Advertisement

BIS 2000 pp 20-35 | Cite as

Workflow Migration Supporting Virtual Enterprises

  • Andrzej Cichocki
  • Dimitrios Georgakopoulos
  • Marek Rusinkiewicz

Abstract

Multi-enterprise processes (MEPs) are the means by which Virtual Enterprises (VEs) may efficiently coordinate their resources and establish and manage their supply chains. The Collaboration Management Model (CMM) developed in MCC provides a framework for modeling and implementing MEPs. In this paper we propose to extend the CMM with workflow migration, that is, with the ability of workflows to transfer their code and execution state to another host during run time. This permits the enterprises in a VE to agree upon abstract workflows that consist of placeholder activities capturing the need for inter-enterprise services. Abstract workflow execution involves its migration to the enterprise sites that provide the services its requires. At each such site, abstract workflow execution involves (1) refinement and extension of activity placeholders based on local knowledge and (2) enactment of the resulting concrete workflows. The migration of workflows improve the collaboration between organizations with strong local decision autonomy and specialization, since it allows refining the workflow specification during its execution and enables dynamic choices of different implementations of the same activities. The migrating workflows are naturally suitable for mobile environments, where disconnection of hosts is normal and the network bandwidth is at premium.

Keywords

Business Process Mobile Agent Local Rule Virtual Enterprise Parallel Branch 
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.

Reference

  1. 1.
    Bernstein P.A., Goodman N. Timestamp-based algorithms for concurrency control in distributed database systems. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 1–3 1980. IEEE, pp 285–300Google Scholar
  2. Baker D., Georgakopoulos D., Schuster H., Cassandra A., Cichocki A. Providing customized process and situation awareness in the Collaboration Management Infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IFCIS Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS’99), Edinburgh, Scotland, September 1999Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbara D., Mehrotra S., Rusinkiewicz M. INCAS: A computational model for dynamic workflows in autonomous distributed environments. Technical Report MITL-TR-97-94, Matsushita Information Technology Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, May 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Per Cederqvist et al. Version Management with CVS. Signum Support AB, ftp://ftp.cebaf.gov/pub/marki/slow/cvs.ps, 1993Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cichocki A., Helal A., Rusinkiewicz M., Woelk D. Workflow and Process Automation: Concepts and Technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cichocki A. Migrating Workflows and their Transactional Properties. PhD thesis, University of Houston, 1999Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cichocki A., Rusinkiewicz M. Migrating workflows. In: Dogag A. et al. (ed) Advances in Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, NATO Advanced Study Institute, NATO, Istambul, Turkey, August 1997, pp 311 – 326Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cichocki A., Rusinkiewicz M. Providing transactional properties for migrating workflows. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’99), Florence, Italy, September 1999Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Internet Engineering Task Force. Simple Workflow Access Protocol (SWAP), http:// www.ics.uci.edu/ietfswap/, 1999Google Scholar
  10. Green S., Hurst L., Nangle B., Cunningham P., Somers F., Evans R. Software agents: A review. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Brenda.Nangle/iag.html, May 1997Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group. Workflow Management Facility. OMG Document Number bom/98-06-07, July 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Georgakopoulos D., Rusinkiewicz M., Sheth A. Serializability of multidatabase transactions using tickets. Transactions On Data and Knowledge Engineering, 6(1), February 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Georgakopoulos D., Schuster H., Baker D., Cichocki A. Managing process and service fusion in virtual enterprises. Information Systems, Special Issue on Information Systems Support for Electronic Commerce, 24 (6): 429 – 456, 1999Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Georgakopoulos D., Schuster H., Baker D., Cichocki A. Managing escalation of collaboration processes in crisis mitigation situations. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE’OO), San Diego, California, February 29–March 3, 2000Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hurst L., Cunningham P., Sommers F. Mobile agents — smart messages. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Mobile Agents, Berlin, Germany, April 1997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen K. Coloured Petri Nets: A high level language for system design and analysis. In: Advances in Petri Nets, vol. 483 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer- Verlag, 1990, pp 342–416Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krychniak P., Rusinkiewicz M., Cichocki A., Sheth A., Thomas G. Bounding the effects of compensation under relaxed multi-level serializability. International Journal of Parallel and Distributed Databases, 1996; 4: 355 – 374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rusinkiewicz M., Krychniak P., Cichocki A. Towards a model for multidatabase transactions. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 1993; 1 (3 & 4): 579 – 617Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rusinkiewicz M., Klas W., Tesch T., Waesch J., Muth P. Towards a cooperative transaction model. In: The Proceedings of the 21 International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Zurich, 1995Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    White J. Telescript technology: Mobile agents. White Paper of General Magic, 1996Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wasch J., Klas W. History merging as a mechanism for concurrency control in cooperative environments. In: Proceedings of RIDE-Interoperability of Nontraditional Database Systems, New Orleans, USA, February 1996Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Workflow Management Coalition, Avenue Marcel Thiry 204, 1200 Brussels, Belgium, Reference Model, http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/WfMC/Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Workflow Management Coalition. Interface 1: Process Definition Interchange Process Model, October 1999, Document Number TC-1016-PGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag London Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej Cichocki
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Georgakopoulos
    • 1
  • Marek Rusinkiewicz
    • 1
  1. 1.MCCAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations