Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handling Complex Process Models Conditions Using First-Order Horn Clauses

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rule Technologies. Research, Tools, and Applications (RuleML 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9718))

Abstract

WorkFlow Management Systems provide automatic support to learn process models or to check compliance of process enactment to correct models. The expressive power of the adopted formalism for representing process models is fundamental to determine the effectiveness or even feasibility of a correct model. In particular, a desirable feature is the possibility of expressing complex conditions on some elements of the model. The formalism used in the WoMan framework for workflow management, based on First-Order Logic, is more expressive than standard formalisms adopted in the literature. It allows tight integration between the activity flow and the conditions, and it allows one to express conditions that take into account contextual information and various kinds of relationships among the involved entities. This paper discusses such a formalism, especially concerning conditions, and provides an explicative example of how this can be applied in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Specifically, task start and end events are needed to properly handle time span and parallelism of tasks [24].

  2. 2.

    Note that this interpretation differs from the one given in Petri Nets, where ‘transitions’ represent tasks.

  3. 3.

    In an obvious representation, R may be a simple set of roles, but other kinds of representation formalism can be used as well (e.g., intensional description, reference to hierarchies, etc.).

  4. 4.

    Actually, in its internal representation, WoMan uses a simplified notation with exactly the same meaning.

  5. 5.

    Again, the simplified notation is actually used.

  6. 6.

    In this case, the simplified notation is actually used.

References

  1. Agrawal, R., Gunopulos, D., Leymann, F.: Mining process models from workflow logs. In: Schek, H.-J., Saltor, F., Ramos, I., Alonso, G. (eds.) EDBT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1377, pp. 467–483. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. De Carolis, B., Ferilli, S., Redavid, D.: Incremental learning of daily routines as workflows in a smart home environment. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 4, 1–23 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cattafi, M., Lamma, E., Riguzzi, F., Storari, S.: Incremental declarative process mining. In: Szczerbicki, E., Nguyen, N.T. (eds.) Smart Information and Knowledge Management. SCI, vol. 260, pp. 103–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Cook, J.E., Wolf, A.L.: Discovering models of software processes from event-based data. Technical Report CU-CS-819-96, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cook, J.E., Wolf, A.L.: Event-based detection of concurrency. Technical Report CU-CS-860-98, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  6. de Medeiros, A.K.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Genetic process mining: an experimental evaluation. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 14, 245–304 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Esposito, F., Semeraro, G., Fanizzi, N., Ferilli, S.: Multistrategy theory revision: induction and abduction in InTheLEx. Mach. Learn. J. 38(1/2), 133–156 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferilli, S.: WoMan: logic-based workflow learning and management. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 44, 744–756 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferilli, S., Esposito, F.: A heuristic approach to handling sequential information in incremental ILP. In: Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Boella, G., Micalizio, R. (eds.) AI*IA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8249, pp. 109–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferilli, S., Esposito, F.: A logic framework for incremental learning of process models. Fundamenta Informaticae 128, 413–443 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Herbst, J.: Dealing with concurrency in workflow induction. In: Proceedings of the European Concurrent Engineering Conference, pp. 175–182. SCS Europe (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Herbst, J., Karagiannis, D.: Integrating machine learning and workflow management to support acquisition and adaptation of workflow models. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp. 745–752. IEEE (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Herbst, J., Karagiannis, D.: An inductive approach to the acquisition and adaptation of workflow models. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 1999 Workshop on Intelligent Workflow and Process Management: The New Frontier for AI in Business, pp. 52–57 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Herbst, J.: A machine learning approach to workflow management. In: Lopez de Mantaras, R., Plaza, E. (eds.) ECML 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1810, pp. 183–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Aalst, W., et al.: Process mining manifesto. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 169–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamma, E., Mello, P., Riguzzi, F., Storari, S.: Applying inductive logic programming to process mining. In: Blockeel, H., Ramon, J., Shavlik, J., Tadepalli, P. (eds.) ILP 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4894, pp. 132–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Decision mining in business processes. In: WP 164, BETA Working Paper Series. Eindhoven University of Technology (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  21. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of petri nets to workflow management. J. Circ. Syst. Comput. 8, 21–66 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process mining overview and opportunities. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. 3, 7.1–7.17 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dustdar, S.: Process mining put into context. IEEE Internet Comput. 16, 82–86 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, T., Maruster, L.: Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 16, 1128–1142 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weijters, A.J.M.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Rediscovering workflow models from event-based data. In: Proceedings of 11th Dutch-Belgian Conference of Machine Learning (Benelearn 2001), pp. 93–100 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wen, L., Wang, J., Sun, J.: Detecting implicit dependencies between tasks from event logs. In: Zhou, X., Li, J., Shen, H.T., Kitsuregawa, M., Zhang, Y. (eds.) APWeb 2006. LNCS, vol. 3841, pp. 591–603. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Stefano Ferilli

Authors
  1. Stefano Ferilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Ferilli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Jose Julio Alferes

  2. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Leopoldo Bertossi

  3. NICTA Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Guido Governatori

  4. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA

    Paul Fodor

  5. SINTEF/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Dumitru Roman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ferilli, S. (2016). Handling Complex Process Models Conditions Using First-Order Horn Clauses. In: Alferes, J., Bertossi, L., Governatori, G., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds) Rule Technologies. Research, Tools, and Applications. RuleML 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9718. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42019-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42019-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42018-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42019-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation