Coadapting multidimension process properties

In the last decades, process verification has been intensively addressed and has become an essential activity to correct and to remove errors before process execution. Typical process verification ecosystems propose to express properties to be verified on the process. A property expresses a desired behavior that must hold or not in the process execution. Processes during their lifespan are continuously adapted for several purposes: enriching, correcting, and refactoring the process. When a process is adapted, the existing properties must naturally be rechecked to ensure that no errors have been introduced, ie, the properties still hold. However, the properties may become outdated and must be coadapted w.r.t. the adapted process before to be rechecked. Otherwise, the verification may raise false alarms or may not detect newly introduced errors. In this paper, we propose a coadaptation approach of properties while considering process adaptation for the different dimensions, namely, control flow, object flow, resources, and timing. We systematically studied process changes in the multiple dimensions to identify those that do impact properties and for which we propose resolution strategies. Our preliminary evaluation shows that our resolutions strategies allow to support users in correctly coadapting impacted properties.

[1]  Alexander Egyed,et al.  Supporting the Co-evolution of Metamodels and Constraints through Incremental Constraint Management , 2013, MoDELS.

[2]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  Detecting complex changes and refactorings during (Meta)model evolution , 2016, Inf. Syst..

[3]  Gregor Engels,et al.  Verification of Business Process Quality Constraints Based on Visual Process Patterns , 2007, First Joint IEEE/IFIP Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE '07).

[4]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

[5]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Understanding the Occurrence of Errors in Process Models Based on Metrics , 2007, OTM Conferences.

[6]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Computer-Aided Verification of Software Process Model Properties , 1993, CAiSE.

[7]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Modeling the Resource Perspective of Business Process Compliance Rules with the Extended Compliance Rule Graph , 2014, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[8]  Moe Thandar Wynn,et al.  Soundness of workflow nets: classification, decidability, and analysis , 2011, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[9]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  Detecting Complex Changes During Metamodel Evolution , 2015, CAiSE.

[10]  Steve A. Schneider,et al.  Formal Verification of Tokeneer Behaviours Modelled in fUML Using CSP , 2010, ICFEM.

[11]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  Alloy4SPV : A Formal Framework for Software Process Verification , 2014, ECMFA.

[12]  Peter Dadam,et al.  Flexible Support of Team Processes by Adaptive Workflow Systems , 2004, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[13]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Data flow abstractions and adaptations through updatable process views , 2013, SAC '13.

[14]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  Formalization of fUML: An Application to Process Verification , 2014, CAiSE.

[15]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  A New Paradigm for the Enactment and Dynamic Adaptation of Data-Driven Process Structures , 2008, CAiSE.

[16]  George S. Avrunin,et al.  Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[17]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Visually specifying compliance rules and explaining their violations for business processes , 2011, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[18]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow Patterns , 2004, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[19]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Empirical Studies in Process Model Verification , 2009, Trans. Petri Nets Other Model. Concurr..

[20]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints , 2016, ICSR.

[21]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  A framework to formally verify conformance of a software process to a software method , 2015, SAC.

[22]  Salah Sadou,et al.  Assistance System for OCL Constraints Adaptation during Metamodel Evolution , 2011, 2011 15th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering.

[23]  Werner Retschitzegger,et al.  Systematic Co-Evolution of OCL Expressions , 2015, APCCM.

[24]  Jürgen Münch,et al.  Rationale modeling for software process evolution , 2009, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

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

[26]  Marco Kuhrmann,et al.  Realizing software process lines: insights and experiences , 2014, ICSSP 2014.

[27]  Akhil Kumar,et al.  Towards Visually Monitoring Multiple Perspectives of Business Process Compliance , 2015, CAiSE Forum.

[28]  Stefanie Rinderle-Ma,et al.  Change patterns and change support features - Enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[29]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Software process development and enactment: concepts and definitions , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Software Process-Continuous Software Process Improvement.

[30]  Guido Governatori,et al.  On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models , 2012, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[31]  Gregor Engels,et al.  Detecting and Resolving Process Model Differences in the Absence of a Change Log , 2008, BPM.

[32]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[33]  Thomas Baar,et al.  Refactoring OCL annotated UML class diagrams , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[34]  Marie-Pierre Gervais,et al.  Supporting the Co-adaption of Process Properties , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software and System Processes (ICSSP).

[35]  Maria E. Orlowska,et al.  Analyzing Process Models Using Graph Reduction Techniques , 2000, Inf. Syst..

[36]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  An operational semantics for the extended compliance rule graph language , 2014 .

[37]  Yoann Laurent Alloy4PV : un Framework pour la Vérification de Procédés Métiers. (Alloy4PV : a Framework for Business Process Verification) , 2015 .

[38]  Amel Mammar,et al.  A formal semantics of timed activity diagrams and its PROMELA translation , 2005, 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'05).

[39]  Regina Hebig,et al.  Lessons Learned from Co-Evolution of Software Process and Model-Driven Engineering , 2016 .

[40]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams , 2006, TSEM.

[41]  Peter Dadam,et al.  On Representing Instance Changes in Adaptive Process Management Systems , 2006, 15th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE'06).

[42]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Dealing with Changes of Time-Aware Processes , 2014, BPM.

[43]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Visualization of Compliance Violation in Business Process Models , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

[44]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Refactoring large process model repositories , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[45]  Reidar Conradi,et al.  Improving Software Process Improvement , 2002, IEEE Softw..