Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formalization of Workflows and Correctness Issues in the Presence of Concurrency

  • Published:
Distributed and Parallel Databases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, main components of a workflow system that are relevant to the correctness in the presence of concurrency are formalized based on set theory and graph theory. The formalization which constitutes the theoretical basis of the correctness criterion provided can be summarized as follows:

-Activities of a workflow are represented through a notation based on set theory to make it possible to formalize the conceptual grouping of activities.

-Control-flow is represented as a special graph based on this set definition, and it includes serial composition, parallel composition, conditional branching, and nesting of individual activities and conceptual activities themselves.

-Data-flow is represented as a directed acyclic graph in conformance with the control-flow graph.

The formalization of correctness of concurrently executing workflow instances is based on this framework by defining two categories of constraints on the workflow environment with which the workflow instances and their activities interact. These categories are:

-Basic constraints that specify the correct states of a workflow environment.

-Inter-activity constraints that define the semantic dependencies among activities such as an activity requiring the validity of a constraint that is set or verified by a preceding activity.

Basic constraints graph and inter-activity constraints graph which are in conformance with the control-flow and data-flow graphs are then defined to represent these constraints. These graphs are used in formalizing the intervals among activities where an inter-activity constraint should be maintained and the intervals where a basic constraint remains invalid.

A correctness criterion is defined for an interleaved execution of workflow instances using the constraints graphs. A concurrency control mechanism, namely Constraint Based Concurrency Control technique is developed based on the correctness criterion. The performance analysis shows the superiority of the proposed technique. Other possible approaches to the problem are also presented.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Agrawal, A.E. Abbadi, and A.K. Singh, “Consistency and orderability: Semantics-based correctness criteria for databases,” ACM TODS, vol. 18,no. 3, September 1993.

  2. J. Allen, “Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals,” Com. ACM, vol. 26,no. 11, November 1983.

  3. G. Alonso, D. Agrawal, and A.E. Abbadi, “Process synchronization in workflow management systems,” 8th IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, 1996.

  4. G. Alonso and H.-J. Schek, “Research issues in large workflow management systems,” in Proc. of NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions, A. Sheth (Ed.), Athens, Georgia, May 1996.

  5. P. Ammann, S. Jajodia, and I. Ray, “Applying formal methods to semantic-based decomposition of transactions,” ACM TODS, vol. 22,no. 2, June 1997.

  6. I.B. Arpinar, “Formalization of workflows and correctness issues in the presence of concurrency,” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Eng., Middle East Tech. Univ., November, 1998.

  7. I.B. Arpinar, S. (Nural) Arpinar, U. Halici, and A. Dogac, “Correctness of workflows in the presence of concurrency,” Next Generation Info. Tech. and Sys., Israel, July 1997.

  8. P.A. Attie, M.P. Singh, E. Emerson, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz, “Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies,” Dist. Sys. Engineering, vol. 3,no. 4, pp. 222-238, December 1996.

    Google Scholar 

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

  10. B. Badrinath and K. Ramamritham, “Semantics-based concurrency control: Beyond commutativity,” in Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering, February 1987.

  11. C. Beeri, P.A. Bernstein, and N. Goodman, “A model for concurrency in nested transaction systems,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 36,no. 2, 1989.

  12. M. Benedikt, T. Griffin, and L. Libkin, “Verifiable properties of database transactions,” ACM PODS 1996, Montreal, Canada.

  13. A.J. Bernstein and P.M. Lewis, “Transaction decomposition using transaction semantics,” Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 4, pp. 25-47, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Y. Breitbart, A. Deacon, H.J. Schek, A. Sheth, and G. Weikum, “Merging application-centric and data-centric approaches to support transaction-oriented multi-system workflows,” ACM SIGMOD Record, vol. 22,no. 3, September 1993.

  15. S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboschi, and L. Tanca, “Automatic generation of production rules for integrity maintenance,” ACM TODS, vol. 19,no. 3, September 1994.

  16. E.W. Dijkstra, A Discipline of Programming, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Dogac, E. Gokkoca, S. Arpinar, P. Koksal, I. Cingil, I.B. Arpinar, N. Tatbul, P. Karagoz, U. Halici, and M. Altinel, Design and Implementation of a Distributed Workflow Management System: METUFlow, in Advances in Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Springer Verlag, 1998.

  18. A. Dogac, L. Kalinichenko, M.T. Ozsu, and A. Sheth (Eds.), Advances in Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Springer Verlag, 1998.

  19. J.A. Ellis and G.J. Nutt, “Modeling and enactment of workflow systems,” 14th Intl. Conf. on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, 1993.

  20. A.K. Elmagarmid (Ed.), Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Elmagarmid and W. Du, Workflow Management: State of the Art vs. State of the Market, in Advances in Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Springer Verlag, 1998.

  22. E.A. Emerson, “Temporal and modal logic,” in Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Elseiver 1990.

  23. A. Farrag and M.T. Ozsu, “Using semantic knowledge of transactions to increase concurrency,” ACM TODS, vol. 14,no. 4, December 1989.

  24. M. Fitting, First Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer Verlag: NY, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Garcia-Molina, “Using semantic knowledge for transaction processing in a distributed database,” ACM TODS, vol. 8,no. 2, June 1983.

  26. H.J. Genrich, “Predicate/transition nets,” in Advances in Petri Nets, Springer, 1986, p. 254.

  27. D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick, and F. Manola, “Customizing transaction models and mechanisms in a programmable environment supporting reliable workflow automation,” IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Eng., 1995.

  28. D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick, and A.P. Sheth, “An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure,” Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 3, pp. 119-153, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewicz, and A.P. Sheth, “Using tickets to enforce the serializability of multidatabase transactions,” IEEE TKDE, vol. 6,no. 1, 1994.

  30. E. Gokkoca, M. Altinel, I. Cingil, N. Tatbul, P. Koksal, and A. Dogac, “Design and implementation of a distributed workflow enactment service,” in Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Cooperative Information Systems, Charleston, USA, June 1997.

  31. J. Gray and A. Reuter, Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  32. U. Halici, I.B. Arpinar, and A. Dogac, “Serializability of nested transactions in multidatabases,” Intl. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT '97), Greece, January 1997.

  33. T. Harder, “Handling hot spot data in DB-sharing systems,” Info. Sys., vol. 13,no. 2, 1988.

  34. D. Harel et al., “Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 16,no. 4, April 1990.

  35. M.P. Herlihy and W.E. Weihl, “Hybrid concurrency control for abstract data types,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci., vol. 43,no.1, August 1991.

  36. C. Hoare, “An axiomatic basis for computer programming,” Com. ACM, vol. 12,no. 10, October 1969.

  37. D. Hollinsworth, “The workflow reference model,” Technical Report TC00-1003, Workflow Management Coalition, December 1994. Accessible via: http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/WfMC/

  38. P. Karagoz, S. Arpinar, P. Koksal, N. Tatbul, E. Gokkoca, and A. Dogac, “Task handling in workflow management systems,” Intl. Workshop on Issues and Applications of Database Technology, Berlin, June 1998.

  39. P. Koksal, S. Arpinar, and A. Dogac, “Workflow history management,” ACM Sigmod Record, vol. 27,no. 1, March 1998.

  40. H.F. Korth, E. Levy, and A. Siberschatz, “A formal approach to recovery by compensating transactions,” in Proc. of the 16th VLDB Conf., Brisbane, Australia, 1990.

  41. H.F. Korth and G. Speegle, “Formal aspects of concurrency control in long-duration transaction systems using the NT/PV model,” ACM TODS, vol. 19,no. 3, 1994.

  42. N. Krishnakumar and A. Sheth, “Managing heterogeneous multi-system tasks to support enterprise-wide operations,” Distributed and Parallel Databases, vol. 3,no. 2, pp. 155-186, April 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  43. N.A. Lynch, “Multilevel atomicity: A new correctness for database concurrency control,” ACM TODS, vol. 8,no. 4, pp. 484-502, December 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. Miller, D. Palaniswami, A. Sheth, K. Kochut, and H. Singh, “WebWork: METEOR2's web-based workflow management system,” Journal of Intel. Info. Sys., vol. 10,no. 2, March 1998.

  45. P. Muth, D. Wodtke, J. WeiBenfels, G. Weikum, and A.K. Dittrich, “Enterprise-wide Workflow Management based on State and Activity Charts,” in Advances in Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Springer Verlag, 1998.

  46. M.T. Ozsu and P. Valduriez, Principles of Distributed Database Systems, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  47. M. Reichert and P. Dadam, “ADEPTflex—Supporting dynamic changes of workflows without loosing control,” Journal of Intel. Info. Systems, vol. 10,no. 2, pp. 93-129, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  48. M. Rusinkiewicz, A. Cichocki, A. Sheth, and G. Thomas, “Bounding the effects of compensation under multi-level serializability,” Dist. and Parallel Databases, vol. 4,no. 4, October 1996.

  49. M. Rusinkiewicz and A.P. Sheth, “Transactional workflow management systems,” in Proc. of Advances in Database and Information Systems, ADBIS'94, Moscow, May 1994.

  50. M. Rusinkiewicz and A.P. Sheth, “Specification and execution of transactional workflows,” Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability and Beyond, W. Kim (Ed.), ACM Press: New York, NY, 1995, pp. 592-620.

    Google Scholar 

  51. F. Schwenkreis, “A formal approach to synchronize long-lived computations,” in Proc. of the 5th Australasian Conf. in Information Systems, Melbourne, 1994.

  52. A. Sheth, D. Georgakopoulos, S.M.M. Joosten, M. Rusinkiewicz, W. Scacchi, J. Wileden, and A. Wolf, Report from the NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems. Accessible via: http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/activities/

  53. I. Stahl, Introduction to Simulation with GPSS, Prentice Hall, 1990.

  54. J. Tang and S.-Y. Hwang, “Handling uncertainty in workflow applications,” in Proc. of 5th Intl. Conf. on Info. and Knowledge Engineering, CIKM'96, Maryland, November, 1996.

  55. J. Tang and J. Veijalainen, “Transaction-oriented workflow concepts in inter-organization environments,” Intl. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, Baltimore, 1995.

  56. H. Waechter and A. Reuter, The ConTract Model, in Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1992, chap. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  57. G. Weikum, “Principles and realization strategies of multilevel transaction management,” ACM TODS, vol. 16,no. 1, 1991.

  58. D. Wodtke and G. Weikum, “A formal foundation for distributed workflow management based on state charts,” in Proc. of 6th Intl. Conf. on Database Theory, Greece, January 1997.

  59. D. Worah and A. Sheth, “What do advanced transaction models have to offer for workflows?,” Intl. Workshop on Adv. Transaction Models and Architectures, India, August 1996.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Research and Development Center, Department of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University (METU), 06531, Ankara, Turkey

    ÏsmaÏlcem Budak Arpinar, UĞur Halici, Sena Arpinar & Asuman DoĞaÇ

Authors
  1. ÏsmaÏlcem Budak Arpinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. UĞur Halici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sena Arpinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asuman DoĞaÇ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arpinar, Ï.B., Halici, U., Arpinar, S. et al. Formalization of Workflows and Correctness Issues in the Presence of Concurrency. Distributed and Parallel Databases 7, 199–248 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008758612291

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008758612291

Search

Navigation