Symbolic Abstraction and Deadlock-Freeness Verification of Inter-enterprise Processes
The design of complex inter-enterprise business processes (IEBP) is generally performed in a modular way. Each process is designed separately from the others and then the whole IEBP is obtained by composition. Even if such a modular approach is intuitive and facilitates the design problem, it poses the problem that correct behavior of each business process of the IEBP taken alone does not guarantee a correct behavior of the composed IEBP (i.e. properties are not preserved by composition). Proving correctness of the (unknown) composed process is strongly related to the model checking problem of a system model. Among others, the symbolic observation graph based approach has proven to be very helpful for efficient model checking in general. Since it is heavily based on abstraction techniques and thus hides detailed information about system components that are not relevant for the correctness decision, it is promising to transfer this concept to the problem rised in this paper: How can the symbolic observation graph technique be adapted and employed for process composition? Answering this question is the aim of this paper.
KeywordsBusiness Process Label Transition System Reachability Graph Model Check Problem Dead State
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Grefen, P., Aberer, K., Hoffner, Y., Ludwig, H.: Crossflow: Cross-organizational workflow management in dynamic virtual enterprises. International Journal of Computer Systems Science & Engineering 15(5), 277–290 (2000)Google Scholar
- 7.Klai, K., Petrucci, L.: Modular construction of the symbolic observation graph. In: Billington, J., Duan, Z., Koutny, M. (eds.) ACSD, pp. 88–97. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
- 10.Martens, A.: On Usability of Web Services. In: Calero, C., Daz, O., Piattini, M. (eds.) Proceedings of 1st Web Services Quality Workshop (WQW 2003), Rome, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Martens, A.: Simulation and Equivalence between BPEL Process Models. In: Proceedings of the Design, Analysis, and Simulation of Distributed Systems Symposium (DASD 2005), Part of the 2005 Spring Simulation Multiconference (SpringSim 2005), San Diego, California (April 2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Martens, A., Simon, M., Achim, G., Karoline, F.: Analyzing compatibility of bpel processes. In: AICT-ICIW 2006: Proceedings of the Advanced Int’l Conference on Telecommunications and Int’l Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, Washington, DC, USA, p. 147. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
- 14.Massuthe, P., Wolf, K.: An Algorithm for Matching Nondeterministic Services with Operating Guidelines. Informatik-Berichte 202, Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
- 15.Pankratius, V., Stucky, W.: A formal foundation for workflow composition, workflow view definition, and workflow normalization based on Petri nets. In: APCCM 2005: Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific conference on Conceptual modelling, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, pp. 79–88. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2005)Google Scholar