skip to main content
10.1145/2902251.2902300acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Recency-Bounded Verification of Dynamic Database-Driven Systems

Published:15 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose a formalism to model database-driven systems, called database manipulating systems (DMS). The actions of a (DMS) modify the current instance of a relational database by adding new elements into the database, deleting tuples from the relations and adding tuples to the relations. The elements which are modified by an action are chosen by (full) first-order queries. (DMS) is a highly expressive model and can be thought of as a succinct representation of an infinite state relational transition system, in line with similar models proposed in the literature. We propose monadic second order logic (MSO-FO) to reason about sequences of database instances appearing along a run. Unsurprisingly, the linear-time model checking problem of (DMS) against (MSO-FO) is undecidable. Towards decidability, we propose under-approximate model checking of (DMS), where the under-approximation parameter is the "bound on recency". In a k-recency-bounded run, only the most recent k elements in the current active domain may be modified by an action. More runs can be verified by increasing the bound on recency. Our main result shows that recency-bounded model checking of (DMS) against (MSO-FO) is decidable, by a reduction to the satisfiability problem of MSO over nested words.

References

  1. P. A. Abdulla. Well (and better) quasi-ordered transition systems. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 16(4):457--515, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. P. A. Abdulla, C. Aiswarya, M. F. Atig, M. Montali, and O. Rezine. Recency-bounded verification of dynamic database-driven systems (extended version). Corr technical report, arXiv.org e-Print archive, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Abiteboul, V. Vianu, B. Fordham, and Y. Yesha. Relational transducers for electronic commerce. JCSS, 61(2):236--269, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Alur and P. Madhusudan. Adding nesting structure to words. J. ACM, 56(3), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Bagheri Hariri, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, R. De Masellis, and P. Felli. Foundations of relational artifacts verification. In BPM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. Bagheri Hariri, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, A. Deutsch, and M. Montali. Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services. In PODS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. F. Belardinelli, A. Lomuscio, and F. Patrizi. Verification of deployed artifact systems via data abstraction. In ICSOC, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. Belardinelli, A. Lomuscio, and F. Patrizi. An abstraction technique for the verification of artifact-centric systems. In KR, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Bojanczyk, L. Segoufin, and S. Torunczyk. Verification of database-driven systems via amalgamation. In PODS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Montali. Foundations of data-aware process analysis: A database theory perspective. In PODS. ACM Press, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. Cangialosi, G. De Giacomo, R. De Masellis, and R. Rosati. Conjunctive artifact-centric services. In ICSOC, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. D. Cohn and R. Hull. Business artifacts: A data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Engineering Bullettin, 32(3), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. E. Damaggio, A. Deutsch, and V. Vianu. Artifact systems with data dependencies and arithmetic. In ICDT, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. Damaggio, R. Hull, and R. Vaculín. On the equivalence of incremental and fixpoint semantics for business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. In BPM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Deutsch, R. Hull, F. Patrizi, and V. Vianu. Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In ICDT, pages 252--267, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Deutsch, L. Sui, and V. Vianu. Specification and verification of data-driven web applications. JCSS, 73(3):442--474, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Hull. Artifact-centric business process models: Brief survey of research results and challenges. In OTM Confederated Int.\ Conf., 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. V. Künzle and M. Reichert. Philharmonicflows: towards a framework for object-aware process management. Journal of Software Maintenance, 23(4):205--244, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. V. Künzle, B. Weber, and M. Reichert. Object-aware business processes: Fundamental requirements and their support in existing approaches. Int. J. of Information System Modeling and Design, 2(2):19--46, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C. Lautemann, T. Schwentick, and D. Thérien. Logics for context-free languages. In CSL, volume 933 of LNCS, pages 205--216. Springer, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Lomuscio and J. Michaliszyn. Model checking unbounded artifact-centric systems. In KR. AAAIP, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Meyer, S. Smirnov, and M. Weske. Data in business processes. Technical Report 50, Hasso-Plattner-Institut for IT Systems Engineering, Universität Potsdam, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Montali and D. Calvanese. Soundness of data-aware, case-centric processes. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, pages 1--24, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Nigam and N. S. Caswell. Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Reichert. Process and data: Two sides of the same coin? In O™, volume 7565 of LNCS, pages 2--19. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. D. Solomakhin, M. Montali, S. Tessaris, and R. De Masellis. Verification of artifact-centric systems: Decidability and modeling issues. In ICSOC, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Y. Vardi. Model checking for database theoreticians. In ICDT, volume 3363 of LNCS, pages 1--16. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Recency-Bounded Verification of Dynamic Database-Driven Systems

    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
      PODS '16: Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems
      June 2016
      504 pages
      ISBN:9781450341912
      DOI:10.1145/2902251
      • General Chair:
      • Tova Milo,
      • Program Chair:
      • Wang-Chiew Tan

      Copyright © 2016 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: 15 June 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      PODS '16 Paper Acceptance Rate31of94submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate642of2,707submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader