Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:24:10.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Business process verification with constraint temporal answer set programming*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

LAURA GIORDANO ,
ALBERTO MARTELLI ,
MATTEO SPIOTTA  and
DANIELE THESEIDER DUPRÉ
LAURA GIORDANO
Affiliation:
DISIT, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Italy
ALBERTO MARTELLI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, Italy
MATTEO SPIOTTA
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, Italy
DANIELE THESEIDER DUPRÉ
Affiliation:
DISIT, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper provides a framework for the verification of business processes, based on an extension of answer set programming (ASP) with temporal logic and constraints. The framework allows to capture expressive fluent annotations as well as data awareness in a uniform way. It allows for a declarative specification of a business process but also for encoding processes specified in conventional workflow languages. Verification of temporal properties of a business process, including verification of compliance to business rules, is performed by bounded model checking techniques in Answer Set Programming, extended with constraint solving for dealing with conditions on numeric data.

Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 13 , Issue 4-5: 29th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2013 , pp. 641 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 [LAURA GIORDANO, ALBERTO MARTELLI, MATTEO SPIOTTA and DANIELE THESEIDER DUPRÉ] 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P. and Torroni, P. 2008. Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: The SCIFF framework. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 9, 4.Google Scholar
Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P. and Sartor, G. 2005. Mapping of deontic operators to abductive expectations. NORMAS, 126–136.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2001. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E. M., Strichman, O. and Zhu, Y. 2003. Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 118–149.Google Scholar
Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Juntila, T., Latvala, T. and Schuppan, V. 2006. Linear encodings of bounded LTL model checking. Logical Methods in Computer Science 2, 1–64.Google Scholar
Bottrighi, A., Giordano, L., Molino, G., Montani, S., Terenziani, P. and Torchio, M. 2010. Adopting model checking techniques for clinical guidelines verification. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 48, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Clarke, E., Kroening, D., Ouaknine, J. and Strichman, O. 2004. Completeness and complexity of bounded model checking. In VMCAI, 85–96.Google Scholar
Damaggio, E., Deutsch, A. and Vianu, V. 2011. Artifact systems with data dependencies and arithmetic. In ICDT.Google Scholar
D'Aprile, D., Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Martelli, A., Pozzato, G. L. and Theseider Dupré, D. 2010. Verifying business process compliance by reasoning about actions. In CLIMA XI, 99–116.Google Scholar
Dechter, R. 2003. Constraint Processing. Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A., Hull, R., Patrizi, F. and Vianu, V. 2009. Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In ICDT, 252–267.Google Scholar
Fahland, D., Favre, C., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H. and Wolf, K. 2011. Analysis on demand: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. Data & Knowledge Engineering 70, 5, 448–466.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2009. Constraint answer set solving. In ICLP, 235–249.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 2007. Answer sets. Handbook of Knowledge Representation, chapter 7, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ghose, A. and Koliadis, G. 2007. Auditing business process compliance. ICSOC, LNCS 4749, 169–180.Google Scholar
Giordano, L., Martelli, A. and Theseider Dupré, D. 2012. Achieving completeness in bounded model checking of action theories in ASP. In Proc. KR 2012.Google Scholar
Giordano, L., Martelli, A. and Theseider Dupré, D. 2013a. Reasoning about actions with temporal answer sets. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 201–225.Google Scholar
Giordano, L., Martelli, A. and Theseider Dupré, D. 2013b. Temporal deontic action logic for the verification of compliance to norms in ASP. In Proc. ICAIL 2013.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. 2010. Law, logic and business processes. In Third International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law, IEEE.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2006. Logic of violations: A Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic 4, 193–215.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Sadiq, S. 2009. The journey to business process compliance. Handbook of Research on BPM, IGI Global, 426–454.Google Scholar
Harel, D. 1984. Dynamic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2. 497–604.Google Scholar
Heljanko, K. and Niemelä, I. 2003. Bounded LTL model checking with stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 4–5, 519–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, J. and Thiagarajan, P. 1999. Dynamic linear time temporal logic. Annals of Pure and Applied logic 96, 1–3, 187–207.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, J., Weber, I. and Governatori, G. 2009. On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models. Information Systems Frontiers.Google Scholar
Knuplesch, D., Ly, L. T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Pfeifer, H. and Dadam, P. 2010. On enabling data-aware compliance checking of business process models. In Proc. ER 2010, 29th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, 332–346.Google Scholar
Lu, S., Bernstein, A. J. and Lewis, P. M. 2006. Automatic workflow verification and generation. Theoretical Computer Science 353, 1–3, 71–92.Google Scholar
Montali, M., Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Alberti, M. and Lamma, E. 2010. Abductive logic programming as an effective technology for the static verification of declarative business processes. Fundamenta Informaticae 102, 3–4, 325–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigam, A. and Caswell, N. S. 2003. Business artifacts: An approach to operational specification. IBM Systems Journal 42, 3, 428–445.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, M. 2012. What is this thing called “clingcon”? A language description. Available at potassco.sourceforge.net.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2012. ASP modulo CSP: The clingcon system. TPLP 12, 4–5, 485–503.Google Scholar
Pesic, M. and van der Aalst, W. M. P. 2006. A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Business Process Management Workshops, LNCS 4103, Springer, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, R. 2001. Knowledge in Action. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roman, D. and Kifer, M. 2008. Semantic web service choreography: Contracting and enactment. In International Semantic Web Conference, LNCS 5318, 550–566.Google Scholar
Singh, M. P. 2000. A social semantics for Agent Communication Languages. Issues in Agent Communication, LNCS(LNAI) 1916, 31–45.Google Scholar
van der Aalst, W. and ter Hofstede, A. 2005. YAWL: Yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30, 4, 245–275.Google Scholar
van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K., ter Hofstede, A., Sidorova, N., Verbeek, H., Voorhoeve, M. and Wynn, M. 2008. Soundness of workflow nets: Classification, decidability, and analysiss. BPM Center Report BPM-08-02, BPMcenter.org.Google Scholar
van der Aalst, W. M. P. and Pesic, M. 2006. Decserflow: Towards a truly declarative service flow language. In The Role of Business Processes in Service Oriented Architectures. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 06291.Google Scholar
Weber, I., Hoffmann, J. and Mendling, J. 2010. Beyond soundness: On the verification of semantic business process models. Distributed and Parallel Databases (DAPD).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Giordano Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Giordano Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 477.2 KB