Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

WorkflowFM: A Logic-Based Framework for Formal Process Specification and Composition

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automated Deduction – CADE 26 (CADE 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10395))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present a logic-based system for process specification and composition named WorkflowFM. It relies on an embedding of Classical Linear Logic and the so-called proofs-as-processes paradigm within the proof assistant HOL Light. This enables the specification of abstract processes as logical sequents and their composition via formal proof. The result is systematically translated to an executable workflow with formally verified consistency, rigorous resource accounting, and deadlock freedom. The 3-tiered server/client architecture of WorkflowFM allows multiple concurrent users to interact with the system through a purely diagrammatic interface, while the proof is performed automatically on the server.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The subtle reason for this restriction is that the cut rule (corresponding to a sequential composition of processes) allows only a single formula to be cut (connected) between 2 processes.

References

  1. Abramsky, S.: Proofs as processes. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 135(1), 5–9 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexandru, C., Clutterbuck, D., Papapanagiotou, P., Fleuriot, J., Manataki, A.: A Step Towards the Standardisation of HIV Care Practices, November 2016

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bellin, G., Scott, P.: On the \(\pi \)-calculus and linear logic. TCS 135(1), 11–65 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bog, A., Puhlmann, F.: A tool for the simulation of \(\pi \)-calculus systems. Tech. rep., Open.BPM, Geschäftsprozessmanagement mit Open Source-Technologien, Hamburg, Germany (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boulton, R.J., Gordon, A.D., Gordon, M.J.C., Harrison, J., Herbert, J., Tassel, J.V.: Experience with embedding hardware description languages in HOL. In: Stavridou, V., Melham, T.F., Boute, R.T. (eds.) TPCD. IFIP Transactions, vol. A-10, pp. 129–156. North-Holland (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caires, L., Pfenning, F.: Session types as intuitionistic linear propositions. In: Gastin, P., Laroussinie, F. (eds.) CONCUR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6269, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15375-4_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellson, J., Gansner, E., Koutsofios, L., North, S.C., Woodhull, G.: Graphviz— open source graph drawing tools. In: Mutzel, P., Jünger, M., Leipert, S. (eds.) GD 2001. LNCS, vol. 2265, pp. 483–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45848-4_57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferg, S.: Event-Driven Programming: Introduction, Tutorial, History (2016). http://eventdrivenpgm.sourceforge.net/

  9. Girard, J.Y.: Linear logic: its syntax and semantics. In: Girard, J.Y., Lafont, Y., Regnier, L. (eds.) Advances in Linear Logic, vol. 222. London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series. Cambridge University Press (1995), http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/~girard/Synsem.pdf.gz

  10. Habert, L., Notin, J.-M., Galmiche, D.: LINK: a proof environment based on proof nets. In: Egly, U., Fermüller, C.G. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2002. LNCS, vol. 2381, pp. 330–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45616-3_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrison, J.: HOL light: a tutorial introduction. In: Srivas, M., Camilleri, A. (eds.) FMCAD 1996. LNCS, vol. 1166, pp. 265–269. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi:10.1007/BFb0031814

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Howard, W.A.: The formulas-as-types notion of construction. In: Seldin, J.P., Hindley, J.R. (eds.) To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism, pp. 479–490. Academic Press (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  13. JGraph Ltd: The JGraph homepage (2013). http://www.jgraph.com/

  14. Miller, D.: Forum: a multiple-conclusion specification logic. TCS 165(1), 201–232 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: The \(\pi \)-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), version 2.0 (2011). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF

  17. Papapanagiotou, P., Fleuriot, J.: Formal verification of collaboration patterns in healthcare. Behav. Inf. Technol. 33(12), 1278–1293 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Papapanagiotou, P., Fleuriot, J.: Modelling and implementation of correct by construction healthcare workflows. In: Fournier, F., Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 202, pp. 28–39. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15895-2_3

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modelling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tammet, T.: Proof strategies in linear logic. J. Autom. Reasoning 12(3), 273–304 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Troelstra, A.S.: Lectures on Linear Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 29, Stanford (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wadler, P.: Propositions as sessions. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 273–286. ACM (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the following EPSRC grants: The Integration and Interaction of Multiple Mathematical Reasoning Processes EP/N014758/1, SOCIAM: The Theory and Practice of Social Machines EP/J017728/1, and ProofPeer: Collaborative Theorem Proving EP/L011794/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9AB, UK

    Petros Papapanagiotou & Jacques Fleuriot

Authors
  1. Petros Papapanagiotou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacques Fleuriot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petros Papapanagiotou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, USA

    Leonardo de Moura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Papapanagiotou, P., Fleuriot, J. (2017). WorkflowFM: A Logic-Based Framework for Formal Process Specification and Composition. In: de Moura, L. (eds) Automated Deduction – CADE 26. CADE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10395. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63045-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63046-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation