Abstract
Nowadays, some organizations are using and deploying similar business processes to achieve their business objectives. Typically, these processes often exhibit specific differences in terms of structure and context depending on the organizations needs. In this context, configurable process models are used to represent variants in a generic manner. Hence, the behavior of similar variants is grouped in a single model holding configurable elements. Such elements are then customized and configured depending on specific needs. Nevertheless, the decision to configure an element may be incorrect leading to critical behavioral errors. In the present work, we propose a formal model based on propositional satisfiability formula allowing to find all possible correct elements configuration. This approach allows to provide the designers with correct configuration decisions. In order to show the feasibility of the proposed approach, an experimentation was conducted using a case study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
BPMN 2.0 specification http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/.
- 2.
References
Rosemann, M., Van der Aalst, W.M.: A configurable reference modelling language. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1–23 (2007)
Recker, J., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W., Mendling, J.: On the syntax of reference model configuration – transforming the C-EPC into lawful EPC models. In: Bussler, C.J., Haller, A. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3812, pp. 497–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11678564_46
Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Capturing variability in business process models: the Provop approach. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 22(6–7), 519–546 (2010)
Kumar, A., Yao, W.: Design and management of flexible process variants using templates and rules. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 112–130 (2012)
GröNer, G., BošKović, M., Parreiras, F.S., GašEvić, D.: Modeling and validation of business process families. Inf. Syst. 38(5), 709–726 (2013)
Assy, N., Gaaloul, W.: Extracting configuration guidance models from business process repositories. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 198–206. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_14
Asadi, M., Mohabbati, B., Gröner, G., Gasevic, D.: Development and validation of customized process models. J. Syst. Softw. 96, 73–92 (2014)
La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.: Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(2), 251–274 (2009)
van der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., Gottschalk, F., Ter Hofstede, A.H., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J.: Preserving correctness during business process model configuration. Formal Aspects Comput. 22(3–4), 459–482 (2010)
Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., Reichert, M.: Guaranteeing soundness of configurable process variants in Provop. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, pp. 98–105. IEEE (2009)
He, F., Gao, Y., Yin, L.: Efficient software product-line model checking using induction and a SAT solver. Front. Comput. Sci. 12(2), 264–279 (2018)
Mendonca, M., Wąsowski, A., Czarnecki, K.: SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference, pp. 231–240. Carnegie Mellon University (2009)
Xiang, Y., Zhou, Y., Zheng, Z., Li, M.: Configuring software product lines by combining many-objective optimization and SAT solvers. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 26(4), 14 (2018)
Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: Boolean satisfiability in electronic design automation. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 675–680. ACM (2000)
Wakrime, A.A.: Satisfiability-based privacy-aware cloud computing. Comput. J. 60, 1760–1769 (2017)
Assy, N.: Automated support of the variability in configurable process models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris-Saclay, France (2015)
Tseitin, G.: On the complexity of derivations in the propositional calculus. In: Slesenko, H. (ed.): Structures in Constructives Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, pp. 115–125 (1968)
Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 530–535. ACM (2001)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37
Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.H., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 279–285. IEEE Press (2001)
Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H., van der Aalst, W.M.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inform. 39(3), 143–209 (2003)
Gottschalk, F., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Jansen-Vullers, M.H., La Rosa, M.: Configurable workflow models. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 17(02), 177–221 (2008)
Schunselaar, D.M.M., Verbeek, E., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Raijers, H.A.: Creating Sound and reversible configurable process models using CoSeNets. In: Abramowicz, W., Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. (eds.) BIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 117, pp. 24–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30359-3_3
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Dumas, M., Gottschalk, F., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J.: Correctness-preserving configuration of business process models. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 46–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78743-3_4
van der Aalst, W.M., Lohmann, N., La Rosa, M.: Ensuring correctness during process configuration via partner synthesis. Inf. Syst. 37(6), 574–592 (2012)
Schnieders, A., Puhlmann, F.: Variability mechanisms in e-business process families. BIS 85, 583–601 (2006)
La Rosa, M., Van Der Aalst, W., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Questionnaire-based variability modeling for system configuration. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(2), 251–274 (2008)
Rosa, M.L., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Dumas, M., Milani, F.P.: Business process variability modeling: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 50(1), 2 (2017)
Boubaker, S.: Formal verification of business process configuration in the Cloud. PhD thesis, University of Paris-Saclay, France (2018)
Bo, Y., Xia, C., Zhang, Z., Lu, X.: On the satisfiability of authorization requirements in business process. Front. Comput. Sci. 11(3), 528–540 (2017)
Ait Wakrime, A., Benbernou, S., Jabbour, S.: Relaxation based SaaS for Repairing Failed Queries over the Cloud Computing. In: 2015 IEEE 12th International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE). IEEE (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ait Wakrime, A., Boubaker, S., Kallel, S., Gaaloul, W. (2019). A SAT-Based Formal Approach for Verifying Business Process Configuration. In: Younas, M., Awan, I., Benbernou, S. (eds) Big Data Innovations and Applications. Innovate-Data 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1054. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27355-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27355-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27354-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27355-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)