Abstract
During the development of a process-aware information system, there might exist multiple process models that describe the system’s behavior at different levels of abstraction. Thus, containment checking is important for detecting unwanted deviations of process models to ensure a refined low-level model still conforms to its high-level counterpart. In our earlier work, we have interpreted the containment checking problem as a model checking problem and leveraged existing powerful model checkers for this purpose. The model checker will detect any discordance of the input models and yield corresponding counterexamples. The counterexamples, however, are often difficult for developers with limited knowledge of the underlying formal methods to understand. In this paper, we present an approach for interpreting the outcomes of containment checking of process models. Our approach aims to analyze the input models and counterexamples to identify the actual causes of containment inconsistencies. Based on the analysis, we can suggest a set of countermeasures to resolve the inconsistencies. The analysis results and countermeasures are visually presented along with the involved model elements such that the developers can easily understand and fix the problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Van der Aalst, W.M.: Inheritance of dynamic behaviour in UML. MOCA 2, 105–120 (2002)
Armas-Cervantes, A., Baldan, P., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Behavioral comparison of process models based on canonically reduced event structures. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q and temporal logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From symptom to cause: localizing errors in counterexample traces. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2003, pp. 97–105. ACM, New Orleans (2003)
Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: NuSMV: a new symbolic model checker. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 2(4), 410–425 (2000)
Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: NuSMV: a new symbolic model verifier. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 495–499. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., McMillan, K.L., Zhao, X.: Efficient generation of counterexamples and witnesses in symbolic model checking. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, DAC 1995, pp. 427–432. ACM, New York (1995)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
Dong, Y., Ramakrishnan, C.R., Smolka, S.: Model checking and evidence exploration. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2003, pp. 214–223, April 2003
Engels, G., Heckel, R., Küster, J.M.: Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the uml meta-model. In: 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, pp. 272–286. Springer, London (2001)
Kumazawa, T., Tamai, T.: Counterexample-based error localization of behavior models. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 222–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(12), 1631–1645 (2009)
Uesaka, Y., Manalo, E.: How communicative learning situations influence students’ use of diagrams: focusing on spontaneous diagram construction and protocols during explanation. In: Dwyer, T., Purchase, H., Delaney, A. (eds.) Diagrams 2014. LNCS, vol. 8578, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, SFCS 1977, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1977)
Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Stumptner, M., Schrefl, M.: Behavior consistent inheritance in UML. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 527–542. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Tan, L., Cleaveland, W.R.: Evidence-based model checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 455–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Tran, H., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: Name-based view integration for enhancing the reusability in process-driven SOAs. In: Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 338–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Weske, M.: Behaviour equivalence and compatibility of business process models with complex correspondences. Comput. J. 55(11), 1398–1418 (2012)
Acknowledgments
The research leading to these results has received funding from the Wiener Wissenschafts-, Forschungs- und Technologiefonds (WWTF), Grant No. ICT12-001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Muram, F.U., Tran, H., Zdun, U. (2016). Counterexample Analysis for Supporting Containment Checking of Business Process Models. In: Reichert, M., Reijers, H. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 256. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42887-1_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42887-1_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42886-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42887-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)