skip to main content
10.1145/2245276.2245292acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On the complexity of temporal controllabilities for workflow schemata

Published:26 March 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recently, different kinds of controllability have been proposed for workflow schemata modeling real world processes made of tasks and coordination activities. Temporal controllability is the capability of executing a workflow for all possible durations of all tasks satisfying all temporal constraints. Three different types of controllability are possible -- strong controllability, history-dependent controllability, and weak controllability -- and a general exponential-time algorithm to determine the kind of controllability has been proposed. In this paper we analyze the computational complexity of the temporal controllability problem to verify the quality of proposed algorithms. We show that the weak controllability problem is coNP-complete, while strong controllability problem ε Σ2P and it is coNP-hard. Regarding the history-dependent controllability problem, we are able to show that it is a PSPACE problem but further research is required to determine its hardness characterization.

References

  1. S. Arora and B. Barak. Computational complexity: a modern approach. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Bettini, X. S. Wang, and S. Jajodia. Temporal reasoning in workflow systems. Dist. & Paral. Data., 11(3): 269--306, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Combi, M. Gozzi, J. M. Juárez, B. Oliboni, and G. Pozzi. Conceptual modeling of temporal clinical workflows. In TIME, pages 70--81. IEEE, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Combi and R. Posenato. Controllability in temporal conceptual workflow schemata. In U. Dayal, J. Eder, J. Koehler, and H. A. Reijers, editors, BPM, volume 5701 of LNCS, pages 64--79. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Combi and R. Posenato. Towards temporal controllabilities for workflow schemata. In Markey and Wijsen {10}, pages 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Dechter, I. Meiri, and J. Pearl. Temporal constraint networks. Artif. Intell., 49(1-3): 61--95, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. Hunsberger. Fixing the semantics for dynamic controllability and providing a more practical characterization of dynamic execution strategies. In C. Lutz and J.-F. Raskin, editors, TIME, pages 155--162. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. Hunsberger. A fast incremental algorithm for managing the execution of dynamically controllable temporal networks. In Markey and Wijsen {10}, pages 121--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Markey and J. Wijsen, editors. TIME 2010 - 17th Int. Symp. on Temporal Repres. and Reas., Paris. IEEE, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. P. Morris. A structural characterization of temporal dynamic controllability. In F. Benhamou, editor, CP, volume 4204 of LNCS, pages 375--389. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. P. H. Morris and N. Muscettola. Temporal dynamic controllability revisited. In M. M. Veloso and S. Kambhampati, editors, AAAI, pages 1193--1198. AAAI Press, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Object Management Group (OMG). Business process definition metamodel (bpdm), Beta 1. http://www.omg.org, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. M. Papadimitriou. Computational complexity. Addison, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. I. Tsamardinos, T. Vidal, and M. E. Pollack. CTP: A new constraint-based formalism for conditional, temporal planning. Constraints, 8: 365--388, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. Vidal and H. Fargier. Handling contingency in temporal constraint networks: from consistency to controllabilities. J. Exp. Theor. AI, 11(1): 23--45, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SAC '12: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
    March 2012
    2179 pages
    ISBN:9781450308571
    DOI:10.1145/2245276
    • Conference Chairs:
    • Sascha Ossowski,
    • Paola Lecca

    Copyright © 2012 ACM

    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]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 26 March 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    SAC '12 Paper Acceptance Rate270of1,056submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

    Upcoming Conference

    SAC '24

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader