No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Business process verification with constraint temporal answer set programming*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 September 2013
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
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.
Information
- Type
- Regular Papers
- Information
- Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 13 , Special 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]
Footnotes
*
This research has been partially supported by Regione Piemonte, Project ICT4LAW, and by the Compagnia di San Paolo.
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordano Supplementary Material
Appendix
PDF
477.2 KB
You have
Access
- 5
- Cited by