 1995]
    H. Weigand, E. Verharen, and F. Dignum, “Integrated Semantics for Information and Communication Systems”, in: Proc of IFIP DS-6 Database Semantics, Stone-Mountain, Georgia, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [Weigand& Ngu, 1995]
    H. Weigand, A. Ngu, “Flexible specification of interoperable transactions”. Working paper, Tilburg University, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [Wieringa et al., 1989]
    R.J. Wieringa, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, and H. Weigand, “Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints”, in: Data & Knowledge Engineering (4) 2, pp.157–191, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Weigand
    • 1
  • E. Verharen
    • 1
  • F. Dignum
    • 2
  1. 1.InfolabTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Fac. of Maths. & Comp. Sc.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations