Christoph Czepa
ABSTRACT
Case models in Adaptive Case Management (ACM) are business process models ranging from unstructured over semi-structured to structured process models. Due to this versatility, both industry and academia show growing interest in this approach. This paper discusses a model checking approach for the behavioral verification of ACM case models. To counteract the high computational demands of model checking techniques, our approach includes state space reduction techniques as a preprocessing step before state-transition system generation. Consequently, the problem size is decreased, which decreases the computational demands needed by the subsequent model checking as well. An evaluation of the approach with a large set of LTL specifications on two real-world case models, which are representative for semi-structured and structured process models and realistic in size, shows an acceptable performance of the proposed approach.
- Property Pattern Mappings for LTL. http://patterns.projects.cis.ksu.edu/documentation/patterns/ltl.shtml. Last accessed: December 1, 2016.Google Scholar
- A. Awad, G. Decker, and M. Weske. BPM, Milan, Italy, chapter Efficient Compliance Checking Using BPMN-Q and Temporal Logic, pages 326--341. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri. Nusmv: a new symbolic model checker. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 2, 2000. Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. M. Clarke. The Birth of Model Checking, pages 1--26. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Czepa, H. Tran, U. Zdun, S. Rinderle-Ma, T. Tran, E. Weiss, and C. Ruhsam. Supporting structural consistency checking in adaptive case management. In CoopIS'15, pages 311--319, October 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. B. Dwyer, G. S. Avrunin, and J. C. Corbett. Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In ICSE'99, pages 411--420. ACM, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Elgammal, O. Turetken, W.-J. van den Heuvel, and M. Papazoglou. Formalizing and appling compliance patterns for business process compliance. Software & Systems Modeling, 15(1):119--146, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Eshuis. Symbolic model checking of uml activity diagrams. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 15(1):1--38, Jan. 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Forrester Research. The Forrester WaveTM: Dynamic Case Management, Q1 2016.Google Scholar
- P. Gonzalez, A. Griesmayer, and A. Lomuscio. Verifying gsm-based business artifacts. ICWS '12, pages 25--32. IEEE Computer Society, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Herzberg, K. Kirchner, and M. Weske. Modeling and Monitoring Variability in Hospital Treatments: A Scenario Using CMMN, pages 3--15. Springer, Cham, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Hull, E. Damaggio, F. Fournier, M. Gupta, F. T. Heath, III, S. Hobson, M. Linehan, S. Maradugu, A. Nigam, P. Sukaviriya, and R. Vaculin. Introducing the guard-stage-milestone approach for specifying business entity lifecycles. In WS-FM'10, pages 1--24. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. Kherbouche, A. Ahmad, and H. Basson. Using model checking to control the structural errors in bpmn models. In RCIS'13, pages 1--12, May 2013. Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Koehler, G. Tirenni, and S. Kumaran. From business process model to consistent implementation: a case for formal verification methods. In EDOC'02, pages 96--106, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Kurz, W. Schmidt, A. Fleischmann, and M. Lederer. Leveraging cmmn for acm: Examining the applicability of a new omg standard for adaptive case management. S-BPM ONE '15, pages 4:1--4:9. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. T. Ly, F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, S. Rinderle-Ma, and W. M. van der Aalst. Compliance monitoring in business processes: Functionalities, application, and tool-support. Information Systems, 54:209 -- 234, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. A. Marin, M. Hauder, and F. Matthes. Case management: An evaluation of existing approaches for knowledge-intensive processes. In AdaptiveCM'15, August 2015.Google Scholar
- A. Nigam and N. S. Caswell. Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Syst. J., 42(3):428--445, July 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- OMG. Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) Version 1.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.0/PDF. Last accessed: December 1, 2016.Google Scholar
- M. Pesic and W. M. P. van der Aalst. A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In BPM Workshops, BPM'06, pages 169--180, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Raedts, M. Petković, Y. S. Usenko, J. M. van der Werf, J. F. Groote, and L. Somers. Transformation of BPMN models for Behaviour Analysis. In MSVVEIS, pages 126--137. INSTICC press, 2007.Google Scholar
- Z. Sbai, A. Missaoui, K. Barkaoui, and R. Ben Ayed. On the verification of business processes by model checking techniques. In ICSTE'10, volume 1, pages V1--97--V1--103, Oct 2010. Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. P. Sistla and E. M. Clarke. The complexity of propositional linear temporal logics. J. ACM, 32(3):733--749, July 1985. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Solomakhin, M. Montali, and S. Tessaris. Formalizing guard-stage-milestone meta-models as data-centric dynamic systems. Technical Report KRDB12-4, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, 2012.Google Scholar
- K. D. Swenson, P. Nathaniel, M. J. Pucher, C. Webster, and A. Manuel. How Knowledge Workers Get Things Done, pages 155--164. Future Strategies Inc., 2012.Google Scholar
- W. M. P. van der Aalst and M. Pesic. DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language, pages 1--23. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. M. P. van der Aalst and M. Weske. Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng., 53(2):129--162, May 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Reduction techniques for efficient behavioral model checking in adaptive case management
Recommendations
Bounded model checking of high-integrity software
HILT '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGAda annual conference on High integrity language technologyModel checking [5] is an automated algorithmic technique for exhaustive verification of systems, described as finite state machines, against temporal logic [9] specifications. It has been used successfully to verify hardware at an industrial scale [6]. ...
Handling loops in bounded model checking of C programs via k-induction
The first attempts to apply the k-induction method to software verification are only recent. In this paper, we present a novel proof by induction algorithm, which is built on the top of a symbolic context-bounded model checker and uses an iterative ...
Bounded model checking of high-integrity software
HILT '13Model checking [5] is an automated algorithmic technique for exhaustive verification of systems, described as finite state machines, against temporal logic [9] specifications. It has been used successfully to verify hardware at an industrial scale [6]. ...
Comments