Model Checking Data-Aware Workflow Properties with CTL-FO+

Hallé, Stéphane; Villemaire, Roger; Cherkaoui, Omar; Ghandour, Boubker

doi:10.1109/edoc.2007.36

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, from the perspective of web services, systems support only part of the process space representation which is reduced to the patterns of message exchange (choreography) and the control and data flow in the combination of multiple Web services (orchestration) [25]. Others [31] advocate the idea of ensuring the correctness of a workflow by making protocol specifications data-aware through expressing actual data content rather than message names. Workflow validation cannot be complete unless this abstraction is eliminated.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification and Validation of Formal Data-Centric Business Models

Umarov¹

2015

SACS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the problem of describing and analysing internally consistent data within business process workflow specifications. We use Rodin platform for verifying the correctness of the Event-B models. These models we obtain from an ontology and an associated set of normative constraints by applying mapping rules. The latter enable us to transform these specifications into Event-B modular artefacts. The resulting model, by virtue of the Event-B formalism, is very close to a typical loosely coupled component-based implementation of a business system workflow, but has the additional value of being amenable to theorem proving techniques to check and refine data representation with respect to process evolution. In this paper, we give a formal account of the design specifications defined by Event-B modules and perform verification and validation by using theorem proving techniques provided by Rodin platform.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification and Validation of Formal Data-Centric Business Models

Umarov¹

2015

SACS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Working on finite-state systems, Hallé et al [10], Patthak et al [15] and Rensink [16] discuss a number of different techniques for quantified CTL formulas. In these works, the finiteness of the data domain is exploited to instantiate quantified variables, thus reducing the model checking problem for quantified CTL to standard CTL model checking.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

CTL+FO verification as constraint solving

Beyene¹,

Brockschmidt

Rybalchenko

2014

Proceedings of the 2014 International SPIN Symposium on Model Checking of Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expressing program correctness often requires relating program data throughout (different branches of) an execution. Such properties can be represented using CTL+FO, a logic that allows mixing temporal and first-order quantification. Verifying that a program satisfies a CTL+FO property is a challenging problem that requires both temporal and data reasoning. Temporal quantifiers require discovery of invariants and ranking functions, while first-order quantifiers demand instantiation techniques. In this paper, we present a constraint-based method for proving CTL+FO properties automatically. Our method makes the interplay between the temporal and first-order quantification explicit in a constraint encoding that combines recursion and existential quantification. By integrating this constraint encoding with an off-theshelf solver we obtain an automatic verifier for CTL+FO.

show abstract

“…Variable oo is defined as shared variable (ExtVAR), being an instance of Entity Order. Additionally, it can be seen that in (6) and (8) a definition of oo as an instance of Order is represented as an invariant construct (denoted as INV). Guard definitions (5) and (7) with an invariant specification are used in generating Event-B invariants and sets, where only instances of entities are involved (note: instances of Agent are irrelevant in generating sets).…”

Section: Example: a Stepwise Transformation Of Receive Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are a number of related approaches for enriching workflow models [5,6]. One of them is showing transformation from BPEL4WS to full OWL-S ontology to provide missing semantics in BPEL4WS.…”

Section: Conclusion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Mapping from Normative Requirements to Event-B to Facilitate Verified Data-Centric Business Process Management

Poernomo

Umarov

2012

Advances in Software Engineering Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the problem of describing and analyzing data manipulation within business process workflow specifications. We apply a modeldriven approach. We begin with business requirement specifications, consisting of an ontology and an associated set of normative rules, that define the ways in which business processes can interact. We then transform this specification into an Event-B specification. The resulting specification, by virtue of the Event-B formalism, is very close to a typical loosely coupled component-based implementation of a business system workflow, but has the additional value of being amenable to theorem proving techniques to check and refine data representation with respect to process evolution.

show abstract

Model Checking Data-Aware Workflow Properties with CTL-FO+

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Verification and Validation of Formal Data-Centric Business Models

Verification and Validation of Formal Data-Centric Business Models

CTL+FO verification as constraint solving

A Mapping from Normative Requirements to Event-B to Facilitate Verified Data-Centric Business Process Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About