Enriching Data Models with Behavioral Constraints

Existing process modeling notations ranging from Petri nets to BPMN have difficulties capturing the essential features of the domain under study. Process models often focus on the control flow, lacking an explicit, conceptually well-founded integration with real data models, such as ER diagrams or UML class diagrams. In addition, they essentially rely on the simplifying assumption that each process model focuses on a single, explicitly defined notion of case, representing the type of objects that are separately manipulated when the process is instantiated into actual executions. To overcome this key limitation, ObjectCentric Behavioural Constraints (OCBC) models were recently proposed as a new notation where data and control-flow are described in a single diagram, and where their interconnection is exploited to elegantly capture real-life processes operating over a complex network of objects. In this paper, we illustrate the essential and distinctive features of the OCBC approach, and contrast OCBC with contemporary, case-centric notations. We then relate the approach to recent developments in the conceptual understanding of processes, events, and their constituents, introducing a series of challenges and points of reflections for the community.

[1]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Extracting Object-Centric Event Logs to Support Process Mining on Databases , 2018, CAiSE Forum.

[2]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE , 2002, EKAW.

[3]  Richard Hull,et al.  Business Artifacts: A Data-centric Approach to Modeling Business Operations and Processes , 2009, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[4]  Paola Mello,et al.  Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess , 2010, TWEB.

[5]  Marco Montali,et al.  Object-Centric Behavioral Constraints , 2017, ArXiv.

[6]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  On the Semantics of Ongoing and Future Occurrence Identifiers , 2017, ER.

[7]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Automatic Discovery of Object-Centric Behavioral Constraint Models , 2017, BIS.

[8]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Business Process Activity Relationships: Is There Anything Beyond Arrows? , 2018, BPM.

[9]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability , 2009, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[10]  Alessandro Artale,et al.  A Cookbook for Temporal Conceptual Data Modelling with Description Logics , 2012, TOCL.

[11]  Alessandro Artale,et al.  Complexity of Reasoning over Temporal Data Models , 2010, ER.

[12]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process Mining , 2016, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[13]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Foundations of data-aware process analysis: a database theory perspective , 2013, PODS.

[14]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support , 2009, Computer Science - Research and Development.

[15]  Jianwen Su,et al.  Towards Formal Analysis of Artifact-Centric Business Process Models , 2007, BPM.

[16]  Martin Leucker,et al.  Comparing LTL Semantics for Runtime Verification , 2010, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  Stefano Spaccapietra,et al.  Evolving objects in temporal information systems , 2007, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Enrico Franconi,et al.  Foundations of Temporal Conceptual Data Models , 2009, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications.

[19]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[20]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning on UML class diagrams , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  Verification of GSM-Based Artifact-Centric Systems by Predicate Abstraction , 2015, ICSOC.

[22]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning over Extended ER Models , 2007, ER.

[23]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[24]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Temporal Description Logics: A Survey , 2008, 2008 15th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning.

[25]  F. Wolter,et al.  Temporalizing Description Logics , 1998, FroCoS.

[26]  Bruce Silver,et al.  Bpmn Method And Style , 2009 .

[27]  Enrico Franconi,et al.  A Temporal Description Logic for Reasoning over Conceptual Schemas and Queries , 2002, JELIA.

[28]  Marco Montali,et al.  Runtime Verification of LTL-Based Declarative Process Models , 2011, RV.

[29]  Enrico Franconi,et al.  ORM2: Formalisation and Encoding in OWL2 , 2012, OTM Workshops.

[30]  Marco Montali,et al.  Monitoring Business Metaconstraints Based on LTL and LDL for Finite Traces , 2014, BPM.

[31]  Marco Montali,et al.  Object-Centric Behavioral Constraints: Integrating Data and Declarative Process Modelling , 2017, Description Logics.

[32]  Victor Vianu,et al.  Automatic verification of database-driven systems: a new frontier , 2009, ICDT '09.

[33]  Marco Montali,et al.  Reasoning on LTL on Finite Traces: Insensitivity to Infiniteness , 2014, AAAI.

[34]  Marco Montali,et al.  Monitoring data-aware business constraints with finite state automata , 2014, ICSSP 2014.

[35]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Description Logic Knowledge and Action Bases , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[36]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Business Processes and Their Participants: An Ontological Perspective , 2017, AI*IA.

[37]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Foundations of a Functional Approach to Knowledge Representation , 1984, Artif. Intell..