skip to main content
10.1145/2480362.2480624acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards data-aware constraints in declare

Published:18 March 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In recent years, declarative, constraint-based approaches have been proposed to model loosely-structured business processes, mediating between support and flexibility. A notable example is the Declare framework, equipped with a graphical declarative language whose semantics can be characterized with several logic-based formalisms. Up to now, Declare constraints have been mainly used to tackle control-flow aspects, abstracting away from data. In this work, we extend Declare so as to include task data and data-aware constraints. We show how the Event Calculus (EC) formalization of Declare can be improved to deal with such extensions, and to apply a reactive EC reasoner for monitoring data-aware constraints.

References

  1. A. Awad, M. Weidlich, and M. Weske. Specification, Verification and Explanation of Violation for Data Aware Compliance Rules. In Proc. of ICSOC, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Bragaglia, F. Chesani, P. Mello, M. Montali, and P. Torroni. Reactive event calculus for monitoring global computing applications. In Logic Programs, Norms and Action. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Chittaro and A. Montanari. Efficient temporal reasoning in the cached event calculus. Computational Intelligence, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. A. Kowalski and M. J. Sergot. A Logic-Based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. L. T. Ly, S. Rinderle-Ma, D. Knuplesch, and P. Dadam. Monitoring business process compliance using compliance rule graphs. In OTM Conferences (1), pages 82--99, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L. T. Ly, S. Rinderle-Ma, D. Knuplesch, and P. Dadam. Monitoring business process compliance using compliance rule graphs. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. An operational decision support framework for monitoring business constraints. In Proc. of FASE. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. M. Maggi, A. J. Mooij, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Analyzing Vessel Behavior using Process Mining, chapter Poseidon book. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Montali. Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models: a Logic-Based Approach, volume 56 of LNBIP. Springer, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Montali, W. M. P. M. Pesic van der Aalst, F. Chesani, P. Mello, and S. Storari. Declarative Specification and Verification of Service Choreographies. ACM Transactions on the Web, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Montali, F. M. Maggi, F. Chesani, P. Mello, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Monitoring Business Constraints with the Event Calculus. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Pesic. Constraint-Based Workflow Management Systems: Shifting Controls to Users. PhD thesis, Beta Research School for Operations Management and Logistics, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Pesic, H. Schonenberg, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes. In Proc. of EDOC. IEEE Computer Society, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Pesic and W. M. P. van der Aalst. A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management. In Proc. of BPM Workshops, LNCS. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. Russell, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, D. Edmond, and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Workflow data patterns: Identification, representation and tool support. In Proc. of ER. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Schulte, D. Schuller, R. Steinmetz, and S. Abels. Plug-and-play virtual factories. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(5):78--82, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Shanahan. The Event Calculus Explained. In Artificial Intelligence Today: Recent Trends and Developments. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Vaculín, R. Hull, T. Heath, C. Cochran, A. Nigam, and P. Sukaviriya. Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In Proc. of EDOC, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. B. Weber, H. A. Reijers, S. Zugal, and W. Wild. The declarative approach to business process execution: An empirical test. In Proc. of CAISE. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Weske. Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Westergaard and F. M. Maggi. Looking into the future: Using timed automata to provide a priori advice about timed declarative process models. In Proc. of COOPIS. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SAC '13: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
    March 2013
    2124 pages
    ISBN:9781450316569
    DOI:10.1145/2480362

    Copyright © 2013 ACM

    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: 18 March 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    SAC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate255of1,063submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader