A computational logic-based approach to verification of IT systems

More and more business scenaria involve open systems, i.e., systems composed of interacting entities whose behaviour is not predictable in advance. The complexity of such systems increases over time, both in terms of number of interacting entities and of space of possible behaviours. For those open systems whose behaviour is relevant to the business, it is a natural requirement to be able to (i) specify them, and to (ii) verify that the member behaviour in fact complies to the specification. To specify such systems, a language is needed that can cover their possible behaviours, and express the features of such behaviours that are desirable in a given business scenario. The language to be used would benefit from formal semantics, that can identify compliant from non compliant behaviours in a non ambiguous way. The verification of compliance is, in general, performed by means of automated procedures. A verification procedure will be much more valuable if it is formally proved correct, with respect to the formal semantics of the specification language. Moreover, it is desirable that the system behaviour be tested for compliance against the specification itself, rather than against an error-prone translation.

[1]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  The Iff Proof Procedure for Abductive Logic Programming , 1997, J. Log. Program..

[2]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[3]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Animated specifications of computational societies , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[4]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  Inductive Logic Programming: Theory and Methods , 1994, J. Log. Program..

[5]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  The ProM Framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Support , 2005, ICATPN.

[6]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  An abductive framework for a-priori verification of web services , 2006, PPDP '06.

[7]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Process Mining and Verification of Properties: An Approach Based on Temporal Logic , 2005, OTM Conferences.

[8]  Paola Mello,et al.  Testing Careflow Process Execution Conformance by Translating a Graphical Language to Computational Logic , 2007, AIME.

[9]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Security Protocols Verification in Abductive Logic Programming: A Case Study , 2005, ESAW.

[10]  LammaEvelina,et al.  Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming , 2008 .

[11]  Paul McNamara,et al.  Deontic logic , 2006, Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century.

[12]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Applying Inductive Logic Programming to Process Mining , 2007, ILP.

[13]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Constraint Logic Programming: A Survey , 1994, J. Log. Program..

[14]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Workflow mining: A survey of issues and approaches , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[15]  Dimitrios Gunopulos,et al.  Mining Process Models from Workflow Logs , 1998, EDBT.

[16]  Luigi Pontieri,et al.  Discovering expressive process models by clustering log traces , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[17]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  Inductive Constraint Logic , 1995, ALT.

[18]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: The SCIFF framework , 2008, TOCL.