Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2600821.2600835acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Monitoring data-aware business constraints with finite state automata

Published: 26 May 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Checking the compliance of a business process execution with respect to a set of regulations is an important issue in several settings. A common way of representing the expected behavior of a process is to describe it as a set of business constraints. Runtime verification and monitoring facilities allow us to continuously determine the state of constraints on the current process execution, and to promptly detect violations at runtime. A plethora of studies has demonstrated that in several settings business constraints can be formalized in terms of temporal logic rules. However, in virtually all existing works the process behavior is mainly modeled in terms of control-flow rules, neglecting the equally important data perspective. In this paper, we overcome this limitation by presenting a novel monitoring approach that tracks streams of process events (that possibly carry data) and verifies if the process execution is compliant with a set of data-aware business constraints, namely constraints not only referring to the temporal evolution of events, but also to the temporal evolution of data. The framework is based on the formal specification of business constraints in terms of first-order linear temporal logic rules. Operationally, these rules are translated into finite state automata for dynamically reasoning on partial, evolving execution traces. We show the versatility of our approach by formalizing (the data-aware extension of) Declare, a declarative, constraint-based process modeling language, and by demonstrating its application on a concrete case dealing with web security.

References

[1]
XES Standard Definition, 2009. www.xes-standard.org.
[2]
C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. Principles of model checking. MIT Press, 2008.
[3]
D. A. Basin, F. Klaedtke, and S. Müller. Policy monitoring in first-order temporal logic. In CAV, pages 1–18, 2010.
[4]
A. Bauer, J.-C. Küster, and G. Vegliach. From propositional to first-order monitoring. In RV, pages 59–75, 2013.
[5]
A. Bauer, M. Leucker, and C. Schallhart. The good, the bad, and the ugly, but how ugly is ugly? In RV, pages 126–138, 2007.
[6]
A. Bauer, M. Leucker, and C. Schallhart. Runtime verification for ltl and tltl. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 20(4):14:1–14:64, Sept. 2011.
[7]
F. Belardinelli, A. Lomuscio, and F. Patrizi. Verification of deployed artifact systems via data abstraction. In ICSOC, pages 142–156, 2011.
[8]
J. Chomicki. Efficient checking of temporal integrity constraints using bounded history encoding. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 20(2):149–186, 1995.
[9]
E. Damaggio, A. Deutsch, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In BPM, pages 3–16, 2011.
[10]
M. d’Amorim and G. Rosu. Efficient monitoring of omega-languages. In CAV, pages 364–378, 2005.
[11]
B. D’Angelo, S. Sankaranarayanan, C. Sánchez, W. Robinson, B. Finkbeiner, H. B. Sipma, S. Mehrotra, and Z. Manna. Lola: Runtime monitoring of synchronous systems. In TIME, pages 166–174, 2005.
[12]
G. De Giacomo, R. De Masellis, and R. Rosati. Verification of conjunctive artifact-centric services. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst., 21(2):111–140, 2012.
[13]
R. De Masellis and J. Su. Runtime enforcement of first-order ltl properties on data-aware business processes. In ICSOC, pages 54–68, 2013.
[14]
G. Dong, J. Su, and R. Topor. Nonrecursive incremental evaluation of datalog queries. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 14:187–223, 1995.
[15]
C. Eisner, D. Fisman, J. Havlicek, Y. Lustig, A. McIsaac, and D. V. Campenhout. Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In CAV, pages 27–39, 2003.
[16]
M. Fitting and R. L. Mendelsohn. First-Order Modal Logic. Kluwer Academic Press, 1998.
[17]
R. Gerth, D. Peled, M. Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. Simple on-the-fly automatic verification of linear temporal logic. In PSTV, pages 3–18, 1995.
[18]
D. Giannakopoulou and K. Havelund. Automata-based verification of temporal properties on running programs. In ASE, pages 412–416, 2001.
[19]
S. Hallé and R. Villemaire. Runtime monitoring of message-based workflows with data. In EDOC, pages 63–72, 2008.
[20]
B. B. Hariri, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, R. De Masellis, and P. Felli. Foundations of relational artifacts verification. In BPM, pages 379–395, 2011.
[21]
R. Hull, E. Damaggio, R. De Masellis, F. Fournier, M. Gupta, F. T. Heath, S. Hobson, M. H. Linehan, S. Maradugu, A. Nigam, P. N. Sukaviriya, and R. Vacul´ın. Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles: managing artifact interactions with conditions and events. In DEBS, pages 51–62, 2011.
[22]
O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design, 19(3):291–314, 2001.
[23]
F. Maggi, M. Montali, M. Westergaard, and W. van der Aalst. Monitoring business constraints with linear temporal logic: An approach based on colored automata. In BPM 2011, volume 6896, pages 132–147, 2011.
[24]
F. M. Maggi. Declarative process mining with the declare component of prom. In BPM (Demos), 2013.
[25]
F. M. Maggi, M. Dumas, L. Garc´ıa-Ba˜ nuelos, and M. Montali. Discovering data-aware declarative process models from event logs. In BPM, volume 8094 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 81–96. Springer, 2013.
[26]
F. M. Maggi, M. Westergaard, M. Montali, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Runtime verification of LTL-based declarative process models. In RV 2011, volume 7186, pages 131–146.
[27]
F. M. Maggi, M. Westergaard, M. Montali, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Runtime verification of ltl-based declarative process models. In RV, pages 131–146, 2011.
[28]
M. Montali. Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models: a Logic-Based Approach, volume 56 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer, 2010.
[29]
M. Montali, F. Chesani, F. M. Maggi, and P. Mello. Towards data-aware constraints in declare. In SAC, pages 1391–1396. ACM Press and Addison Wesley, 2013.
[30]
M. Montali, F. M. Maggi, F. Chesani, P. Mello, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Monitoring business constraints with the event calculus. ACM TIST, 5(1):17, 2013.
[31]
M. Montali, M. Pesic, W. M. P. van der Aalst, F. Chesani, P. Mello, and S. Storari. Declarative Specification and Verification of Service Choreographies. ACM Transactions on the Web, 4(1), 2010.
[32]
M. Pesic, H. Schonenberg, and W. van der Aalst. DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In Proc. of EDOC, pages 287–300. IEEE, 2007.
[33]
W. van der Aalst, M. Pesic, and H. Schonenberg. Declarative Workflows: Balancing Between Flexibility and Support. Computer Science - R&D, pages 99––113, 2009.
[34]
M. Westergaard and F. M. Maggi. Declare: A tool suite for declarative workflow modeling and enactment. In BPM (Demos), 2011.
[35]
M. Westergaard and F. M. Maggi. Looking into the future: Using timed automata to provide a priori advice about timed declarative process models. In OTM, volume 7565 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 250–267. Springer, 2012.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Evaluation of Compliance Rule Languages for Modelling Regulatory Compliance RequirementsSoftware10.3390/software20100042:1(71-120)Online publication date: 28-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Data-Aware Declarative Process Mining with SATACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/360010614:4(1-26)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2023
  • (2023)Modeling and Simulating a Process Mining-Influenced Load-Balancer for the Hybrid CloudIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing10.1109/TCC.2022.317766811:2(1999-2010)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICSSP '14: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process
May 2014
199 pages
ISBN:9781450327541
DOI:10.1145/2600821
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 May 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Compliance Monitoring
  2. First-order Linear Temporal Logic
  3. Operational Decision Support
  4. Runtime Verification

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

ICSSP '14

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 12 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Evaluation of Compliance Rule Languages for Modelling Regulatory Compliance RequirementsSoftware10.3390/software20100042:1(71-120)Online publication date: 28-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Data-Aware Declarative Process Mining with SATACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/360010614:4(1-26)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2023
  • (2023)Modeling and Simulating a Process Mining-Influenced Load-Balancer for the Hybrid CloudIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing10.1109/TCC.2022.317766811:2(1999-2010)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Constraints for Process Framing in AI-Augmented BPMBusiness Process Management Workshops10.1007/978-3-031-25383-6_1(5-12)Online publication date: 9-Feb-2023
  • (2022)Monitoring Constraints and Metaconstraints with Temporal Logics on Finite TracesACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/350679931:4(1-44)Online publication date: 28-Jul-2022
  • (2022)DisCoveR: accurate and efficient discovery of declarative process modelsInternational Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT)10.1007/s10009-021-00616-024:4(563-587)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022
  • (2022)Multi-model Monitoring Framework for Hybrid Process SpecificationsAdvanced Information Systems Engineering10.1007/978-3-031-07472-1_19(319-335)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2022
  • (2020)Declarative and Hybrid Process Discovery: Recent Advances and Open ChallengesJournal on Data Semantics10.1007/s13740-020-00112-99:1(3-20)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2020
  • (2020)Specification-driven predictive business process monitoringSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-019-00761-w19:6(1307-1343)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2020
  • (2020)Extending Temporal Business Constraints with UncertaintyBusiness Process Management10.1007/978-3-030-58666-9_3(35-54)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media