Automation of Control and Data flow in Distributed Application Systems

  • Berthold Reinwald
  • Hartmut Wedekind


This paper considers control and data flow of well-structured procedures in distributed application systems. At control flow level, an application-oriented cooperation model is used to model well-structured cooperative work in distributed applications. At data flow level, a customizable data management mechanism passes data between activities and provides data necessary for activity execution. The cooperation model requires procedure-oriented data delivery and data passing between activities.


Activity Execution Data Partition Task System Execution Condition Trigger System 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Artsy, Y: Routing Objects on Action Paths. In: Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Paris, 1990, pp. 572-579Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bracchi, G.; Pernici, B.: The Requirements of Office Systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 2 (1984) 2}, pp. 151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Cabrera, L.: Paris, J. (eds.): Proc. of the Workshop on the Management of Replicated Data, Houston. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1990Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dayal, U.; Hsu, M; Ladin, R.: Organizing Long-Running Activities with Triggers and Transactions. In: Garcia-Molina, H.; Jagadish, H. (eds): Proc. of the 1990 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Atlantic City, Vol. 19 (1990), Issue 2, pp. 204–214Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Davies, C. T. (Jr.): Data processing spheres of control. IBM System Journal 17 (1978) 2, pp. 179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Dayal, U.; Blaustein, B.; Buchman, A.; Carey, M. et al.: HiPAC: a research project in active time-constrained database management. Interim Report, Xerox Custom Systems Division, Cambridge, MA, 1988Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Ellis, C.A.: An office information system based on migrating processes. In: Naffah, N. (ed.): Office Information Systems, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Jablonski, S.; Reinwald, B.; Ruf, T.: A case study for data management in a CIM environment. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Troy, N. Y, 1990, pp. 500-506Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Jablonski, S.; Ruf, T.; Wedekind, R: Implementation of a distributed data management system for technical applications — a feasibility study. Information Systems 15 (1990) 2, pp. 247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Jablonski, S.; Reinwald, B.; Ruf, T.; Wedekind, R: Event-oriented Management of Functions and Data in Distributed Systems. In: Sol, H.; Crosslin, R.: Proc. of the Second International Working Conference on Dynamic Modelling of Information Systems. North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kambayashi, Y; Rusinkiewicz, M.; Sheth, A. (eds.): Proc. of the First International Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems, Kyoto, Japan, 1991Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Karbe, B.; Ramsperger, N.; Wiss, P.: Support of Cooperative Work by Electronic Circulation Folders. In: Lochovsky, F.: Allen, R. (eds.): Proc. of the Conference on Office Information Systems. Cambridge, SIGOIS Bulletin 11 (1990) 2/3, pp. 109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Pausch, R.: Adding Input and Output to the Transactional Model. Ph. D. Thesis, CMU-CS-S8-171, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1988Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Reinwald, B.; Wedekind, H.: Integrierte Aktivitäten-und Datenverwaltung zur systemgestützten Kontroll-und Datenflußsteuerung. Informatik Forschung und Entwicklung 1992 (7), pp. 73–82Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Wächter, R; Reuter, A.: The ConTract Model. In: Elmagarmid, A. (ed.): Transaction Models for Advanced Database Applications, Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wedekind, H.: Ubiquity and Need-to-know: Two Principles of Data Distribution. Operating Systems Review 22 (1988) 4, pp. 39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Zisman, M.: Representation, Specification and Automation of Office Procedures. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1977Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berthold Reinwald
    • 1
  • Hartmut Wedekind
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science VIUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations