Choreography Modeling Compliance for Timed Business Models

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

Abstract

Business Process Modeling (BPM) is a conceptual activity for embodying the functioning and complex structure of any enterprise’s business processes, so that these can be then analyzed and improved. A BP can be understood as a set of related, structured, interacting services driven by a choreography that is capable of giving complex functionality to customers. General choreographies of BP cannot be verified, specially timed choreographies, because implementations scarcely show the same behavior than the one initially specified according to business rules. We therefore propose here a formal semantics for a subset of BPMN, in order to check if a given choreography is realizable. This includes formalization of behavioral and temporal aspects of BPMN. A set of transformation rules for choreography diagrams into a timed process algebra is given. Therefore, we obtain an easy verification approach for choreography implementation models based on model–checking tools. In this way we can obtain advantage of the strengths that a formalization of behavioral and temporal aspects of BPMN will bring about, at design and implementation stages, to any model of interest.

Keywords

Business Process Modeling Choreography BPMN 2.0 Transformation rules Choreography modeling conformance Timed business processes 

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Challenges in business process analysis. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Cardoso, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2007. LNBIP, vol. 12, pp. 27–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkin, A., Askary, S., Bloch, B., Curbera, F., Goland, Y., Kartha, N., Liu, C.K., Thatte, S., Yendluri, P., Yiu, A. (eds.) Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Committee Draft. WS-BPEL TC OASIS (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezem, M., Klop, J.W., de Vrijer, R.: “Terese” Term Rewriting Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cerone, A.: From process algebra to visual language. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets: Formal Methods in Software Engineering and Defence Systems, vol. 12, Adelaide (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Multi-phase process mining: building instance graphs. In: Atzeni, P., Chu, W., Lu, H., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 362–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Formal Systems Europe Ltd. Failures-Divergence Refinement - FDR2 User Manual. Formal Systems Europe Ltd., Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ma, S., Zhang, L., He, J.: Towards formalization and verification of unified business process model based on Pi calculus. In: Proceedings ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, pp. 93–101 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendoza, L.E.: Una Contribución a las Técnicas Avanzadas de Verificación de Procesos de Negocio (In Spanish). Ph.D. Dissertation book, University of Granada (ISBN:978-980-12-4957-3) (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendoza, L.E., Capel, M.I., Pérez, M.A.: Conceptual framework for business processes compositional verification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 149–161 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989). ISBN 0-13-115007-3Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (2007). http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/wsbpel-v2.0.pdf
  12. 12.
    OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) -version 2.0Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchetration and choreography. IEEE Comput. 36(10), 46–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poizat, P., Salaûn, G.: Checking the realizability of BPMN 2.0 choreographies. In: Proceedings 27th Simposium of Applied Computing, Riva del Garda (Italy), March 25–29, pp. 1927–1934. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Puhlmann, F.: Soundness verification of business processes specified in the pi-calculus. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 6–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiu, Z., et al.: Towards the theoretical foundation of choreography. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’07), pp. 973–982 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance testing: measuring the fit and appropriateness of event logs and process models. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 163–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schneider, S.A.: Concurrent and Real-Time Systems - The CSP Approach. Wiley, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thatte, S.: XLANG: Web Services for Business Process Design. Microsoft Corporation (2001). http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml/wsspace/xlang-c
  20. 20.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zic, J.: Time-constrained buffer specifications in CSP+T and timed CSP. ACM TOPLAS 16(6), 1661–1674 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software Engineering Department, College of Informatics and TelecommunicationsUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Processes and Systems DepartmentSimón Bolívar UniversityCaracasVenezuela

Personalised recommendations