Advertisement

Timed Automaton RVT-Grammar for Workflow Translating

  • Alexander Afanasyev
  • Nikolay VoitEmail author
  • Sergey Kirillov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11289)

Abstract

The paper studies grammar for workflow translating including semantic analysis. The main purpose of the translation is to expand the methods of semantic analysis of the grammatical model of distributed workflows due to the capabilities of the translation language. The article describes grammar, algorithm of its construction, differences from usual RV-grammar and author’s modifications. At the end of the work the result of the experiment of translating the BPMN language diagrams into a temporary Petri net is presented.

Keywords

Automated systems Diagrammatic models Workflows Automaton grammars Timed Petri nets Diagram translation 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 17-07-01417 and Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the government of the region of the Russian Federation, grant № 18-47-730032.

References

  1. 1.
    Booch, G., Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayer, R.J., Painter, M.K., de Witte, P.S.: IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-engineering Applications. Knowledge Based Systems, College Station (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Santos, P.S., Almeida, J.P.A., Pianissolla, T.L.: Uncovering the organisational modelling and business process modelling languages in the ARIS method. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manag. 5(2), 130–143 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Model, B.P.: Notation (BPMN), v. 2.0, 2011. OMG. www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0. Accessed 01 Sept 2018
  5. 5.
    Van Der Aalst, W., Van Hee, K.M., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharov, O., Afanasyev, A.: Syntax error recovery in graphical languages. Prog. Comput. Softw. 34, 44–48 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768808010052CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Afanasyev, A.N., Voit, N.N., Kirillov, S.Y.: Development of RYT-grammar for analysis and control dynamic workflows. In: International Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics (ICCNI), pp. 1–4. Lagos (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCNI.2017.8123797
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maurer, P.M.: The design and implementation of a grammar-based data generator. Softw. Pract. Exp. 22(3), 223–244 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reijers, H.A.: Design and Control of Workflow Processes: Business Process Management for the Service Industry. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36615-6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Krishna, A.: Checking business process evolution. In: Kouchnarenko, O., Khosravi, R. (eds.) FACS 2016. LNCS, vol. 10231, pp. 36–53. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57666-4_4. https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01366641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martens, A.: Analyzing web service based business processes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31984-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raedts, I., Petkovic, M., Usenko, Y.S., van der Werf, J.M.E., Groote, J.F., Somers, L.J.: Transformation of BPMN models for behaviour analysis. In: MSVVEIS 2007, pp. 126–137 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Ouyang, C.: Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(12), 1281–1294 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong, P.Y.H., Gibbons, J.: A process semantics for BPMN. In: Liu, S., Maibaum, T., Araki, K. (eds.) ICFEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5256, pp. 355–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88194-0_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong, P.Y., Gibbons, J.: Verifying business process compatibility (short paper). In: The Eighth International Conference on Quality Software, 2008. QSIC 2008, pp. 126–131. IEEE, August 2008.  https://doi.org/10.1109/QSIC.2008.6
  18. 18.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Interaction-centric modeling of process choreographies. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 292–312 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2010.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Decker, G., Weske, M.: Local enforceability in interaction petri nets. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Güdemann, M., Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Dumont, A.: VerChor: a framework for verifying choreographies. In: Cortellessa, V., Varró, D. (eds.) FASE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7793, pp. 226–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37057-1_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mateescu, R., Salaün, G., Ye, L.: Quantifying the parallelism in BPMN processes using model checking. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering, pp. 159–168. ACM, June 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2602458.2602473
  22. 22.
    Kossak, F., et al.: A rigorous semantics for BPMN 2.0 process diagrams. In: Kossak, F., et al. (eds.) A rigorous semantics for BPMN 2.0 process diagrams, pp. 29–152. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09931-6_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bultan, T., Fu, X.: Specification of realizable service conversations using collaboration diagrams. SOCA 2(1), 27–39 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1109/SOCA.2007.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salaün, G., Bultan, T.: Realizability of choreographies using process algebra encodings. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00255-7_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    VBPMN Framework. https://pascalpoizat.github.io/vbpmn/. Accessed 01 Sept 2018
  26. 26.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Realizability and verification of MSC graphs. Theor. Comput. Sci. Autom. Lang. Program. 331(1), 97 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2004.09.034MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lotos, I.S.O.: A formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour. ISO8807, 1XS989 (1989)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lohmann, N., Wolf, K.: Realizability is controllability. In: Laneve, C., Su, J. (eds.) WS-FM 2009. LNCS, vol. 6194, pp. 110–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14458-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Checking the realizability of BPMN 2.0 choreographies. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1927–1934. ACM, March 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2245276.2232095

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ulyanovsk State Technical UniversityUlyanovskRussia

Personalised recommendations