An LTL Semantics of BusinessWorkflows with Recovery

Ferrucci, Luca; Bersani, Marcello M.; Mazzara, Manuel

doi:10.5220/0005110000290040

Cited by 3 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(a n−1 , a n ) with a 0 = a and a n = a , such that (a i , a i−1 ) ∈ T , for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. An infinite path from a is an (infinite) sequence of pairs (a i , a i−1 ) ∈ E, for all i ≥ 1, where a 0 = a. As in [21], we assume that workflows are structurally correct, that is, such that there exists at least one path from place start to (any) place end. The CLTLoc modelling allows us to define precisely all the executions of a timed workflow that, informally, are the superposition of paths of the workflow starting from the initial place.…”

Section: Timed Workflows With Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conditional cases and split-join activities have been already considered in [21]. In this paper, we refine their modelling to make it compliant with the real-time semantics.…”

Section: Timed Workflows With Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exceptions associated with a workflow are partitioned into the set of permanent (i.e., non-punctual) exceptions and the set of punctual exceptions, as in [21]. Informally, we say that an exception is punctual when its duration is negligible, whereas we say that an exception is non-punctual when it may have a duration lasts from a position where it is raised until a position where it expires.…”

Section: Timed Workflows With Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recovery frameworks have been more rarely formalized in similar manners instead. This was the main contribution of [21]. One of the first works formally discussing business recovery in terms of long-running transactions is [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main contribution of the paper is a timed semantics for workflows which extends the one in [21] with the definition of timing constraints bounding delays of activities and transitions. CLTLoc, being the first extension of LTL with constraints over Reals, allows us to define a descriptive semantics based on a temporal logic, along the line of that we proposed in [21], without resorting to Timed Automata [3], the de-facto standard formalism for dealing with real-time reasoning. So, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the proposed semantics is the first descriptive formalization of workflows with recovery over real-time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Timed Semantics of Workflows

Bersani

Distefano

Ferrucci

et al. 2015

Communications in Computer and Information Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We formalize timed workflow with abnormal behavior management (i.e. recovery) and demonstrate how temporal logics and model checking are methodologies to iteratively revise the design correct-by construction system. We define a formal semantics by compiling generic workflow patterns into an extension of LTL with dense time clocks (CLTLoc). CLTLoc allows us to define the first logical formalization of workflows that can be practically employed in verification tools and to avoid the use of well-known automata based formalisms dealing with real-time. We use an ad-hoc bound model checker to prove requirements validity on a business process. The working assumption is that lightweight approaches easily fit into processes that are already in place so that radical change of procedures, tools and people's attitudes are not needed. The complexity of formalisms and invasiveness of methods have been demonstrated to be one of the major drawback and obstacle for deployment of formal engineering techniques into mundane projects.

show abstract

Section: Timed Workflows With Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conditional cases and split-join activities have been already considered in [21]. In this paper, we refine their modelling to make it compliant with the real-time semantics.…”

Section: Timed Workflows With Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Timed Workflows With Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Timed Semantics of Workflows

Bersani

Distefano

Ferrucci

et al. 2015

Communications in Computer and Information Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

AutoReq: Expressing and verifying requirements for control systems

Naumchev

Meyer

Mazzara

et al. 2019

Journal of Computer Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The considerable effort of writing requirements is only worthwhile if the result meets two conditions: the requirements reflect stakeholders' needs, and the implementation satisfies them. In usual approaches, the use of different notations for requirements (often natural language) and implementations (a programming language) makes both conditions elusive. AutoReq, presented in this article, takes a different approach to both the writing of requirements and their verification. Applying the approach to a well-documented example, a landing gear system, allowed for a mechanical proof of consistency and uncovered an error in a published discussion of the problem.A key determinant of software quality is the quality of requirements. Inconsistent or incomplete understanding of the requirements can lead to catastrophic results. This article presents a tool-supported method, AutoReq, for producing verified requirements, with applications to control systems. It Email addresses: a.naumchev@innopolis.ru (Alexandr Naumchev), b.meyer@innopolis.ru (Bertrand Meyer), m.mazzara@innopolis.ru (Manuel Mazzara), florian.galinier@irit.fr (Florian Galinier), bruel@irit.fr (Jean-Michel Bruel), ebersold@irit.fr (Sophie Ebersold)

show abstract

A contract-based method to specify stimulus-response requirements

Naumchev¹,

Mazzara²,

Meyer³

et al. 2017

Proceedings of ISP RAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The verification of many practical systems -in particular, embedded systemsinvolves processes executing over time, for which it is common to use models based on temporal logic, in either its linear (LTL) or branching (CTL). Some of today's most advanced automatic program verifiers, however, rely on non-temporal theories, particularly Hoare-style logic. Can we still take advantage of this sophisticated verification technology for more challenging systems? As a step towards a positive answer, we have defined a translation scheme from temporal specifications to contract-equipped object-oriented programs, expressed in Eiffel and hence open for processing by the AutoProof program prover. We have applied this scheme to a published CTL model of a widely used realistic example, the "landing gear" system which has been the subject of numerous competing specifications. An attempt to verify the result in AutoProof failed to prove one temporal property, which on further inspection seemed to be wrong in the original published model, even though the published work claimed to have verified an Abstract State Machine implementation of that model. Correcting the CTL specification to reflect the apparent informal attempt, re-translating again to contracted Eiffel and re-running the verification leads to success. The LTL-to-contracted-Eiffel process is still ad hoc, and tailored to generate the kind of scheme that the target verification tool (AutoProof) can handle best, rather than the simplest or most elegant scheme. Even with this limitation, the results highlight the need for rigor in the verification process, and (on the positive side) demonstrate that the highly advanced mechanized proof technology developed over several decades for the verification of traditional programs also has the potential of handling the demanding needs of embedded systems and other demanding contemporary developments.Keywords: seamless requirements; design by contract; autoproof; eiffel; landing gear system Naumchev A., Mazzara M., Meyer B., Bruel J.-M., Galinier F., Ebersold S. A contract-based method to specify stimulus-response requirements. Trudy ISP RAN/Proc. ISP RAS, vol. 29, issue 4, 2017, pp. 39-54. 40 DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2017-29(4)-3For citation: Naumchev A., Mazzara M., Meyer B., Bruel J.-M., Galinier F., Ebersold S. A contract-based method to specify stimulus-response requirements. Trudy ISP RAN/Proc. ISP

show abstract

An LTL Semantics of BusinessWorkflows with Recovery

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

A Timed Semantics of Workflows

A Timed Semantics of Workflows

AutoReq: Expressing and verifying requirements for control systems

A contract-based method to specify stimulus-response requirements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About