Local Enforceability in Interaction Petri Nets

Abstract

In scenarios where a set of independent business partners engage in complex conversations, global interaction models are a means to specify the allowed interaction behavior from a global perspective. In these models atomic interactions serve as basic building blocks and behavioral dependencies are defined between them. Global interaction models might not be locally enforceable, i.e. they specify constraints that cannot be enforced during execution without additional synchronization interactions. As this property has only been defined textually so far, this paper presents a formal definition. For doing so, this paper introduces interaction Petri nets, a Petri net extension for representing global interaction models. Algorithms for deriving the behavioral interface for each partner and for enforceability checking are provided.

Business Process Architectures with Multiplicities: Transformation and Correctness

“…[7,8,9,10] and analysis of their correctness [11,12,13,14]. To facilitate the modeling of process interaction existing languages were extended, e.g.…”

“…open nets or interaction Petri nets are used to verify correct interaction behavior, compatibility, controllability, and local enforceability [11,12,14,13].…”

Event-B patterns and their tool support

“…The problem that we mentioned earlier about the "cheating" guards is better known as local enforceability [9]. Roughly speaking, on the abstraction level, the global interactions between partners are specified in a way that it might not be enforced during real local implementation without having more additional interactions between the different partners.…”

Viewpoints for modeling choreographies in service-oriented architectures

“…G is an over-approximation, under-approximation or equivalent to L. In the literature, for instance, the local enforceability from [4] corresponds in our setting to G as over-approximation of L based on simulation, while the realizability from [4] corresponds in our setting to the bisimulation between G and L. A send viewpoint is assumed there. While our framework covers these cases, we further address consistency relations based on under-approximations and a receive viewpoint.…”

“…The aim of building the GCM is to create a description that fits all the user requirements and at the same time does not violate basic desirable properties like deadlock-freedom and local enforceability [4]. Usually for complex interactions between services such descriptions have to be created by stepwise refinement.…”