Advertisement

Coping with mismatched semantics of dependencies in workflow applications

  • Jian Tang
  • San-Yi Hwang
CSCW and Work Flow Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1134)

Abstract

A workflow system may be built in a heterogeneous and autonomous distributed environment. Since the number of tasks constituting a workflow application can be enormous, the dependencies among some tasks must be specified and therefore subsequently enforced separately. Due to different visibilities of local systems to application and implementation of a workflow system, the semantics viewed at these two levels may mismatch in terms of enforcibility of the dependencies. As a result, some dependencies which are enforcible as viewed by applications may be not enforcible as viewed by the underlying supporting system. In this paper, we study the problems related to enforcing dependencies under such diverse views, and propose approaches to coping with them.

Keywords

Local System State Dependency Manage Business Process Resolution Scheme Equivalent Event 
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.
    M. Attie, M. Singh, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz, “Specifying and enforcing intertask dependencies”, Proc. of the 19th Intl. Conf. on VLDB, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.C. Attie, M.P. Singh, M. Rusinkiewicz, A. Sheth, Specifying and Enforcing Intertask Dependencies. MCC Technical Report Carnot-245-92, Dec. 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.K. Chrysantis, K. Ramamritham, ACTA: The SAGA Continues. Ch. 10 in [Elm92].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.K. Chrysantis, K. Ramamritham, Synthesis of Extended Transaction Models Using ACTA. ACM Transactions on Database systems, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1994, pp 450–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. Dayal, M. Hsu, and R. Ladin, “A transaction model for long-running activities”, Proc. of the 17th VLDB, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Elmagarmid (ed.), “Database transaction models for advanced Applications”, Morgan-Kaufmann, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Elmagarmid, Y. Leu, W. Litwin and M. Rusinkiewicz, “A multidatabase transaction model for InterBase”, Proc. of the 16th VLDB, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Garcia-Molina, D. Gawlick, J. Klein, K. Kleissner, and K. Salem, “Modeling long-running activities as nested sagas”, IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 8(1), March 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornich and A. Sheth, “An overview of workflow management: from process modeling to workflow automaton infrastructure”, Distributed and Parallel Databases, An International Journal, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Sept., 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Hsu (ed.), “Special issue on workflow and extended transaction Systems”, Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering (IEEE Computer Society), 16(2), June 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Klein, Advanced Rule Driven Transaction Management. Proc. of the IEEE COMPCON'91.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Krishnakumar and A. Sheth, “Managing heterogeneous multi-system tasks to support enterprise-wide operations”, Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Leymann and W. Altenhuber, “Managing Business Processes as Information Resources”, IBM Systems Journal 33(2), 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Manola, S. Heiler, D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornich and M. Brodie, “Distributed object management”, Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 1(1), March 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. McCarthy and S. Sarin, “Workflow and transactions in InConcert”, Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 16, No. 2, June, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Tang and San-Yih Hwang, “Some Issues for Enforcing Dependencies in an HAD environment”, Tach. Rep., MUN, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Tang and J. Veijalainen, “Enforcing inter-task dependencies in transactional workflows”, Proc. of the 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cooperative Infor. Syst., May 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Watcher and A. Reuter, “The ConTract model”, Chapter 7 in [El92], 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian Tang
    • 1
  • San-Yi Hwang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt.John'sCanada
  2. 2.Department of Information ManagementSun Yat-San UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations