![](bg6.png)
If the work satisfies the terms, there is a transition to successful state N
5
.Onthe
other hand, if it does not, we go back to the subtask execution state (this path is optional)
and if it is aborted, it leads to N
9
(eq. 18, 19, and 20).
e
49
.
= W
f
P
= “evaluation” ∧ W
f
S
= “aborted” ∧ W
k
S
=“Cli
rejects
” (18)
e
45
.
= W
f
P
= “complete” ∧ W
f
S
=“completed”∧ W
k
S
=“Wk
accept
”(19)
e
43
.
= W
f
P
= “execution” ∧ W
f
S
= “active” ∧ W
k
S
= “reexecute” (20)
State N
5
only has to send a completed signal: P
N
5
.
= Signal(IDWF, “WF completed”,W
k
).
Once these definitions are completed and the model equations are applied to formalize
a state diagram (eq. 1) we obtain the formal representation.
5 Conclusions
The use of formal methods based on logic in workflow modelling can establish an au-
tomated, formal, and robust reasoning mechanism that will successfully provide insight
into these issues (conflict, deadlock, reacheability, reliability and satisfability). The ap-
plication of TLA to workflow management systems provides three fundamental bases
[3]: (i) theory: providing a theory with a valid and robust basis to carry out analysis; (ii)
formalization: expressing workflow maps as TLA expressions; and (iii) analysis: pro-
viding a mechanism for the automated demonstration of workflow model properties.
References
1. W. Aalst. Workflow Verification: Finding Control-Flow Errors Using Petri-Net-Based Tech-
niques. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1806:161–183, 2000.
2. J. L. Caro, A. Guevara, and A. Aguayo. Workflow: a solution for the cooperative devel-
opment of an information system. Business Process Management Journal, 9(2):208–220,
2003.
3. J. L. Caro, A. Guevara, A. Aguayo, S. G
´
alvez, and A. Carrillo. A temporal reasoning ap-
proach of communication based workflow modelling. In O. Camp, J. Filipe, S. Hammoudi,
and M. Piattini, editors, ICEIS’2003. Internaciontal Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems, pages 245–250, Angers, France, 2003. Ecola Superior de Setubal, ACM, IEEE.
4. L. Lamport. Specifying Systems. Addison–Wesley, 2002.
5. R. Medina-Mora, T. Winograd, R. Flores, and F. Flores. The Action Workflow Approach
to Workflow Management Technology. In Proceedings of ACM CSCW’92 Conference
on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Emerging Technologies for Cooperative Work,
pages 281–288, 1992.
6. H. Reijers. Design and Control of Workflow Processes, volume LNCS-2617 of Lecture Notes
in Computer Science. Springer, 2003.
7. W. Sadiq and M. E. Orlowska. Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques.
Information Systems, 21(2):117–134, April 2000.
8. J. R. Searle. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson, editor, Language, Mind,
and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7, pages 344–369.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1975.
9. A. Sheth and M. Rusinkiewicz. On transactional workflows. IEEE Data Engineering Bul-
letin, 16(2):37, June 1993.
10. H. Zhuge, T. yat Cheung, an d H. keng Pung. A timed workflow process model. Journal of
Systems and Software, 55(3):231–243, January 2001.
238