Advertisement

On Compatibility Analysis of Inter Organizational Business Processes

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 191)

Abstract

Distributed systems are promisingly used in context of cross organizational enterprises. To develop these systems, Web services form an essential and wide accepted technology because they provide a significant level of platform independency and autonomy. Services are generally designed to interact with other services to form larger applications. In order to interact correctly with each other, Web services have to be compatible. This include not only composability of the involved services but also the correct execution of the overall composite service. In this context, we suggest in this paper to study the compatibility of Web services in different aspects and to provide a formal approach to characterize and verify this property. This approach is straightforward since it combines Petri nets and model checking techniques.

Keywords

Model checking Inter-organizational business processes Open workflow-nets Compatibility NuSMV CTL 

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Mooij, A.J., Stahl, C., Wolf, K.: Service interaction: patterns, formalization, and analysis. In: Bernardo, M., Padovani, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) SFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5569, pp. 42–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: an OpenSource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antonik, A., Huth, M.: Efficient patterns for model checking partial state spaces in ctl intersection ltl. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 158, 41–57 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking (Representation and Mind Series). The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldan, P., Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Heckel, R.: Compositional modeling of reactive systems using open nets. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barkaoui, K., Ben Ayed, R., Sbaï, Z.: Workflow soundness verification based on structure theory of petri nets. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. (IJCIS) 5(1), 51–61 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barkaoui, K., Eslamichalandar, M., Kaabachi, M.: A structural verification of web services composition compatibility. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Enterprise & Organizational Modeling and Simulation, EOMAS ’10, pp. 30–41. CEUR-WS.org (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bordeaux, L., Salaün, G., Berardi, D., Mecella, M.: When are two web services compatible? In: Shan, M.-C., Dayal, U., Hsu, M. (eds.) TES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3324, pp. 15–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dumas, M., Benatallah, B., Motahari Nezhad, H.: Web service protocols: Compatibility and adaptation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Compatibility verification for web service choreography. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Web Services, pp. 738–741 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frappier, M., Fraikin, B., Chossart, R., Chane-Yack-Fa, R., Ouenzar, M.: Comparison of model checking tools for information systems. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 581–596. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fu, X., Bultan, T., Su, J.: Analysis of interacting bpel web services. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 621–630. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guermouche, N., Perrin, O., Ringeissen, C.: Timed specification for web services compatibility analysis. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200, 155–170 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henzinger, T., Nicollin, X., Sifakis, J., Yovine, S.: Symbolic model checking for real-time systems. Inf. Comput. 111(2), 193–244 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R., Sutre, G.: Software verification with BLAST. In: Ball, T., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) SPIN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2648, pp. 235–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker spin. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, Y., Li, J., Dun, H., Wang, H.: Analyzing service composition patterns in bpel. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, JCAI ’09, pp. 623–627 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karsten, S.: Controllability of open workflow nets. In: EMISA. LNI, pp. 236–249. Bonner Köllen Verlag (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: Prob: A model checker for b. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martens, A.: On compatibility of web services. In: Petri Net Newsletter, pp. 12–20 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing web service based business processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Massuthe, P., Reisig, W., Schmidt, K.: An operating guideline approach to the soa. Ann. Math. Comput. Teleinformatics 1(3), 35–43 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maurice, B., Antonio, B., Stefania, G.: A survey on service composition approaches: From industrial standards to formal methods. Technical report 2006TR-15, Istituto, pp. 15–20. IEEE CS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A calculus of mobile processes, i. Inf. Comput. 100(1), 1–40 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Niels, L.: owfn2bpel, translates a petri net model into an abstract bpel process (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oanea, O., Wolf, K.: An efficient necessary condition for compatibility. In: ZEUS. vol. 438, pp. 81–87. CEUR-WS.org (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sbaï, Z., Barkaoui, K.: Vérification formelle des processus workflow - extension aux workflows inter-organisationnels. Revue Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information: Ingénierie des systèmes collaboratifs. 18(5), 33–57 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan, W., Fan, Y., Zhou, M.: A petri net-based method for compatibility analysis and composition of web services in business process execution language. IEEE T. Autom. Sci. Eng. 6(1), 94–106 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de TunisTunisTunisia
  2. 2.Conservatoire National des Arts et MétiersParisFrance

Personalised recommendations