Advertisement

Towards Compliance Verification Between Global and Local Process Models

  • Pieter M. KwantesEmail author
  • Pieter Van Gorp
  • Jetty Kleijn
  • Arend Rensink
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9151)

Abstract

This paper addresses the question how to verify that the local workflow of an organisation participating in a cross-organisational collaboration is in compliance with the globally specified rules of that collaboration. We assume that the collaborative workflow is specified as a BPMN Collaboration Diagram and the local workflows as BPMN Process Diagrams. We then employ existing LTL semantics of the former and token semantics of the latter to verify conformance. We use the graph transformation tool GROOVE to automate the verification, and exemplify our approach with a case study from the financial markets domain.

Keywords

Graph Transformation Settlement Process Atomic Proposition Investment Firm Business Process Modelling Notation 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: The P2P approach to interorganizational workflows. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45341-5_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: Reflections on a decade of interorganizational workflow research. In: Bubenko, J., Krogstie, J., Pastor, O., Pernici, B., Rolland, C., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering: 25 Years of CAiSE, pp. 307–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36926-1_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandener, N., Soltenborn, C., Engels, G.: Extending DMM behavior specifications for visual execution and debugging. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 357–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brambilla, M., Deutsch, A., Sui, L., Vianu, V.: The role of visual tools in a web application design and verification framework: a visual notation for LTL formulae. In: Lowe, D.G., Gaedke, M. (eds.) ICWE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3579, pp. 557–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11531371_70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001). http://books.google.de/books?id=Nmc4wEaLXFEC CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker, G., Barros, A.: Interaction modeling using BPMN. In: ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 208–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78238-4_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Local enforceability in interaction petri nets. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ECB: Target2securities. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/t2s, Mar 2015
  9. 9.
    Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W.J., Papazoglou, M.: Formalizing and appling compliance patterns for business process compliance. Softw. Syst. Model., 1–28 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0395-3
  10. 10.
    Eshuis, R., Norta, A., Kopp, O., Pitkanen, E.: Service outsourcing with process views. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8(1), 136–154 (2015). http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TSC.2013.51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fellmann, M., Zasada, A.: State-of-the-art of business process compliance approaches. In: 22st European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014 (2014). http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014/proceedings/track06/8
  12. 12.
    Gabbay, D.M.: The declarative past and imperative future: executable temporal logic for interactive systems. In: Temporal Logic in Specification, Altrincham, UK, 8–10 April 1987, Proceedings, pp. 409–448 (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghamarian, A.H., de Mol, M., Rensink, A., Zambon, E., Zimakova, M.: Modelling and analysis using GROOVE. STTT 14(1), 15–40 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-011-0186-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorp, P.V., Dijkman, R.M.: A visual token-based formalization of BPMN 2.0 based on in-place transformations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(2), 365–394 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hausmann, J.H.: Dynamic META modeling: a semantics description technique for visual modeling languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paderborn (2005). http://ubdata.uni-paderborn.de/ediss/17/2005/hausmann/disserta.pdf
  16. 16.
    Knuplesch, D., Reichert, M., Fdhila, W., Rinderle-Ma, S.: On enabling compliance of cross-organizational business processes. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 146–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwantes, P.M.: Design of clearing and settlement operations: a case study in business process modelling and evaluation with petri nets. In: 7th Workshop and Tutorial on Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and the CPN Tools (CPN 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martens, A.: On compatibility of web services. Petri Net Newsletter 65, 12–20 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muram, F.U., Tran, H., Zdun, U.: Automated mapping of UML activity diagrams to formal specifications for supporting containment checking. In: Proceedings 11th International Workshop on Formal Engineering Approaches to Software Components and Architectures, FESCA 2014, Grenoble, France, 12th April 2014, pp. 93–107 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.147.7
  20. 20.
    OMG: Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0. Technical report, Jan 2011. http://taval.de/publications/BPMN20
  21. 21.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 31 October - 1 November 1977, pp. 46–57 (1977). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1977.32
  22. 22.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 13, 45–60 (1981). doi: 10.1016/0304-3975(81)90110-9 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rensink, A.: The GROOVE simulator: a tool for state space generation. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-25959-6_40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    SMPG: Securities markets practices group/market practices and documents/settlement and reconciliation. http://www.smpg.info, Mar 2015
  25. 25.
    S.W.I.F.T.: ISO15022 financial industry message scheme. http://www.iso15022.org, Mar 2015
  26. 26.
    S.W.I.F.T.: ISO20022 universal financial industry message scheme. http://www.iso20022.org, Mar 2015

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter M. Kwantes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pieter Van Gorp
    • 2
  • Jetty Kleijn
    • 1
  • Arend Rensink
    • 3
  1. 1.LIACSLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations