A Three-Layer Model for Workflow Semantic Recovery in an Object-Oriented Environment
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.
KeywordsCompensation Method Transaction Model Exception Handling Recovery Manager Nest Transaction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Borgida, A.: Language Features for Flexible Handling of Exceptions, ACM Trans. on Database Systems (1985).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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
- 9.Eder, J., Liebhart, W.: The Workflow Activity Model WAMO. In Proceeding of CoopIS—95, 97–98, (1995) 87–98Google Scholar
- 10.Ellis, S., et al.: Dynamic Change within Workflow Systems, Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (1995) 10–21Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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