Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration

Business process integration and automation are among the most significant factors driving the information technology industry today. In addressing the manifold technology challenges of integration and automation, new standardization efforts aim at improving the interoperability of businesses by moving toward a declarative specification of business processes, that is, one which describes what a business process does and not how it is implemented. At the same time, Model Driven Architecture® focuses on improving the software-engineering methods with which business process solutions are implemented by separating the business or application logic from the underlying platform technology and representing this logic with precise semantic models. In this paper, we present an approach to the model-driven generation of programs in the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS), which transforms a graphically represented control-flow model into executable code by using techniques that originated in compiler theory. We discuss the underlying algorithms as well as general questions concerning the representation and analysis of model transformations. We study a declarative representation of transformation rules, where preconditions and postconditions are represented in the Object Constraint Language. By adopting a declarative approach, we pave the way for future automatic consistency checking of transformation rules and bidirectional reconciliation of evolving models.

[1]  Conrad Bock,et al.  UML 2 Activity and Action Models, Part 5: Partitions , 2004, J. Object Technol..

[2]  August-Wilhelm Scheer,et al.  Business Process Excellence: Aris in Practice , 2002 .

[3]  Charles Ashbacher,et al.  The Object Constraint Language Second Edition, Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, by Jos Warmer and Anneke Kleppe. , 2003 .

[4]  Jos Warmer,et al.  The object constraint language , 1998 .

[5]  Tony Andrews Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 , 2003 .

[6]  Jakob Rehof,et al.  Zing: A Model Checker for Concurrent Software , 2004, CAV.

[7]  Zahira Ammarguellat,et al.  A Control-Flow Normalization Algorithm and Its Complexity , 1992, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  Matjaz B. Juric,et al.  Business process execution language for web services , 2004 .

[9]  Xiang Fu,et al.  Model checking XML manipulating software , 2004, ISSTA '04.

[10]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  On the semantics of EPCs: A vicious circle , 2002, EPK.

[11]  Jean-Marc Jézéquel,et al.  Refactoring UML Models , 2001, UML.

[12]  W. Gropp,et al.  Accepted for publication , 2001 .

[13]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Verification support for workflow design with UML activity graphs , 2002, ICSE '02.

[14]  Yang Dong,et al.  Using /spl pi/-calculus to formalize UML activity diagram for business process modeling , 2003, 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2003. Proceedings..

[15]  João Araújo,et al.  Integration and Transformation of UML Models , 2002, ECOOP Workshops.

[16]  Anneke Kleppe,et al.  The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA , 2003 .

[17]  Santhosh Kumaran,et al.  ADoc-oriented programming , 2003, 2003 Symposium on Applications and the Internet, 2003. Proceedings..

[18]  Anneke Kleppe,et al.  MDA explained - the Model Driven Architecture: practice and promise , 2003, Addison Wesley object technology series.

[19]  Tadao Kasami,et al.  On the capabilities of while, repeat, and exit statements , 1973, Commun. ACM.

[20]  Frances E. Allen,et al.  Control-flow analysis , 2022 .

[21]  Nimal Perera,et al.  Continuous business process management with holosofx bpm suite and ibm mqseries workflow , 2002 .

[22]  Elvinia Riccobene,et al.  An ASM Semantics for UML Activity Diagrams , 2000, AMAST.

[23]  Jana Koehler,et al.  Untangling Unstructured Cyclic Flows - A Solution Based on Continuations , 2004, CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE.

[24]  Jana Koehler,et al.  Compiling Process Graphs into Executable Code , 2004, GPCE.

[25]  T. Gardner,et al.  A review of OMG MOF 2 . 0 Query / Views / Transformations Submissions and Recommendations towards the final Standard , 2003 .

[26]  Corrado Böhm,et al.  Flow diagrams, turing machines and languages with only two formation rules , 1966, CACM.

[27]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools , 1986, Addison-Wesley series in computer science / World student series edition.

[28]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Flow graph reducibility , 1972, SIAM J. Comput..

[29]  Jean-Marc Jézéquel,et al.  OCL as a Core UML Transformation Language WITUML 2002 – Position Paper , 2002 .