Dealing with Constraint-Based Processes: Declare and Supervisory Control Theory

  • Sauro Schaidt
  • Agnelo Denis Vieira
  • Eduardo de Freitas Rocha Loures
  • Eduardo Alves Portela Santos
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 206)

Abstract

The constraint-based processes are those that do not require a procedural model that explicitly specify the execution procedure. Declarative languages are more suitable for modeling and implementing this type of process. This paper aims to present and analyze two approaches that deal with the modeling and execution of constraint-based processes. The first approach makes use of Linear Temporal Logic and software Declare as a tool for modeling constraints. The second approach is based on the Supervisory Control Theory (SCT). Both approaches presented in this paper aims to monitor and restrict execution sequences of tasks such that constraints are not violated. Despite the control logic is built based on constraints, it does not limit the user by imposing rigid control-flow structures. A discussion of the results, advantages and the main drawbacks of the two approaches are presented in this paper.

Keywords

constraint-based models declarative languages declare supervisory control theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aalst, W., Hee, K., Werf, J., Kumar, A., Verdonk, M.: Conceptual model for on line auditing. Decision Support Systems 50(3), 636–647 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Santos, E.A.P., Francisco, R., Vieira, A.D., de F.R. Loures, E., Busetti, M.A.: Modeling Business Rules for Supervisory Control of Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part II. LNBIP, vol. 100, pp. 447–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pesic, M., Aalst, W.: A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-Based Workflow Models: Change Made Easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aalst, W., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science-Research and Development 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Beer, H.T., van Dongen, B.F.: Process Mining and Verification of Properties: An Approach Based on Temporal Logic. In: Meersman, R. (ed.) OTM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3760, pp. 130–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramadge, P., Wonham, W.: The control of discrete event systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(1), 81–98 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Queiroz, M.H., Cury, J.E.R.: Modular supervisory control of large scale discrete event systems. In: Boel, R., Stremersch, G. (eds.) Discrete Event Systems: Analysis and Control, WODES 2000, pp. 103–110. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Aalst, W.: Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In: 11th IEEE International on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 287–287. IEEE Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke, Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Monitoring Business Constraints with Linear Temporal Logic: An Approach Based on Colored Automata. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Project Management Institute: A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK). An American National Standard ANSI/PMI 99-001-2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feng, L., Wonham, W.M.: TCT: A computation tool for supervisory control synthesis. In: International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, pp. 388–389. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Declarative workflows. In: Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., Russel, N. (eds.) Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and Its Support Environment, pp. 175–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westergaard, M.: Better Algorithms for Analyzing and Enacting Declarative Workflow Languages Using LTL. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sauro Schaidt
    • 1
  • Agnelo Denis Vieira
    • 1
  • Eduardo de Freitas Rocha Loures
    • 1
  • Eduardo Alves Portela Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Escola PolitécnicaCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations