Rule-based monitoring with event correlation for business process compliance

Abstract

science departm ent,Fujian norm aluniversity, 2.State key laboratory ofsoftw are engineering,W uhan U niversity *pinggong@ fjnu.edu.cn A bstract B usiness processes com pliance m onitoring checks w hether running business processes com ply w ith involved sem antic constraints,i.e.,com pliance rules.B usiness processes in m odern enterprise are rarely supported by a single and centralized w orkflow system ,but instead im plem ented over different applications (e.g.,CR M ,ER P,W fM S,and legacy system s).The running data (i.e.,event) aboutprocess executions are scattered across these applications.U nder the circum stances,understanding the com pliance ofrunning processes entails the com pliance m onitoring enabling to correlate events from different applications and even different cases (event correlation herein is identifying events related to the sam e com pliance rule instance).This paper introduces a fram ew ork nam ed as bpCM on for business process com pliance m onitoring.bpCM on consists of an expressive com pliance rule language ECL and a rule system ERS. ECL is a pattern-based form allanguage for specifying com pliance rules ofm ultiple process perspectives,and also allow s for describing event-correlation condition.ER S,generated from com pliance rules in ECL,in turn plays as a com pliance m onitor enabling to correlate events efficiently by m eans of an indexing structure created from eventcorrelation conditions.The applicability ofbpCM on is dem onstrated by experim ents on a real-w orld data set.O verall, bpCM on enables business process com pliance m onitoring m eeting real-w orld requirem ents. K eyw ords: B usiness process com pliance,com pliance m onitoring,eventcorrelation

Predictive Compliance Monitoring in Process-Aware Information Systems: State of the Art, Functionalities, Research Directions

“…bpCMon [36] addresses "multiple process perspectives", i.e., CMF1 -CMF3. The approach defines an event-based compliance language (ECL) and designs an event reaction system (ERS).…”

Collection and Elicitation of Business Process Compliance Patterns with Focus on Data Aspects

“…However, a broader collection and a deeper analysis of existing CPs like done by Caron et al (2013a) and Ramezani (2017) are rare, although they support the assumption that also process perspectives beyond control flow are crucial for CPs. In addition, only few approaches deal with CPs in the context of more than one domain (Awad 2010;Bernardi et al 2014;El Gammal 2012;Elgammal et al 2016;Gong et al 2016;Ly 2016;Ly et al 2015;Ramezani 2017), but often lack the elicitation of CPs from those domains. Thus, an investigation of a broad range of regulatory documents is missing.…”

“…Around one third of the papers proposes their own compliance monitoring or compliance management framework (Awad et al 2015;Barnawi et al 2016;El Gammal 2012;Elgammal et al 2016;Giblin et al 2006;Gong et al 2016;Ly 2016;Ly et al 2011Ly et al , 2015Maggi et al 2011;Papazoglou 2011;Schumm et al 2010;Thullner et al 2011;Turetken et al 2012). Those frameworks mainly try to comprehensively address the topic of compliance verification by checking compliance at design-time (Awad 2010; Awad and Weske Awad et al 2009Awad et al , 2011Becker et al 2010;Bernardi et al 2014;Cheikhrouhou et al 2014;El Gammal 2012;Elgammal et al 2010Elgammal et al , 2016Gomez-Lopez et al 2013;Ly 2016;Ly et al 2011;Schumm et al 2010;Stuht et al 2012;Turetken et al 2012) or checking compliance based on execution traces at the runtime of a business process (Awad et al 2015;Barnawi et al 2016;Chesani et al 2008Chesani et al , 2009De Masellis et al 2014;El Gammal 2012;Lam 2017;Ly 2016;Ly et al 2015;Maggi et al 2011;Ramezani 2017;Santos et al 2012).…”

“…In order to identify compliance violations multiple formalisms are used. LTL is a very commonly used one (Bernardi et al 2014;Caron et al 2013a, b;De Masellis et al 2014;Dwyer et al 1998;El Gammal 2012;Elgammal et al 2010Elgammal et al , 2016Gong et al 2016;Lam 2017;Maggi et al 2011;Schumm et al 2010;Stuht et al 2012;Turetken et al 2012). Other formalisms in literature are (colored) automata (Cheikhrouhou et al 2014;De Masellis et al 2014;Gruhn and Laue 2005;Maggi et al 2011;Santos et al 2012;Gruhn and Laue 2006), Computational tree logic (CTL) (Awad and Weske 2010;Awad et al 2011;Dwyer et al 1998;Stuht et al 2012), First order logic (FOL) (Caron et al 2013a, b;, CEP (Awad et al 2015;Thullner et al 2011), Logic programming (Chesani et al 2008(Chesani et al , 2009 Few approaches go beyond the ''simple'' identification of compliance violations and try to offer fixing actions (Awad et al 2009;El Gammal 2012;Elgammal et al 2010;Maggi et al 2011;Ramezani 2017;Lu et al 2009).…”

“…Nevertheless, about one fourth of the papers deal with two or more domains like banking and e-business, health care, manufacturing, higher education, maritime safety, and IT projects, or Internet reseller and loan origination and approval (cf. Awad 2010;Bernardi et al 2014;El Gammal 2012;Elgammal et al 2016;Gong et al 2016;Ly 2016;Ly et al 2015;Ramezani 2017;Turetken et al 2012). Also three documents do not state any application domain at all (cf.…”