Visualisation of Compliant Declarative Business Processes

Abstract

Organisations typically have to cope with large numbers of business rules and existing regulations governing the business in which they operate. Due to the size and complexity of those rules, maintenance is difficult and it is increasingly complicated to ensure that each business process adheres to those rules. As such, automated extraction of business processes from rules has a number of clear advantages: (1) visualisation of all possible executions allowed by the rules, (2) automated execution and compliance by design, (3) identification of "inefficiencies" in the business rules. Existing approaches, however, only allow to generate partial traces based on input specifications and cannot handle many different input cases resulting in a full process. This paper presents a formal method to visualise and operationalise such sets of rules as a verifiable business process that is compliant by design and allows us to analyse all possible execution paths. In addition, it maintains information of all distinct input cases, to preserve dependencies between consecutive exclusive paths.

Applications of Linear Defeasible Logic: combining resource consumption and exceptions to energy management and business processes

“…This complemented the investigations on applying logic and machine learning to energy management [5,4,28]. Analogously some authors applied defeasible logic to business processes [10,11] following the long line of investigations cited in the introduction [14,26,8,23,19,17,9].…”

“…In the same spirit, [13,12] address the problem of agents being able to take decisions from partial, incomplete, and possibly inconsistent knowledge bases, using (extensions of) Defeasible Logic (a computational and proof theoretic approach) to non-monotonic reasoning and reasoning with exceptions. While these last two approaches seem very far apart, they are both based on proof theory (where the key notion is on the idea of (logical) derivation), and both logics (for different reasons and different techniques) have been used for modelling business processes [14,26,8,23,19,17,9].…”

Synthesis of Regulation Compliant Business Processes

“…In the example shown in Figure 4, A could be followed by E, which is incorrect as both correspond to different cases. 1 When the presets and/or postsets of common transitions (i.e. t s , C and t e ) are different, additional τ transitions are required to enforce these case-specific dependencies.…”

“…Proof of only if part by induction: Base case: If L 1 is a trace in N M , it means we either have (1)…”

Resource-Driven Substructural Defeasible Logic

“…In the same spirit, [8,7] address the problem of agents being able to take decisions from partial, incomplete, and possibly inconsistent knowledge bases, using (extensions of) Defeasible Logic (a computational and proof theoretic approach) to non-monotonic reasoning and reasoning with exceptions. While these last two approaches seem very far apart, they are both based on proof theory (where the key notion is on the idea of (logical) derivation), and both logics (for different reasons and different techniques) have been used for modelling business processes [9,17,2,16,13,12,4].…”