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.

[1]  Axel Martens,et al.  Simulation and Equivalence between BPEL Process Models , 2005 .

[2]  Simon Moser,et al.  Analyzing Compatibility of BPEL Processes , 2006, Advanced Int'l Conference on Telecommunications and Int'l Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (AICT-ICIW'06).

[3]  Juliane Siegeris,et al.  Workflow Model Compositions Preserving Relaxed Soundness , 2006, Business Process Management.

[4]  Andries van Dijk.  Contracting Workflows and Protocol Patterns , 2003, Business Process Management.

[5]  Laure Petrucci,et al.  Modular construction of the symbolic observation graph , 2008, 2008 8th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design.

[6]  Daniela Grigori,et al.  Behavioral matchmaking for service retrieval , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'06).

[7]  Kais Klai,et al.  MC-SOG: An LTL Model Checker Based on Symbolic Observation Graphs , 2008, Petri Nets.

[8]  Wolffried Stucky,et al.  A Formal Foundation for Workflow Composition, Workflow View Definition, and Workflow Normalization based on Petri Nets , 2005, APCCM.

[9]  Xiang Fu,et al.  Analyzing conversations of Web services , 2006, IEEE Internet Computing.

[10]  Karsten Wolf,et al.  An Algorithm for Matching Nondeterministic Services with Operating Guidelines , 2006 .

[11]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams , 1992, CSUR.

[12]  Niels Lohmann,et al.  Analyzing interacting WS-BPEL processes using flexible model generation , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[13]  Kais Klai,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Symbolic and Abstraction-Based Model Checker , 2004, ATVA.

[14]  Karl Aberer,et al.  CrossFlow: Cross-Organizational Workflow Management in Dynamic Virtual Enterprises , 2000 .

[15]  Derek G. Corneil,et al.  The graph isomorphism disease , 1977, J. Graph Theory.

[16]  Axel Martens,et al.  Analyzing Web Service Based Business Processes , 2005, FASE.

[17]  Juliane Dehnert,et al.  Relaxed Soundness of Business Processes , 2001, CAiSE.

[18]  Axel Martens,et al.  Usability of Web services , 2003, Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering Workshops, 2003. Proceedings..