ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Automatic verification of data-centric business processes
Full text PdfPdf (596 KB)
Source ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 361 archive
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Database Theory table of contents
St. Petersburg, Russia
SESSION: Business processes table of contents
Pages 252-267  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-423-2
Authors
Alin Deutsch  UC San Diego
Richard Hull  IBM Research
Fabio Patrizi  Sapienza Univ. of Rome
Victor Vianu  UC San Diego
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 45,   Downloads (12 Months): 180,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1514894.1514924
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We formalize and study business process systems that are centered around "business artifacts", or simply "artifacts". Artifacts are used to represent (real or conceptual) key business entities, including both their data schema and lifecycles. The lifecycle of an artifact type specifies the possible sequencings of services that can be applied to an artifact of this type as it progresses through the business process. The artifact-centric approach was introduced by IBM, and has been used to achieve substantial savings when performing business transformations.

In this paper, artifacts carry attribute records and internal state relations (holding sets of tuples) that services can consult and update. In addition, services can access an underlying database and can introduce new values from an infinite domain, thus modeling external inputs or partially specified processes described by pre-and-post conditions. The lifecycles associate services to the artifacts using declarative, condition-action style rules.

We consider the problem of statically verifying whether all runs of an artifact system satisfy desirable correctness properties expressed in a first-order extension of linear-time temporal logic. We map the boundaries of decidability for the verification problem and provide its complexity. The technical challenge to static verification stems from the presence of data from an infinite domain, yielding an infinite-state system. While much work has been done lately in the verification community on model checking specialized classes of infinite-state systems, the available results do not transfer to our framework, and this remains a difficult problem. We identify an expressive class of artifact systems for which verification is nonetheless decidable. The complexity of verification is PSPACE-complete, which is no worse than classical finite-state model checking.

This investigation builds upon previous work on verification of data-driven Web services and ASM transducers, while addressing significant new technical challenges raised by the artifact model.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
K. Bhattacharya, C. E. Gerede, R. Hull, R. Liu, and J. Su. Towards formal analysis of artifact-centric business process models. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Business Process Management (BPM), pages 288--304, 2007.
 
7
K. Bhattacharya, R. Hull, and J. Su. A Data-centric Design Methodology for Business Processes. In J. Cardoso and W. van der Aalst, editors, Handbook of Research on Business Process Management. 2009. to appear.
 
8
 
9
E. Borger, E. Gradel, and Y. Gurevich. The Classical Decision Problem. Springer, 1997.
 
10
 
11
 
12
A. Bouajjani, Y. Jurski, and M. Sighireanu. A generic framework for reasoning about dynamic networks of infinite-state processes. In TACAS'07, volume 4424 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 690--705. Springer, 2007.
 
13
 
14
 
15
O. Burkart, D. Caucal, F. Moller, and B. Steffen. Verification of infinite structures. In Handbook of Process Algebra, pages 545--623. Elsevier Science, 2001.
 
16
A. K. Chandra and M. Vardi. The implication problem for functional and inclusion dependencies is undecidable. SIAM J. Comp., 14(3):671--677, 1985.
 
17
 
18
 
19
S. Demri, R. Lazić, and A. Sangnier. Model checking freeze LTL over one-counter automata. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (FoSSaCS'08), pages 490--504, 2008.
20
 
21
22
23
 
24
 
25
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
R. Glushko and T. McGrath. Document Engineering: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Infomratics and Web Services. MIT Press, Cmabridge, MA, 2005.
 
30
 
31
32
 
33
 
34
 
35
 
36
J. Küster, K. Ryndina, and H. Gall. Generation of BPM for object life cycle compliance. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM), 2007.
 
37
R. Lazić, T. Newcomb, J. Ouaknine, A. Roscoe, and J. Worrell. Nets with tokens which carry data. In ICATPN'07, volume 4546 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 301--320. Springer, 2007.
 
38
R. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, and F. Y. Wu. Modeling business contexture and behavior using business artifacts. In CAiSE, volume 4495 of LNCS, 2007.
 
39
D. Martin et al. OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services, W3C Member Submission, November 2003.
 
40
 
41
P. Nandi and S. Kumaran. Adaptive business objects -- a new component model for business integration. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 179--188, 2005.
42
43
 
44
 
45
M. Spielmann. Abstract State Machines: Verification problems and complexity. Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen, 2000.
 
46
 
47
 
48
J. Wang and A. Kumar. A framework for document-driven workflow systems. In Business Process Management, pages 285--301, 2005.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Alin Deutsch: colleagues
Richard Hull: colleagues
Fabio Patrizi: colleagues
Victor Vianu: colleagues