skip to main content
10.1145/1836089.1836116acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesppdpConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Declarative workflows to efficiently manage flexible and advanced business processes

Published: 26 July 2010 Publication History

Abstract

In this work, we present a new constraint-based workflow definition language called Saturn, which uses Linear-time Temporal Logic (LTL) to express workflow constraints. A declarative approach to model business processes has recently been advocated as a viable complement to, or even replacement of, more traditional imperative-style workflow definition languages. Such an approach offers multiple advantages especially in the context of so-called flexible business processes where the processes and the underlying workflow definitions tend to change over time.
One major innovation of the Saturn language is the way in which it deals with the task lifecycle. This concerns to what extent tasks are considered not as atomic entities, but as possibly overlapping processes that can be started, stopped or cancelled at a later time. Contrary to other approaches, the task lifecycle is fully incorporated in Saturn's semantics and must not be modelled explicitly in the workflow design. As a result, the power of the declarative formalism underlying the language is more fully exploited and we offer both an elegant and pragmatic solution to a known problem. Moreover, Saturn is extensible and allows to model the environment of the business process, i.e. the external elements that influence its execution. A preliminary experimental evaluation shows our implementation of Saturn to be competitive, and a first version of the system is currently being integrated in a commercial application under development.

References

[1]
V. D. Aalst, L. Aldred, M. Dumas, and A. H. M. T. Hofstede. Design and implementation of the YAWL system, volume 3084/2004, pages 281--305. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2004.
[2]
W. M. P. V. D. Aalst, M. Pesic, and H. Schonenberg. Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - RD, 23(2):99--113, 2009.
[3]
W. M. P. V. D. Aalst and K. van Hee. Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, 2002.
[4]
A. Bauer, M. Leucker, and S. C. The good, the bad, and the ugly but how ugly is ugly? In In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Runtime Verification, Vancouver, Canada, 2007. Springer.
[5]
Y. Bontemps and P. Heymans. Turning high-level live sequence charts into automata. In Proc of Scenarios and State Machines: Models Algorithms and tools, 24th International Conf. on SoftwareEngineering, May 2002, ACM, 2003.
[6]
F. Casati, S. Ceri, B. Pernici, and G. Pozzi. Workflow evolution. In Data and Knowledge Engineering, pages 438--455. Springer Verlag, 1996.
[7]
M. A. Chaâbane, E. Andonoff, L. Bouzgenda, and R. Bouaziz. Towards a version-based approach to deal with business process evolution. In J. F. . M. S. Obaidat, editor, e-Business and Telecommunications, Communications in Computer and Information Science, Volume 48. ISBN 978-3-642-05196-8. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2009, p. 74, pages 74--+, 2009.
[8]
E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, UK, 1999.
[9]
W. Damm and D. Harel. Lscs: Breathing life into message sequence charts. In Formal Methods in System Design, pages 293--312. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
[10]
P. Dias, P. Vieira, and A. Rito-Silva. Dynamic evolution in workflow management systems. In DEXA '03: Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, page 254, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society.
[11]
M. Dumas and A. H. M. t. Hofstede. Uml activity diagrams as a workflow specification language. In 01: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, pages 76--90, London, UK, 2001. Springer-Verlag.
[12]
C. Ellis, K. Keddara, and G. Rozenberg. Dynamic change within workflow systems. In COCS '95: Proceedings of conference on Organizational computing systems, pages 10--21, New York, NY,USA, 1995. ACM.
[13]
P. Gastin and D. Oddoux. Fast LTL to Büchi automata translation. In G. Berry, H. Comon, and A. Finkel, editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'01), volume 2102 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 53--65, Paris, France, July 2001. Springer.
[14]
D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick, and A. Sheth. An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure. volume 3, pages 119--153, 1995.
[15]
M. B. Juric. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services BPEL and BPEL4WS 2nd Edition. Packt Publishing, 2006.
[16]
M. Kradolfer and A. Geppert. Dynamic workflow schema evolution based on workflow type versioning and workflow migration. In COOPIS '99: Proceedings of the Fourth IECIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, page 104, Washington, DC, USA, 1999. IEEE Computer Society.
[17]
O. Lichtenstein, A. Pnueli, and L. D. Zuck. The glory of the past. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logic of Programs, pages 196--218, London, UK, 1985. Springer-Verlag.
[18]
N. Lohmann, E. Verbeek, and R. Dijkman. Petri Net Transformations for Business Processes - A Survey, pages 46--63. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009.
[19]
H. A. Lopez, C. Olarte, and J. A. Perez. Towards a unified framework for declarative structured communications. CoRR, abs/1002.0930, 2010.
[20]
P. Mangan and S. Sadiq. On building workflow models for flexible processes. In ADC '02: Proceedings of the 13th Australasian database conference, pages 103--109, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2002. Australian Computer Society, Inc.
[21]
R. Milner. Communicating and Mobile Systems: the Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, June 1999.
[22]
M. Pesic. Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Control to Users. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2008.
[23]
M. Pesic, M. H. Schonenberg, and N. Sidorova. Constraint-based workflow models: Change made easy. In In CoopIS, 2007.
[24]
M. Pesic and W. van der Aalst. A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. Business Process Management Workshops, pages 169--180, 2006.
[25]
A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In SFCS '77: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46--57, Washington, DC, USA, 1977. IEEE Computer Society.
[26]
S. Rinderle, M. Reichert, and P. Dadam. Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems: a survey. Data Knowl. Eng., 50(1):9--34, 2004.
[27]
S. Rinderle, M. Reichert, and P. Dadam. Flexible support of team processes by adaptive workflow systems. Distrib. Parallel Databases, 16(1):91--116, 2004.
[28]
S. W. Sadiq, M. E. Orlowska, and W. Sadiq. Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Inf. Syst., 30(5):349--378, 2005.
[29]
A.-W. Scheer. Aris-Business Process Modeling. Springer-Verlag NewYork, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2000.
[30]
Z. Somogyi, F. J. Henderson, and T. C. Conway. Mercury, an efficient purely declarative logic programming language. In In Proceedings of the Australian Computer Science Conference, pages 499--512, 1995.
[31]
W. van der Aalst and M. Pesic. Decserflow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In F. Leymann, W. Reisig, S. R. Thatte, and W. van der Aalst, editors, The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures, number 06291 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2006. Internationales Begegnungs-und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.
[32]
W. M. P. van der Aalst and S. Jablonski. Dealing with workflow change: identification of issues and solutions. International Journal of Computer Systems Science and Engineering, 15(5):267--276,September 2000.
[33]
W. M. P. van der Aalst and M. Pesic. Specifying, discovering, and monitoring service flows: Making web services process--aware. BPM Center Report BPM-06-09, BPM Center, 2006.
[34]
M. Weske. Formal foundation and conceptual design of dynamic adaptations in a workflow management system. In HICSS '01: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ( HICSS-34)-Volume 7, page 7051, Washington, DC, USA, 2001. IEEE Computer Society.
[35]
S. A. White. Process modeling notations and workflow patterns. 2004.
[36]
P. Wolper. Constructing automata from temporal logic formulas: A tutorial. In Lectures on Formal Methods in Performance Analysis (First EEF/Euro Summer School on Trends in Computer Science), volume 2090 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 261--277. Springer-Verlag, July 2001.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Selected It Tools in Enterprise Knowledge Management Processes – Overview and Efficiency StudyArtificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management10.1007/978-3-030-29904-0_2(12-28)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2019
  • (2018)Business process flexibility - a systematic literature review with a software systems perspectiveInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-016-9678-220:2(343-371)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
PPDP '10: Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming
July 2010
266 pages
ISBN:9781450301329
DOI:10.1145/1836089
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 July 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. business process management
  2. declarative workflow
  3. executable specification language
  4. temporal logic

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

PPDP '10

Acceptance Rates

PPDP '10 Paper Acceptance Rate 21 of 57 submissions, 37%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 230 of 486 submissions, 47%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Selected It Tools in Enterprise Knowledge Management Processes – Overview and Efficiency StudyArtificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management10.1007/978-3-030-29904-0_2(12-28)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2019
  • (2018)Business process flexibility - a systematic literature review with a software systems perspectiveInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-016-9678-220:2(343-371)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media