Assuring Consistency of Business Process Models and Web Services Using Visual Contracts

  • Gregor Engels
  • Baris Güldali
  • Christian Soltenborn
  • Heike Wehrheim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5088)

Abstract

Business process models describe workflows by a set of actions together with their ordering. When implementing business processes within a service-oriented architecture, these actions are mapped to existing IT (web) services, which are then to be executed in the order specified by the business process. However, the execution of a web service can require certain preconditions to be fulfilled. These might not hold at the time of execution specified in the business process model: it can be inconsistent with the web service specification.

In this paper we propose a technique for checking consistency of process models with web service specifications. To this end, both are equipped with a formal semantics (in terms of graph transformations). We show how to use an existing model checker for graph transformation systems to carry out the consistency check.

Keywords

Business processes web services UML Activities visual contracts graph transformations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Newcomer, E., Lomow, G.: Understanding SOA with Web Services. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W., Hofstede, A.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Technical report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Technical Report 1989, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität des Saarlandes (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrews, T., et al.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dumas, M., Hofstede, A.: UML Activity Diagrams as a Workflow Specification Language. In: UML 2001: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, London, UK, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group: UML Specification V2.1.1 (2007), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/07-02-05
  7. 7.
    Lohmann, M.: Kontraktbasierte Modellierung, Implementierung und Suche von Komponenten in serviceorientierten Architekturen. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hausmann, J.H.: Dynamic Meta Modeling. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. IEEE Computer 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Löwe, M., Montanari, U., Padberg, J.: The Category of Typed Graph Grammars and its Adjunctions with Categories. In: Cuny, J., Engels, G., Ehrig, H., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars 1994. LNCS, vol. 1073, pp. 56–74. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management – Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: ICATPN 1997: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, London, UK, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engels, G., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: Analysis of UML Activities using Dynamic Meta Modeling. In: Bonsangue, M.M., Johnsen, E.B. (eds.) FMOODS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4468, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chinnici, R., Moreau, J.J., Ryman, A., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1: Core Language (2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/
  16. 16.
    Engels, G., Güldali, B., Lohmann, M., Juwig, O., Richter, J.P.: Industrielle Fallstudie: Einsatz visueller Kontrakte in serviceorientierten Architekturen. In: Biel, B., Book, M., Gruhn, V. (eds.) Software Engineering, GI. LNI, vol. 79, pp. 111–122 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heckel, R., Ehrig, H., Wolter, U., Corradini, A.: Double-Pullback Transitions and Coalgebraic Loose Semantics for Graph Transformation Systems. APCS (Applied Categorical Structures) 9(1), 83–110 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koehler, J., Gschwind, T., Küster, J., Pautasso, C., Ryndina, K., Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H.: Combining Quality Assurance and Model Transformations in Business-Driven Development. In: Proceedings of third International Symposium AGTIVE 2007, pp. 1–16 (2007) (Selected and Invited Papers)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eclipse Foundation: The Eclipse project, http://www.eclipse.org/
  20. 20.
    Lohmann, M., Engels, G., Sauer, S.: Model-driven Monitoring: Generating Assertions from Visual Contracts. In: 21st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) 2006 Demonstration Session (September 2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baresi, L., Denaro, G., Mainetti, L., Paolini, P.: Assertions to better specify the amazon bug. In: Proc. of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering, SEKE 2002, pp. 585–592 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baresi, L., Heckel, R., Thöne, S., Varró, D.: Modeling and validation of service-oriented architectures: application vs. style. In: Proc. of the 11th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering 2003 held jointly with 9th European Software Engineering Conference, ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE 2003, pp. 68–77 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gönczy, L., Kovács, M., Varró, D.: Modeling and verification of reliable messaging by graph transformation systems. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Graph Transformation for Verification and Concurrency (ICGT 2006). Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration. IBM Systems Journal 44(1), 47–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
    • 2
  • Baris Güldali
    • 2
  • Christian Soltenborn
    • 1
  • Heike Wehrheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität PaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Software Quality Lab (s-lab)Universität PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations