Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models

  • Published:
Distributed and Parallel Databases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The verification of control-flow soundness is well understood as an important step before deploying business process models. However, the control flow does not capture what the process activities actually do when they are executed. Semantic annotations offer the opportunity to take this into account. Inspired by semantic Web service approaches such as OWL-S and WSMO, we consider process models in which the individual activities are annotated with logical preconditions and effects, specified relative to an ontology that axiomatizes the underlying business domain. Verification then addresses the overall process behavior, arising from the interaction between control-flow and behavior of individual activities. To this end, we combine notions from the workflow community with notions from the AI actions and change literature. We introduce a formal execution semantics for annotated business processes. We point out four verification tasks that arise, concerning precondition/effect conflicts, reachability, and executability. We examine the borderline between classes of processes that can, or cannot, be verified in polynomial time. For precondition/effect conflicts, we show that the borderline is the same as that of the logic underlying the ontology axioms. For reachability and executability, we identify a class of processes that can be verified in polynomial time by a fixpoint algorithm which we design for that purpose. We show that this class of processes is maximal in the sense that, when generalizing it in any of the most relevant directions, the validation tasks become computationally hard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ankolekar, A., et al.: DAML-S: Web service description for the semantic web. In: ISWC, 2002

  2. Aho, A.V., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison–Wesley/Longman, Boston (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aspvall, B., Plass, M., Tarjan, R.: A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified boolean formulas. Inf. Process. Lett. 8, 121–123 (1979)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., Wolter, F.: Integrating description logics and action formalisms: first results. In: AAAI, 2005

  6. Beckstein, C., Klausner, J.: A planning framework for workflow management. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1999

  7. Behrmann, G., Bengtsson, J., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL implementation secrets. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT’02), pp. 3–22, 2002

  8. Berthelot, G.: Transformations and decompositions of nets. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Advances in Petri Nets 1986 Part I: Petri Nets, Central Models and Their Properties. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 254, pp. 360–376. Springer, Berlin (1987)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Atluri, V.: The specification and enforcement of authorization constraints in workflow management systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2(1), 65–104 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison–Wesley, Reading (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-friendly semantic annotation in business process modeling. In: Hf-SDDM-07: Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking—in Workshop Proceedings at WISE-07, December 2007

  12. Born, M., Dörr, F., Weber, I.: User-friendly semantic annotation in business process modeling. In: Hf-SDDM’07: Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking at WISE’07, Nancy, France, December 2007

  13. Born, M., Hoffmann, J., Kaczmarek, T., Kowalkiewicz, M., Markovic, I., Scicluna, J., Weber, I., Zhou, X.: Semantic annotation and composition of business processes with Maestro. In: European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC) Demo Track, June 2008

  14. Born, M., Hoffmann, J., Kaczmarek, T., Kowalkiewicz, M., Markovic, I., Scicluna, J., Weber, I., Zhou, X.: Supporting execution-level business process modeling with semantic technologies. In: Database Systems for Advanced Applications (DASFAA-09) Demo Track, 2009

  15. Brewka, G., Hertzberg, J.: How to do things with worlds: on formalizing actions and plans. J. Log. Comput. 3(5), 517–532 (1993)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Bryant, R.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35, 677–691 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Burch, J., Clarke, E., Mcmillan, K., Dill, D., Hwang, L.: Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 1–33, 1990

  18. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Clarke, E., Biere, A., Raimi, R., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking using satisfiability solving. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 7–34 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Conradi, R., Liu, C., Hagaseth, M.: Planning support for cooperating transactions in EPOS. Inf. Syst. 20(4), 317–336 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fensel, D., et al.: Enabling Semantic Web Services: The Web Service Modeling Ontology. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Da Rold, C.: European IT services survey signals irreversible changes. Technical Report Markets Note, M-20-0616, Gartner Research, 19 June 2003

  23. De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Poggi, A., Rosati, R.: On the update of description logic ontologies at the instance level. In: AAAI, 2006

  24. Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 13(3), 289–332 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press, New York (1995)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Edelkamp, S., Lluch-Lafuente, A., Leue, S.: Directed explicit-state model checking in the validation of communication protocols. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. (2004)

  27. Een, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT solver. In: Giunchiglia, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT-03), Portofino, Italy, May 2003

  28. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artif. Intell. 57(2–3), 227–270 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Garcia-Valles, F., Colom, J.M.: Implicit places in net systems. In: Petri Nets and Performance Models, 1999. Proceedings. The 8th International Workshop on, pp. 104–113 (1999)

  30. Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S., Weber, I.: Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In: BPD-08: 4th International Workshop on Business Process Design, September 2008

  31. Hepp, M., Hinkelmann, K., Karagiannis, D., Klein, R., Stojanovic, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Business Process and Product Lifecycle Management (SBPM 2007), Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007

  32. Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 115(1), 107–138 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoffmann, J., Weber, I., Scicluna, J., Kaczmarek, T., Ankolekar, A.: Combining scalability and expressivity in the automatic composition of semantic web services. In: ICWE’08: 8th International Conference on Web Engineering, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA, July 2008

  34. Hoffmann, J., Weber, I., Governatori, G.: On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models. Information Systems Frontiers, Special Issue on Governance, Risk, and Compliance, 2009

  35. Holzmann, G.: The Spin Model Checker—Primer and Reference Manual. Addison–Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Holzmann, G., Peled, D.: An improvement in formal verification. In: Formal Description Techniques, pp. 197–211 (1994)

  37. Horn, A.: On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. J. Symb. Log. (1951)

  38. Howell, R., Rosier, L.: Problems concerning fairness and temporal logic for conflict-free Petri nets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 64(3), 305–329 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. IBM. Insurance Application Architecture (IAA), v 7.1 (2004). http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/financialservices/doc/content/solution/278918103.html, accessed: 28.10.2008

  40. Jaccheri, M.L., Conradi, R.: Techniques for process model evolution in EPOS. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 19(12), 1145–1156 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage “Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK)”. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Heft 89, Saarbrücken, Germany, January 1992. http://www.iwi.uni-sb.de/iwi-hefte/heft089.pdf

  42. Kindler, E.: Model-based software engineering and process-aware information systems. Trans. Petri Nets Other Models Concurr. II 2, 27–45 (2009). Special Issue on Concurrency in Process-Aware Information Systems

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Koliadis, G., Ghose, A.: Verifying semantic business process models in inter-operation. In: IEEE Intl. Conf. Services Computing (SCC 2007), pp. 731–738, 2007

  44. Kovalyov, A., Esparza, J.: A polynomial algorithm to compute the concurrency relation of free-choice signal transition graphs. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES’96, pp. 1–6, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1996

  45. Kumaran, S., Liu, R., Wu, F.Y.: On the duality of information-centric and activity-centric models of business processes. In: Proc. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE-08), pp. 32–47, 2008

  46. Lin, F., Reiter, R.: State constraints revisited. J. Log. Comput. 4(5), 655–678 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: A proposal for describing services with DLs. In: DL, 2002

  48. Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Semantic correctness in adaptive process management systems. In: BPM06: Proc. 4th Int’l Conf. on Business Process Management, pp. 193–208, Vienna, Austria, 2006

  49. Ly, L.T., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: Integration and verification of semantic constraints in adaptive process management systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(1), 3–23 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Markovic, I., Karrenbrock, M.: Semantic web service discovery for business process models. In: Hf-SDDM’07: Workshop on Human-friendly Service Description, Discovery and Matchmaking at WISE’07, Nancy, France, December 2007

  51. Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP—a search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Trans. Comput. 48(5), 506–521 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 6. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of EPCs with OR-joins based on state and context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2007), Trondheim, Norway. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Meyer, H.: On the semantics of service compositions. In: Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, First International Conference (RR-07), pp. 31–42, 2007

  55. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Design Automation (DAC-01), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2001. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Namiri, K., Stojanovic, N.: A model-driven approach for internal controls compliance in business processes. In: SBPM-07: Proc. Workshop on Semantic Business Process and Product Lifecycle Management, Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007. ISSN 1613-0073

  57. Narayanan, S., McIlraith, S.: Simulation, verification and automated composition of web services. In: 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW-02), pp. 77–88, 2002

  58. OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0, April 2007

  59. OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation, V1.1. http://www.bpmn.org/, January 2008. OMG Available Specification, Document Number: formal/2008-01-17

  60. Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society Press, Providence (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Puhlmann, F., Weske, M.: Investigations on soundness regarding lazy activities. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A. (eds.) Business Process Management, 4th International Conference, BPM 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4102, pp. 145–160. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: ADEPT workflow management system: flexible support for enterprise-wide business processes. In: BPM, 2003

  63. Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Dadam, P.: ADEPT workflow management system: flexible support for enterprise-wide business processes (tool presentation). In: BPM03: Proc. Int’l Conf. on Business Process Management, Eindhoven, Netherlands, June 2003, pp. 370–379. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Reichert, M., Rinderle, S., Kreher, U., Dadam, P.: Adaptive process management with ADEPT2. In: ICDE, 2005

  65. Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distrib. Parallel Databases 16(1), 91–116 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H., de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C., Fensel, D.: Web service modeling ontology. Appl. Ontol. 1(1) (2005)

  67. Ryndina, K., Küster, J.M., Gall, H.: Consistency of business process models and object life cycles. In: MoDELS Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4364, pp. 80–90. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. J. Inf. Syst. 30(5), 349–378 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS Business Process Modelling. Springer, Berlin (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sinur, J., Hill, J.B.: Align BPM and SOA Initiatives Now to Increase Chances of Becoming a Leader by 2010. Gartner Predicts 2007, 10 November 2006

  71. Strichman, O.: Accelerating bounded model checking of safety formulas. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 24(1), 5–24 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. The OWL Services Coalition. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services (2003)

  73. Valmari, A.: A stubborn attack on state explosion. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’90), pp. 156–165, 1990

  74. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Berlin (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  75. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Interorganizational workflows: an approach based on message sequence charts and Petri nets. Syst. Anal. Model. Simul. 34(3), 335–367 (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  77. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Yawl: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems (Cooperative Information Systems). MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  79. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hirnschall, A., Verbeek, H.M.W.: An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In: Banks-Pidduck, A., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.): Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’02). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2348, pp. 535–552. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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., Tari, Z., Hacid, M.-S., Mylopoulos, J., Pernici, B., Babaoglu, Ö., Jacobsen, H.-A., Loyall, J.P., Kifer, M., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) OTM Conferences (1). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3760, pp. 130–147. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F.: Faster and more focused control-flow analysis for business process models though SESE decomposition. In: Krämer, B., Lin, K.J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.): 5th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4749, pp. 43–55. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) Business Process Management, 6th International Conference, BPM 2008, Milan, Italy, September 2–4, 2008. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Verbeek, H.M.W., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. Comput. J. 44(4), 246–279 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  84. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J., Nitzsche, J.: Towards a methodology for semantic business process modeling and configuration. In: Proceedings of the ICSOC 2007 Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the semantic consistency of executable process models. In: ECOWS-08: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE European Conference on Web Services, pp. 102–111, November 2008

  86. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Semantic business process validation. In: SBPM-08: 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Business Process Management at ESWC-08, June 2008

  87. Weber, I., Markovic, I., Drumm, C.: A conceptual framework for semantic business process configuration. J. Inf. Sci. Technol. (JIST) 5(2), 3–20 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models. Technical report, 2009. Available at http://www.imweber.de/texte/tr-dpd.pdf

  89. Weber, I., Barros, A., May, N., Hoffmann, J., Kaczmarek, T.: Composing services for third-party service delivery. In: ICWS-09: IEEE International Conference on Web Services, Application and Industry Track, Los Angeles, CA, July 2009

  90. Weber, I., Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J.: Approximate compliance checking for annotated process models. In: Advances in Enterprise Engineering—Proceedings of the GRCIS workshop at CAiSE’08, June 2008

  91. Winslett, M.: Reasoning about actions using a possible models approach. In: AAAI, 1988

  92. Zhao, W., Hauser, R., Bhattacharya, K., Bryant, B.R., Cao, F.: Compiling business processes: untangling unstructured loops in irreducible flow graphs. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2(1), 68–91 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’08), 2008

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Ingo Weber

  2. INRIA, Centre de Recherche Nancy—Grand Est, 54506, Nancy, France

    Jörg Hoffmann

  3. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Jan Mendling

Authors
  1. Ingo Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Mendling.

Additional information

Communicated by Asuman Dogac.

The major part of this work was conducted while the first and second authors worked for SAP Research, Karlsruhe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, I., Hoffmann, J. & Mendling, J. Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models. Distrib Parallel Databases 27, 271–343 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619-010-7060-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619-010-7060-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation