Egon Börger
ABSTRACT
The gap between on the one side the users' understanding of Business Process Models (BPMs) and on the other side the run behavior of model implementations is still with us. We introduce Abstract State Machine Nets (ASM Nets) whose component ASMs can be defined using a simple combination of textual (data-oriented) and intuitive graphical (control-flow oriented) yet semantically rigorously defined descriptive means. This allows the BP experts to design BPMs whose underlying ASM Nets constitute a reliable precise contract---a contract which guarantees the BP domain experts that the application-domain focussed understanding of the BPMs they design is also a correct understanding of the code behavior provided by the implementation of the models by software experts. This paves the way for the development of certifiably correct BPMs and their implementations. To illustrate one practical and one conceptual application of the concept we a) instantiate ASM Nets to model the behavioral meaning of the graphical and textual notations used in the commercial S-BPM tool suite with its focus on communication (service interaction) and b) show that applying the rigorous ASM refinement concept to ASM Nets supports IBM's Guard-Stage-Milestone approach to adaptive case management by an accurate conceptual foundation.
- UML 2.0 superstructure specification. Object Management Group, see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04.Google Scholar
- Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0, January 2011. formal/2011-01-03.Google Scholar
- Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN). Version 1.0 Beta 1. http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.0/Beta1, January 2013.Google Scholar
- J.-R. Abrial. The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.Google Scholar
- J.-R. Abrial. Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Altenhofen, E. Börger, A. Friesen, and J. Lemcke. A high-level specification for virtual providers. Int.J.BP Integration and Management, 1: 267--278, 2006.Google Scholar
- Web Services Business Process Execution Language version 2.0. OASIS Standard, 2007. URL http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html.Google Scholar
- E. Börger. High-level system design and analysis using Abstract State Machines. In D. Hutter et al., editors, Current Trends in Applied Formal Methods (FM-Trends 98), volume 1641 of LNCS, pages 1--43. Springer, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Börger. The ASM ground model method as a foundation of requirements engineering. In N. Dershowitz, editor, Verification: Theory and Practice, volume 2772 of LNCS, pages 145--160. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
- E. Börger. The ASM refinement method. Formal Aspects of Computing, 15: 237--257, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Börger. Construction and analysis of ground models and their refinements as a foundation for validating computer based systems. Formal Aspects of Computing, 19: 225--241, 2007. Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Börger. Approaches to modeling business processes. A critical analysis of BPMN, workflow patterns and YAWL. J. Software and Systems Modeling, 2011.Google Scholar
- E. Börger. The subject-oriented approach to software design and the Abstract State Machines method. volume 7260 of LNCS, pages 52--72, 2012. Reprinted in Vol. 104 of LN in Business Information Processing, pp. 1--21, Springer, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Börger and K.-D. Schewe. Concurrent Abstract State Machines, June 2014. submitted.Google Scholar
- E. Börger and K.-D. Schewe. Specifying transaction control to serialize concurrent program executions. In Y. Ait-Ameur and K.-D. Schewe, editors, Proc. ABZ 2014, volume 8477 of LNCS, pages 142--157. Springer, 2014.Google Scholar
- E. Börger and R. F. Stärk. Abstract State Machines. A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. P. J. Brooks. No silver bullet. Computer, 20(4): 10--19, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Cohn and R. Hull. Business artifacts: a data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 32: 3--9, 2009.Google Scholar
- R. Farahbod et al. The CoreASM Project. http://www.coreasm.org.Google Scholar
- A. Fleischmann, W. Schmidt, C. Stary, S. Obermeier, and E. Börger. Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer Open Access Book, Heidelberg, 2012. www.springer.com/978-3-642-32391-1. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Fleischmann and C. Stary. Whom to talk to? A stakeholder perspective on business process development. Universal Access in the Information Society, pages 1--26, June 2011. DOI 10.1007/s10209-011-0236-x. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Goerigk, A. Dold, T. Gaul, G. Goos, A. Heberle, F. W. von Henke, U. Hoffmann, H. Langmaack, H. Pfeifer, H. Ruess, and W. Zimmermann. Compiler correctness and implementation verification: The verifix approach. In P. Fritzson, editor, Int. Conf. on Compiler Construction, Proc. Poster Session of CC'96, Linköping, Sweden, 1996. IDA Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-96-12.Google Scholar
- F. Heath et al. Barcelona: A design and runtime environment for declarative artifact-centric BPM. In ICSOC 2013, volume 8274 of LNCS, pages 705--709, 2013.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. A. R. Hoare. The verifying compiler: A grand challenge for computing research. J. ACM, 50(1): 63--69, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hoare and J. Misra. Verified software: theories, tools, experiments. Vision of a Grand Challenge project. In B. Meyer, editor, Proc.IFIP WG Conference on Verified Software: Tools, Techniques, and Experiments, http://vstte.ethz.ch/papers.html, Zürich (Switzerland), October 2005. Chair of Software Engineering at ETH Zürich.Google Scholar
- R. Hull et al. Business artifacts with Guard-State-Milestone lifecycles: Managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In 5th ACM Int.Conf. on Distributed Event-Based Systems (DEBS 2011). ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Hull et al. Introducing the Guard-State-Milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In M. Bravetti and T. Bultan, editors, Web Services and Formal Methods, volume 6551 of LNCS, pages 1--24. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Klein and T. Nipkow. A machine-checked model for a Java-like language, virtual machine and compiler. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Kohlmeyer. Eine formale Semantik für die Verknüpfung von Verhaltensbeschreibungen in der UML 2. PhD thesis, Universität Ulm (Germany), 2009.Google Scholar
- J. Kohlmeyer and W. Guttmann. Unifying the semantics of UML 2 state, activity and interaction diagrams. LNCS, pages 206--217. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lamport and N. Lynch. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, chapter Distributed Computing: Models and Methods, pages 1157--1199. Elsevier, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Lerchner and C. Stary. An open S-BPM runtime environment based on Abstract State Machines. In Proc.IEEE 16th Confererence on Business Informatics, pages 54--61, 2014. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CBI.2014.24. See http://www.i2pm.net/interest-groups/open-s-bpm/sub-projects/open-s-bpm-workflow-engine. Google ScholarDigital Library
- X. Leroy. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM, 52(7): 107--115, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Metasonic. Metasonic-suite. www.metasonic.de/metasonic-suite.Google Scholar
- J. Recker and J. Mendling. On the translation between BPMN and BPEL: Conceptual mismatch between process modeling languages. In Proc.11th EMMSAD, June 2006.Google Scholar
- J. Recker and J. Mendling. Lost in business process model translations: How a structured approach helps to identify conceptual mismatch. In K. Siau, editor, Research Issues in Systems Analysis and Design, Databases and Software Development, pages 227--259. IGI Publishing, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 2007.Google Scholar
- S. Sarstedt. Semantic Foundation and Tool Support for Model-Driven Development with UML 2 Activity Diagrams. PhD thesis, Universität Ulm, 2006.Google Scholar
- S. Sarstedt and W. Guttmann. An ASM semantics of token flow in UML 2 activity diagrams. volume 4378 of LNCS, pages 349--362. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Schellhorn. Verification of ASM refinements using generalized forward simulation. J. Universal Computer Science, 7(11): 952--979, 2001.Google Scholar
- G. Schellhorn. ASM refinement and generalizations of forward simulation in data refinement: A comparison. Theoretical Computer Science, 336(2-3): 403--436, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Schellhorn. ASM refinement preserving invariants. J. UCS, 14(12), 2008.Google Scholar
- G. Schellhorn. Completeness of ASM refinement. Electr. Notes TCS, 214, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Schellhorn. Completeness of fair ASM refinement. SCP, 76(9): 756--773, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Semiconductor Industry Assoc. International technologoy roadmap for semiconductors. Design. http://www.itrs.net/Links/2005ITRS/Design2005.pdf, 2005.Google Scholar
- R. F. Stärk and J. Schmid. Completeness of a bytecode verifier and a certifying Java-to-JVM compiler. J. of Automated Reasoning, 30: 323--361, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. F. Stärk, J. Schmid, and E. Börger. Java and the Java Virtual Machine: Definition, Verification, Validation. Springer-Verlag, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. K. Strosnider, P. Nandi, S. Kumaran, S. Gosh, and A. Arsanjani. Model-driven synthesis of SOA solutions. IBM Syst.J., 41(5): 415--432, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Weidlich, G. Decker, A. Grosskopf, and M. Weske. BPEL to BPMN: The myth of a straight-forward mapping. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008, Part I, volume 5331 of Springer LNCS, pages 265--282, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Wirth. Program development by stepwise refinement. Comm. ACM, 14, 1971. Google ScholarDigital Library
- YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. http://www.yawlfoundation.org/.Google Scholar
- M. zur Muehlen and J. Recker. How much BPMN do you need? Posted at http://www.bpm-research.com/2008/03/03/how-much-bpmn-do-you-need/.Google Scholar
- M. zur Muehlen and J. Recker. How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In Z. Bellahsène and M. Léonard, editors, Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2008), volume 5074 of LNCS, pages 465--479. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Abstract state machine nets: closing the gap between business process models and their implementation
Recommendations
Formal Verification of UML State Machine Diagrams Using Petri Nets
Networked SystemsAbstractUML State Machine diagrams are widely used for behavioral modeling. They describe all of the possible states of a system and show its lifetime behavior. Nevertheless, they lack of semantics. A State Machine diagram may be interpreted in different ...
Model Checking Abstract State Machines with Answer Set Programming
This is a SPECIAL ISSUE ON ASM'05The quality of a computer system can be enhanced by modelling its design and verifying the correctness of the design before implementation is done. Abstract State Machines (ASMs) provide a mathematical framework for system modelling, while Model ...
Statechartable Petri nets
AbstractPetri nets and statecharts can model concurrent systems in a succinct way. While translations from statecharts to Petri nets exist, a well-defined translation from Petri nets to statecharts is lacking. Such a translation should map an input net to ...
Reviews
Christoph F. Strnadl
Process automation has seen many unsuccessful attempts to bridge the gap between requirements specification by domain experts and technical implementation by software developers. This so-called ground model problem is a direct result of the (in general) imprecise, inconsistent, or incorrect process models that only partially or erroneously cover the requirements of the to-be-implemented software artifacts. Even though the paper provides an interesting approach to this problem, it is unfortunately not convincing. The authors introduce abstract state machines (ASMs) as basic constructs for modeling the flow of activities in a process. An ASM consists of one or more inputs (entries, described by entry conditions), a body where the actual computation of a process step happens, and one or more outputs (exits, described by exit conditions). Larger processes are created by linking exit conditions of one ASM with the entry conditions of another ASM. By preserving entry and exit conditions, one may also hierarchically refine the body of an ASM into more complex flows. The paper also shows (in really great length) that this is sufficient to model the subject-oriented approach to business process management (S-BPM) and, most probably, the case management model and notation (CMMN) standard currently in development. Additionally, the authors also address how to demonstrate (requirements) model correctness, completeness, and consistency within this approach. A really enlightening epistemological introduction highlights the need to provide a full model, not only covering process flow, but also including data, resources, and other environmental conditions (for example, security, authentication, and user interfaces) to solve the ground model problem. Sadly, however, the paper falls into the very same trap it has (rightfully) identified as the root cause for the current (deplorable) state of affairs; like many other unsuccessful attempts, it only focuses on modeling the flow logic of a business process. Therefore, I recommend ignoring this approach for the moment, unless you are interested in ASMs or S-BPM in particular, and wait for future refinements of this approach (or others) to close the business/information technology (IT) divide. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments