Specifying, Monitoring, and Executing Workflows in Linked Data Environments

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11136)


We present an ontology for representing workflows over components with Read-Write Linked Data interfaces and give an operational semantics to the ontology via a rule language. Workflow languages have been successfully applied for modelling behaviour in enterprise information systems, in which the data is often managed in a relational database. Linked Data interfaces have been widely deployed on the web to support data integration in very diverse domains, increasingly also in scenarios involving the Internet of Things, in which application behaviour is often specified using imperative programming languages. With our work we aim to combine workflow languages, which allow for the high-level specification of application behaviour by non-expert users, with Linked Data, which allows for decentralised data publication and integrated data access. We show that our ontology is expressive enough to cover the basic workflow patterns and demonstrate the applicability of our approach with a prototype system that observes pilots carrying out tasks in a virtual reality aircraft cockpit. On a synthetic benchmark from the building automation domain, the runtime scales linearly with the size of the number of Internet of Things devices.



We acknowledge helpful feedback on our manuscript from Rik Eshuis and Philip Hake. This work is supported in part by the EU’s FP7 (in i-VISION, GA No.@ 605550) and the German BMBF (in AFAP, FKZ 01IS12051).


  1. 1.
    Balaji, B., et al.: Brick: towards a unified metadata schema for buildings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Built Environments (BuildSys) (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Capadisli, S., Guy, A., Lange, C., Auer, S., Sambra, A., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked data notifications: a resource-centric communication protocol. In: Blomqvist, E., Maynard, D., Gangemi, A., Hoekstra, R., Hitzler, P., Hartig, O. (eds.) ESWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10249, pp. 537–553. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Deriving active rules for workflow enactment. In: Wagner, R.R., Thoma, H. (eds.) DEXA 1996. LNCS, vol. 1134, pp. 94–115. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciortea, A., Boissier, O., Zimmermann, A., Florea, A.M.: Give agents some REST: hypermedia-driven agent environments. In: El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., Ricci, A., Son, T.C. (eds.) EMAS 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10738, pp. 125–141. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elmroth, E., Hernández-Rodriguez, F., Tordsson, J.: Three fundamental dimensions of scientific workflow interoperability: model of computation, language, and execution environment. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 26(2), 245 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferme, V., Skouradaki, M., Ivanchikj, A., Pautasso, C., Leymann, F.: Performance comparison between BPMN 2.0 workflow management systems versions. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Gulden, J., Nurcan, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2017. LNBIP, vol. 287, pp. 103–118. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallaher, M.P., O’Connor, A.C., Dettbarn Jr., J.L., Gilday, L.T.: Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the US capital facilities industry. NIST GCR 04–867 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gil, Y., Ratnakar, V., Deelman, E., Mehta, G., Kim, J.: Wings for Pegasus. In: Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gurevich, Y.: Evolving algebras 1993: lipari guide. In: Specification and Validation Methods. Oxford University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haller, A., Cimpian, E., Mocan, A., Oren, E., Bussler, C.: WSMX - a semantic service-oriented architecture. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harth, A., Hose, K., Schenkel, R.: Linked Data Management. CRC, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harth, A., Speiser, S.: On completeness classes for query evaluation on linked data. In: Proceedings of the 26th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hull, R., et al.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management. International Thomson, London (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Käfer, T., Harth, A.: Rule-based programming of user agents for linked data. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW) (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Käfer, T., Harth, A., Mamessier, S.: Towards declarative programming and querying in a distributed cyber-physical system: the i-VISION case. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CPSData Workshop (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newman, S.: Building Microservices - Designing Fine-Grained Systems. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pautasso, C.: RESTful web service composition with BPEL for REST. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(9), 851 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pautasso, C., Wilde, E.: Push-enabling RESTful business processes. In: Kappel, G., Maamar, Z., Motahari-Nezhad, H.R. (eds.) ICSOC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7084, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pautasso, C., Zimmermann, O., Leymann, F.: RESTful web services vs. “Big” web services. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Polyvyanyy, A., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M.: Structuring acyclic process models. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 276–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: An ontology for the business process modelling notation. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS) (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stadtmüller, S., Speiser, S., Harth, A., Studer, R.: Data-Fu: a language and an interpreter for interaction with read/write linked data. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turi, D., Missier, P., Goble, C.A., De Roure, D., Oinn, T.: Taverna workflows: syntax and semantics. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science) (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distrib. Parallel Databases 14(1), 5 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verborgh, R., Steiner, T., van Deursen, D., Coppens, S., Vallés, J.G., van de Walle, R.: Functional descriptions as the bridge between hypermedia APIs and the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on RESTful Design (WS-REST) (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zaveri, A.: smartAPI: towards a more intelligent network of web APIs. In: Blomqvist, E., Maynard, D., Gangemi, A., Hoekstra, R., Hitzler, P., Hartig, O. (eds.) ESWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10250, pp. 154–169. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zur Muehlen, M., Nickerson, J.V., Swenson, K.D.: Developing web services choreography standards. Decis. Supp. Syst. 40(1), 9 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute AIFBKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU)NurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations