Advertisement

A Three-Layer Model for Workflow Semantic Recovery in an Object-Oriented Environment

  • Dickson K. W. Chiu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2224)

Abstract

There have been numerous attempts to provide semantic recovery workflow support in order to maintain atomicity and consistency. However, they concentrate on compensation activities for individual tasks. This paper propose a three-layer model to provide comprehensive recovery support in an advanced object-oriented workflow environment, which take cares many other properties and aspects of a workflow management system (WFMS). At the workflow layer, the workflow composition hierarchy, workflow semantics and workflow commitment determines recovery requirement and data objects affected. At the data object layer, object class properties, data dependencies determines data recovery requirement. At the recovery primitive layer, users can define different types of reusable primitives to address the above recovery requirements. Based on this model with respect to ADOME-WFMS, this paper illustrates how the problem of workflow recovery can be adequately addressed, especially from an exception-handling viewpoint. In particular, a novel webbased support for cooperative workflow semantic recovery is highlighted.

Keywords

Compensation Method Transaction Model Exception Handling Recovery Manager Nest Transaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alonso, G., et al.: Exotica/FMDC: a workflow management system for mobile and discon-nected clients. Distributed & Parallel Databases, vol. 4(3), 229–247, (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borgida, A.: Language Features for Flexible Handling of Exceptions, ACM Trans. on Database Systems (1985).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casati, F., Fugini, M. G., and Mirbel, I: An Environment for Designing Exceptions in Workflows. Proceedings of CAiSE 98, LNCS Springer Verlag, Pisa, June (1998).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiu, D. K. W., Li, Q., and Karlapalem, K.: A Meta Modeling Approach for Workflow Management Systems Supporting Exception Handling, Information Systems, Elsevier Science, vol 24(2), (1999) 159–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiu, D. K. W., Li, Q., and Karlapalem, K.: Facilitating Exception Handling with Recovery Techniques in ADOME Workflow Management System. Journal of Applied Systems Studies, Cambridge International Science Publishing, 1(3), (2000) 467–488Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiu, D. K. W., Li, Q., and Karlapalem, K.: Views for Inter-Organization Workflow in an E-Commerce Environment, 9th IFIP 2.6 Working Conference on Database Semantics (DS-9), Hong Kong, April (2001) 151–167Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiu, D. K. W., Li, Q., and Karlapalem, K.: Web Interface-Driven Cooperative Exception Handling in ADOME Workflow Management System. Information Systems, Pergamon Press, Elservier Science, 26(2), (2001) 93–120zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Eder, J., Liebhart, W.: The Workflow Activity Model WAMO. In Proceeding of CoopIS—95, 97–98, (1995) 87–98Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Ellis, S., et al.: Dynamic Change within Workflow Systems, Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (1995) 10–21Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M. F., and Manola, F.: Customizing Transaction Models and Mechanisms in a Programmable Envioronment Supporting Reliable Workflow Automation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 8(4), (1996) 630–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 12.
    Hagen, C. and Alonso G., Flexible Exception Handling in the OPERA Process Support System, 18th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 98), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Kamath, M., Ramamritham, K.: Failure Handling and Coordinated Execution of Concurrent Workflows, Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Data Engineering, Orlando, Florida, February (1998) 334–341Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    Kappel, G., Rausch-Schott, S., Retschitzegger W.: Coordination in Workflow Management Systems —A Rule-Based Approach, Coordination Technology for Collaborative Applications — Organizations, Processes, and Agents, Springer LNCS 1364, (1988) 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 16.
    Kiepuszewski, B., Muhlberger R., Orlowska, M.: FlowBack: providing backward recovery for workflow management systems; Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, (1998) 555–557Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    Kumar, A., et.al. A framework for dynamic routing and operational integrity controls in a workflow management system. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol 3, (1996) 492–501Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Li, Q. and Lochovsky, F. H. ADOME: an Advanced Object Modeling Environment. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 10(2), (1998) 255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 19.
    Reuter, A. and Schwenkreis, F. ConTacts — A Low-Level Mechanism for Building General-Purpose Workflow Management Systems. IEEE Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 18 (1), (1995) 4–10Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    Worah, D. and Sheth, A. Transactions in Transactional Workflows in Advanced Transaction Models and Architectures, S. Jojodia and L. Kerschberg, Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, (1997) 3–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dickson K. W. Chiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Dickson Computer SystemsKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations