Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coping with mismatched semantics of dependencies in workflow applications

  • CSCW and Work Flow Systems
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1134))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 140 Accesses

Abstract

A workflow system may be built in a heterogeneous and autonomous distributed environment. Since the number of tasks constituting a workflow application can be enormous, the dependencies among some tasks must be specified and therefore subsequently enforced separately. Due to different visibilities of local systems to application and implementation of a workflow system, the semantics viewed at these two levels may mismatch in terms of enforcibility of the dependencies. As a result, some dependencies which are enforcible as viewed by applications may be not enforcible as viewed by the underlying supporting system. In this paper, we study the problems related to enforcing dependencies under such diverse views, and propose approaches to coping with them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Attie, M. Singh, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz, “Specifying and enforcing intertask dependencies”, Proc. of the 19th Intl. Conf. on VLDB, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P.C. Attie, M.P. Singh, M. Rusinkiewicz, A. Sheth, Specifying and Enforcing Intertask Dependencies. MCC Technical Report Carnot-245-92, Dec. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.K. Chrysantis, K. Ramamritham, ACTA: The SAGA Continues. Ch. 10 in [Elm92].

    Google Scholar 

  4. P.K. Chrysantis, K. Ramamritham, Synthesis of Extended Transaction Models Using ACTA. ACM Transactions on Database systems, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1994, pp 450–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. U. Dayal, M. Hsu, and R. Ladin, “A transaction model for long-running activities”, Proc. of the 17th VLDB, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Elmagarmid (ed.), “Database transaction models for advanced Applications”, Morgan-Kaufmann, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Elmagarmid, Y. Leu, W. Litwin and M. Rusinkiewicz, “A multidatabase transaction model for InterBase”, Proc. of the 16th VLDB, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Garcia-Molina, D. Gawlick, J. Klein, K. Kleissner, and K. Salem, “Modeling long-running activities as nested sagas”, IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 8(1), March 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornich and A. Sheth, “An overview of workflow management: from process modeling to workflow automaton infrastructure”, Distributed and Parallel Databases, An International Journal, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Sept., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Hsu (ed.), “Special issue on workflow and extended transaction Systems”, Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering (IEEE Computer Society), 16(2), June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Klein, Advanced Rule Driven Transaction Management. Proc. of the IEEE COMPCON'91.

    Google Scholar 

  12. N. Krishnakumar and A. Sheth, “Managing heterogeneous multi-system tasks to support enterprise-wide operations”, Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F. Leymann and W. Altenhuber, “Managing Business Processes as Information Resources”, IBM Systems Journal 33(2), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Manola, S. Heiler, D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornich and M. Brodie, “Distributed object management”, Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 1(1), March 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. McCarthy and S. Sarin, “Workflow and transactions in InConcert”, Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 16, No. 2, June, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Tang and San-Yih Hwang, “Some Issues for Enforcing Dependencies in an HAD environment”, Tach. Rep., MUN, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Tang and J. Veijalainen, “Enforcing inter-task dependencies in transactional workflows”, Proc. of the 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cooperative Infor. Syst., May 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. Watcher and A. Reuter, “The ConTract model”, Chapter 7 in [El92], 1992.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, A1B 3X5, St.John's, Newfoundland, Canada

    Jian Tang

  2. Department of Information Management, Sun Yat-San University, 80424, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    San-Yi Hwang

Authors
  1. Jian Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. San-Yi Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Roland R. Wagner Helmut Thoma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tang, J., Hwang, SY. (1996). Coping with mismatched semantics of dependencies in workflow applications. In: Wagner, R.R., Thoma, H. (eds) Database and Expert Systems Applications. DEXA 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1134. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0034702

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0034702

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61656-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70651-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation