PROCESS MODEL VALIDATION - Transforming Process Models to Extended Checking Models

Elke Pulvermüller, Andreas Speck, Sven Feja, Sören Witt

Abstract

Process and workflow models are typical means to describe the dynamic activities of a system. Therefore, it is of high interest to validate these models. Many kinds of (business) rules, best practices, patterns, legal regulations may serve as specifications which the models have to fulfill. An already established technique to validate models of dynamic activities is model checking. In model checking the requirements are expressed by temporal logic. Temporal logic allows describing temporal dependencies. The models to be verified by model checkers are automata. In this context the question is how to transform process or workflow models into automata and how to specify the temporal logic in the way that the semantic of the process models is considered sufficiently. In our paper we present three approach to transform process models to checkable automata. We use the example of ARIS Event-driven Process Chains. In particular, the third approach introduces specializers enabling semantic-rich requirement specifications. This reduces the gap between process models (consisting of different model element types) and verification models.

References

  1. Bérard, B., Bidoit, M., Finkel, A., Laroussinie, F., Petit, A., Petrucci, L., and Schnoebelen, P. (2001). Systems and Software Verification - Model-Checking Techniques and Tools. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  2. Bradfield, J. and Stirling, C. (2001). Modal logics and mucalculi: an introduction. In Bergstra, J. A., Ponse, A., and Smolka, S. A., editors, Handbook of Process Algebra, pages 293-330. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Breitling, M. (2002). Business Consulting, Service Packages & Benefits. Technical report, Intershop Customer Services, Jena, Germany.
  4. Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Easterbrook, S., and Gurfinkel, A. (2003). Multi-Valued Symbolic Model-Checking. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 12(4):371-408.
  5. Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. A. (2001a). Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 3 edition.
  6. Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. A. (2001b). Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 3 edition.
  7. De Nicola, R., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., and Ristori, G. (1993). An action based framework for verifying logical and behavioural properties of concurrent systems. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25(7):761- 778.
  8. De Nicola, R. and Vaandrager, F. (1990). Action versus state based logics for transition systems. In Guessarian, I., editor, Proceedings of the LITP Spring School on Theoretical Computer Science on Semantics of Systems of Concurrent Processes, volume 469 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 407-419. SpringerVerlag New York, Inc.
  9. El Kharbili, M. and Pulvermüller, E. (2009). A Semantic Framework for Compliance Management in Business Process Management. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Business Process and Service Computing (BPSC'09) as Part of Software, Agents and Services for Business, Research, and E-Sciences (SABRE), pages 60-80.
  10. Emerson, E. A. and Clarke, E. M. (1980). Characterizing Correctness Properties of Parallel Programs Using Fixpoints. In ICALP 1980, Automata, Languages and Programming, 7th Colloquium, pages 169-181. Springer LNCS 85.
  11. F ötsch, D., Speck, A., Rossak, W., and Krumbiegel, J. (2005). A Concept of Modelling and Validation of Web based Presentation Templates. In 17. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik 2005 (WI2005), pages 391-406. Physika Verlag.
  12. Giannakopoulou, D. and Magee, J. (2003). Fluent Model Checking for Event-based Systems. In Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) held jointly with 10th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pages 257-266. ACM Press.
  13. Grumberg, O. and Veith, H., editors (2008). 25 Years of Model Checking - History, Achievements, Perspectives, volume 5000 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
  14. Jonsson, B., Khan, A. H., and Parrow, J. (1990). Implementing a Model Checking Algorithm by Adapting Existing Automated Tools. In Sifakis, J., editor, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, volume 407 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 179- 188, New York, USA. Springer-Verlag.
  15. Kindler, E. and Vesper, T. (1998). ESTL: A Temporal Logic for Events and States. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets (ICATPN), pages 365-384. Springer LNCS 1420.
  16. Kozen, D. (1983). Results on the propositional mu-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 27(3):333-354.
  17. McMillan, K. L. (1993). Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  18. OMG (2006). Business process modeling notation (bpmn) specification. Technical report, Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/docs/dtc/06-02- 01.pdf.
  19. Pulvermüller, E. (2009). Reducing the Gap between Verification Models and Software Development Models. In The 8th International Conference on Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (SoMeT 2009), pages 297-313. IOS Press.
  20. Sagar Chaki, S., M., C. E., Ouaknine, J., Sharygina, N., and Sinha, N. (2004). State/Event-Based Software Scheer, A.-W. and Nüttgens, M., editors (2000). ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management., volume 1806 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
  21. Speck, A. (2006). Modelling and Verifying of e-Commerce Systems. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Regulations Modelling and their Validation and Verification (REMO2V'06) in conjunction with CAiSE'06, pages 857-863.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Pulvermüller E., Speck A., Feja S. and Witt S. (2010). PROCESS MODEL VALIDATION - Transforming Process Models to Extended Checking Models . In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-8425-21-8, pages 214-220. DOI: 10.5220/0003016602140220


in Bibtex Style

@conference{enase10,
author={Elke Pulvermüller and Andreas Speck and Sven Feja and Sören Witt},
title={PROCESS MODEL VALIDATION - Transforming Process Models to Extended Checking Models},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},
year={2010},
pages={214-220},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003016602140220},
isbn={978-989-8425-21-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - PROCESS MODEL VALIDATION - Transforming Process Models to Extended Checking Models
SN - 978-989-8425-21-8
AU - Pulvermüller E.
AU - Speck A.
AU - Feja S.
AU - Witt S.
PY - 2010
SP - 214
EP - 220
DO - 10.5220/0003016602140220