Advertisement

Petri Nets with Structured Data

  • Eric Badouel
  • Loïc HélouëtEmail author
  • Christophe Morvan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9115)

Abstract

This paper proposes Structured Data Nets (StDN), a Petri net extension that describes transactional systems with data. In StDNs, tokens are structured documents. Each transition is attached to a query, guarded by patterns, (logical assertions on the contents of its preset) and transforms tokens. We define StDNs and their semantics. We then consider their formal properties: coverability of a marking, termination and soundness of transactions. Unrestricted StDNs are Turing complete, so these properties are undecidable. We thus use an order on documents, and show that under reasonable restrictions on documents and on the expressiveness of patterns and queries, StDNs are well-structured transition systems, for which coverability, termination and soundness are decidable.

Keywords

Turing Machine Tree Pattern Input Place Output Place Counter Machine 
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.
    Abdulla, P.A., Cerans, K., Jonsson, B., Tsay, Y-K.: General decidability theorems for infinite-state systems. In: Proc. of LICS 1996, pp. 313–321. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Benjelloun, O., Manolescu, I., Milo, T., Weber, R.: Active XML: A Data-Centric Perspective on Web Services. In: BDA02 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abiteboul, S., Benjelloun, O., Milo, T.: Positive active XML. In: Proc. of PODS 2004, pp. 35–45. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Acciai, L., Boreale, M.: Deciding safety properties in infinite-state pi-calculus via behavioural types. In: Albers, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Matias, Y., Nikoletseas, S., Thomas, W. (eds.) ICALP 2009, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5556, pp. 31–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akshay, S., Hélouet, L., Mukund, M.: Sessions with an unbounded number of agents. In: ACSD 2014, vol. 4281, pp. 166–175. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business process execution language for Web services (BPEL4WS). version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Badouel, E., Hélouët, L., Kouamou, G.-E., Morvan, C.: A grammatical approach to data-centric case management in a distributed collaborative environment. In: SAC 2015. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boreale, M., Bruni, R., De Nicola, R., Loreti, M.: Sessions and pipelines for structured service programming. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 19–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruni, R., Lanese, I., Melgratti, H., Tuosto, E.: Multiparty Sessions in SOC. In: Lea, D., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) COORDINATION 2008. LNCS, vol. 5052, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damaggio, E., Deutsch, A., Vianu, V.: Artifact systems with data dependencies and arithmetic. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 37(3), 22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ding, G.: Subgraphs and well-quasi-ordering. Journal of Graph Theory 16(5), 489–502 (1992)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dufourd, C., Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Reset nets between decidability and undecidability. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) ICALP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1443, p. 103. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finkel, A., Schnoebelen, P.: Well-structured transition systems everywhere!. Theor. Comput. Sci. 256(1–2), 63–92 (2001)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genest, B., Muscholl, A., Wu, Z .: Verifying recursive active documents with positive data tree rewriting. In Proc. of FSTTCS 2010, volume 8 of LIPIcs, pp. 469–480. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genrich, H.J.: Predicate/transition nets. In: Brauer, W., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Petri Nets: Central Models and Their Properties, Advances in Petri Nets 1986. LNCS, vol. 254, pp. 207–247. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higman, G.: Ordering by divisibility in abstract algebras. Proc. London Math. Soc. 3(2), 326–336 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: POPL, pp. 273–284. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull, R., Damaggio, E., Fournier, F., Gupta, M., Heath III, F.T., Hobson, S., Linehan, M., Maradugu, S., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P., Vaculin, R.: Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles (invited talk). In: Bravetti, M. (ed.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets - Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, An EATCS Series (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lazic, R., Newcomb, T., Ouaknine, J., Roscoe, A.W., Worrell, J.: Nets with tokens which carry data. Fundam. Inform. 88(3), 251–274 (2008)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lenz, K., Oberweis, A.: Modeling interorganizational workflows with XML nets. In: 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34) (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Irina, A.: Lomazova and Ph. Schnoebelen. Some decidability results for nested Petri nets. In: Perspectives of System Informatics, pp. 208–220 (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Misra, J., Cook, W.: Computation orchestration. Software and Systems Modeling 6(1), 83–110 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mlynkova, I., Toman, K., Pokorný, J.: Statistical analysis of real XML data collections. In: Proc. of International Conference on Management of Data 2006, pp. 15–26. Tata McGraw-Hill (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nigam, A., Caswell, N.S.: Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J. 42, 428–445 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    OASIS. Web Services Business Process Execution Language. Technical report, OASIS (2007). http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.pdf
  27. 27.
    Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A calculus for orchestration of Web services. J. Applied Logic 10(1), 2–31 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wies, T., Zufferey, D., Henzinger, T.A.: Forward analysis of depth-bounded processes. In: Ong, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6014, pp. 94–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    World Wide Web Consortium. XML path language (xpath). Technical report, W3C. W3C Recommendation (1999). http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath
  30. 30.
    World Wide Web Consortium. XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language. Technical report, W3C. W3C Recommendation (1999). http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Badouel
    • 1
  • Loïc Hélouët
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christophe Morvan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA Rennes Bretagne AtlantiqueRennesFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris-EstCréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations