![](bg6.png)
5 CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents three approachesfor checking pro-
cess or workflow models.
The initial problem is the gap between the process
or workflow models with their various model element
types on the one hand and on the other hand the au-
tomata models serving as input for model checkers.
The first approach is a direct transformation map-
ping multiple model element types to one single ver-
ification model element type (surjective mapping).
The second approach supports the selection of spe-
cific model element types and transforms these while
ignoring the others. The extended model checking
approach results in the least loss of semantic infor-
mation. It extends the specification language as well
as the verification modeling language. It introduces
specializers, e.g.
Function
and
Event
for EPC check-
ing. In this way it enables a more precise require-
ments specification.
A further improvement may be the support by a
graphical representation of the model and the specifi-
cation to ease the use for domain experts.
REFERENCES
B´erard, 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.
Bradfield, J. and Stirling, C. (2001). Modal logics and mu-
calculi: 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.
Breitling, M. (2002). Business Consulting, Service Pack-
ages & Benefits. Technical report, Intershop Customer
Services, Jena, Germany.
Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Easterbrook, S., and Gurfinkel,
A. (2003). Multi-Valued Symbolic Model-Checking.
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Method-
ology, 12(4):371–408.
Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. A. (2001a).
Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts; London, England, 3 edition.
Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. A. (2001b).
Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts; London, England, 3 edition.
De Nicola, R., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., and Ristori, G.
(1993). An action based framework for verifying log-
ical and behavioural properties of concurrent systems.
Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25(7):761–
778.
De Nicola, R. and Vaandrager, F. (1990). Action versus
state based logics for transition systems. In Guessar-
ian, I., editor, Proceedings of the LITP Spring School
on Theoretical Computer Science on Semantics of Sys-
tems of Concurrent Processes, volume 469 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, pages 407–419. Springer-
Verlag New York, Inc.
El Kharbili, M. and Pulverm¨uller, E. (2009). A Semantic
Framework for Compliance Management in Business
Process Management. In Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-
national 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.
Emerson, E. A. and Clarke, E. M. (1980). Characteriz-
ing Correctness Properties of Parallel Programs Us-
ing Fixpoints. In ICALP 1980, Automata, Languages
and Programming, 7th Colloquium, pages 169–181.
Springer LNCS 85.
F¨otsch, D., Speck, A., Rossak, W., and Krumbiegel, J.
(2005). A Concept of Modelling and Validation of
Web based Presentation Templates. In 17. Interna-
tionale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik 2005 (WI2005),
pages 391–406. Physika Verlag.
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 Inter-
national Symposium on Foundations of Software En-
gineering (FSE), pages 257–266. ACM Press.
Grumberg, O. and Veith, H., editors (2008). 25 Years of
Model Checking - History, Achievements, Perspec-
tives, volume 5000 of Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence. Springer.
Jonsson, B., Khan, A. H., and Parrow, J. (1990). Implement-
ing a Model Checking Algorithm by Adapting Exist-
ing Automated Tools. In Sifakis, J., editor, Proceed-
ings of the International Workshop on Automatic Veri-
fication Methods for Finite State Systems, volume 407
of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 179–
188, New York, USA. Springer-Verlag.
Kindler, E. and Vesper, T. (1998). ESTL: A Temporal Logic
for Events and States. In Proceedings of the 19th In-
ternational Conference on Application and Theory of
Petri Nets (ICATPN), pages 365–384. Springer LNCS
1420.
Kozen, D. (1983). Results on the propositional mu-calculus.
Theoretical Computer Science, 27(3):333–354.
McMillan, K. L. (1993). Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
OMG (2006). Business process modeling notation (bpmn)
specification. Technical report, Object Management
Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/docs/dtc/06-02-
01.pdf.
Pulverm¨uller, E. (2009). Reducing the Gap between Ver-
ification Models and Software Development Mod-
els. In The 8th International Conference on Software
Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (SoMeT 2009),
pages 297–313. IOS Press.
Sagar Chaki, S., M., C. E., Ouaknine, J., Sharygina, N.,
and Sinha, N. (2004). State/Event-Based Software
PROCESS MODEL VALIDATION - Transforming Process Models to Extended Checking Models
219