Conformance for DecSerFlow Constraints

DecSerFlow is a declarative language to specify business processes. It consists of a set of temporal predicates that can be translated into LTL but limited to finite sequences. This paper focuses on the “conformance problem”: Given a set of DecSerFlow constraints, is there an execution sequence that satisfies all given constraints? This paper provides syntactic characterizations of conformance for several subclasses of DecSerFlow constraints. These characterizations directly lead to efficient (polynomial time) conformance testing. Furthermore, algorithms are developed to generate conforming strings if the set of constraints is conformable. A conformance analyzer is developed based on the syntactic characterizations and the string generating algorithms. Experiments reveal several interesting factors concerning performance and scalability.

[1]  Philippe Schnoebelen,et al.  The Complexity of Propositional Linear Temporal Logics in Simple Cases , 1998, Inf. Comput..

[2]  Clare Dixon,et al.  Tractable Temporal Reasoning , 2007, IJCAI.

[3]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language , 2006, WS-FM.

[4]  I-Peng Lin,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Satisfiability of Temporal Horn Formulas in Propositional Linear-Time Temporal Logic , 1993, Inf. Process. Lett..

[5]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes , 2007, 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007).

[6]  Alessandro Artale,et al.  The Complexity of Clausal Fragments of LTL , 2013, LPAR.

[7]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  An Automata-Theoretic Approach to Automatic Program Verification (Preliminary Report) , 1986, LICS.

[8]  Fred Kröger,et al.  Temporal Logic of Programs , 1987, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[9]  Heribert Vollmer,et al.  The Complexity of Generalized Satisfiability for Linear Temporal Logic , 2006, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[10]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Business Process Management Demystified: A Tutorial on Models, Systems and Standards for Workflow Management , 2003, Lectures on Concurrency and Petri Nets.

[11]  A. Prasad Sistla,et al.  The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics , 1982, STOC '82.

[12]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Monodic fragments of first-order temporal logics: 2000-2001 A.D , 2001, LPAR.

[13]  Wei Xu,et al.  Declarative Choreographies for Artifacts , 2012, ICSOC.

[14]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Imperative versus Declarative Process Modeling Languages: An Empirical Investigation , 2011, Business Process Management Workshops.

[15]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification , 1985, POPL.

[16]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Compliance aware business process design , 2008 .

[17]  Dana Fisman,et al.  Reasoning with Temporal Logic on Truncated Paths , 2003, CAV.

[18]  Jianwen Su,et al.  Data management perspectives on business process management: tutorial overview , 2013, SIGMOD '13.

[19]  Ian Stark,et al.  Free-Algebra Models for the pi-Calculus , 2005, FoSSaCS.

[20]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2010 , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  Wei Xu,et al.  An Artifact-Centric Approach to Dynamic Modification of Workflow Execution , 2011, OTM Conferences.

[22]  Wolfgang Reisig,et al.  Lectures on Concurrency and Petri Nets , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[23]  Andrew D. Gordon,et al.  Verified Reference Implementations of WS-Security Protocols , 2006, WS-FM.

[24]  Ricardo Massa Ferreira Lima,et al.  REFlex: An Efficient Web Service Orchestrator for Declarative Business Processes , 2013, ICSOC.