Advertisement

A Tool for the Verification of Data-Aware Business Processes

  • Luca Sabiucciu
  • Marco Montali
  • Sergio Tessaris
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11298)

Abstract

Verification of data-aware Business Processes is a highly complex and time consuming activity. As Business Processes tend to increase in terms of both size and complexity, the process of verifying such, becomes difficult even for experts. Data values may cause, for example, a deadlock in the control-flow of a Business Process, due to unsatisfied constraints on the data values, preventing the procedure of the process. Although commercial and non-commercial suites handling both control-flow and data-flow are available on the market, they struggle to produce an impact, due to the fact that the data-flow is on a separated layer from the control-flow.

In this paper we present the experimental results of the first prototype of the RAW-SYS framework, a framework for the verification of data-aware Business Processes, using small sized Business Process models, but arbitrarily complex, with updates on the data values and relying on data-constraints in order, for the process, to proceed. Despite the restricted size of the models, results are good and suggest that planning techniques are a valid way of verifying data-aware Business Processes.

Keywords

Business processes Automated planning Data-aware workflow verification 

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.: Verification of workflow nets. Appl. Theory Petri Nets 1997, 407–426 (1997)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W., Stahl, C.: Modeling Business Processes: A Petri Net-Oriented Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Montali, M.: Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective. In: Hull, R., Fan, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 1–12. ACM Press (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2463664.2467796
  4. 4.
    De Masellis, R., Francescomarino, C.D., Ghidini, C., Montali, M., Tessaris, S.: Add data into business process verification: bridging the gap between theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1091–1099 (2017). http://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI17/paper/view/14627
  5. 5.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2. 1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 20, 61–124 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helmert, M.: The fast downward planning system. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 26, 191–246 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W., Adams, M., Russell, N.: Modern Business Process Automation: YAWL and its Support Environment. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03121-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Business Process Model: Notation (BPMN) version 2.0. OMG Specification. Object Management Group, pp. 22–31 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Treves, N., Hillah, L.M., Kordon, F., Petrucci, L.: A primer on the Petri Net markup language and ISO/IEC 15909–2. In: 10th International workshop on Practical Use of Colored Petri Nets and the CPN Tools (CPN 2009), Aarhus, Denmark, p. 19, October 2009. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01126017
  10. 10.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management - Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of Bozen–BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations