Advertisement

Preservation of Integrity Constraints by Workflow

  • Xi Liu
  • Jianwen Su
  • Jian Yang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7044)

Abstract

Integrity constraints on data are typically defined when workflow and business process models are developed. Keeping data consistent is vital for workflow execution. Traditionally, enforcing data integrity constraints is left for the underlying database system, while workflow system focuses primarily on performing tasks. This paper presents a new mechanism that turns a workflow into an equivalent one that will preserve integrity constraints. For a given workflow schema (or model) and a given set of data integrity constraints, an algorithm developed in this paper injects additional conditions into the workflow schema that restricts possible execution paths. The modified workflow will guarantee data consistency (i.e., satisfaction of the integrity constraints) whenever the workflow updates the database(s). In addition, we show that our injection mechanism is “conservative complete”, i.e., the conditions inserted are weakest possible. By making workflow execution self-behaving, enforcing integrity constraints over multi-databases is avoided, and constraints specific to a workflow can also be enforced effectively. Mechanisms such as this enhance independence of workflow executions from the environment—a much desired property.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Business Process Model Attribute Content Reply Event Weak Precondition 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R.: Data functions, datalog and negation. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abiteboul, S., Vianu, V.: A transaction-based approach to relational database specification. Journal of the ACM 36(4), 758–789 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedikt, M., Griffin, T., Libkin, L.: Verifiable properties of database transactions. In: Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 117–127 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharya, K., Gerede, C., Hull, R., Liu, R., Su, J.: Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 288–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharya, K., Hull, R., Su, J.: A data-centric design methodology for business processes. In: Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling. Information Science Publishing (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ceri, S., Widom, J.: Deriving production rules for constraint maintainance. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 566–577 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chawathe, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Widom, J.: A toolkit for constraint management in heterogeneous information systems. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Data Engineering (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damaggio, E., Hull, R., Vaculín, R.: On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 396–412. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Communications of the ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritz, C., Hull, R., Su, J.: Automatic construction of simple artifact-based business processes. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Database Theory, ICDT (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glushko, R.J., McGrath, T.: Document Engineering: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services. The MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grefen, P., Widom, J.: Protocols for integrity constraint checking in federated databases. Distrib. Parallel Databases 5, 327–355 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gupta, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J.D., Widom, J.: Constraint checking with partial information. In: Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 45–55 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, A., Widom, J.: Local verification of global integrity constraints in distributed databases. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pp. 49–58 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hollingsworth, D.: The workflow reference model: 10 years on. In: Workflow Handbook. Workflow Management Coalition, pp. 295–312 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath III, F(T.), Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P., Vaculin, R.: Introducing the Guard-Stage-Milestone Approach for Specifying Business Entity Lifecycles (Invited talk). In: Bravetti, M. (ed.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Masellis, R.D., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath III, F., Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P., Vaculín, R.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: Managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In: Proc. ACM Int. Conf. on Distributed Event-Based Systems, DEBS (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huyn, N.: Maintaining global integrity constraints in distributed databases. Constraints 2, 377–399 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klug, A.: Calculating constraints on relational expression. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 5, 260–290 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Künzle, V., Weber, B., Reichert, M.: Object-aware business processes: Fundamental requirements and their support in existing approaches. Int. Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 2(2), 19–46 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, G., Liu, X., Qin, H., Su, J., Yan, Z., Zhang, L.: Automated realization of business workflow specification. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 96–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, X., Su, J., Yang, J.: Preservation of Integrity Constraints by Workflow: Online Appendix, http://seg.nju.edu.cn/~liux/pub/CoopIS11_appendix.pdf
  24. 24.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spivey, J.M.: The Z Notation: A Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Su, J.: Dependency preservation in semantic databases. Acta Inf. 31, 27–54 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xi Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jianwen Su
    • 3
  • Jian Yang
    • 4
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory for Novel Software TechnologyNanjing UniversityChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyNanjing UniversityChina
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of ComputingMacquarie UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations