Abstract
Purpose
– An integral part of declarative process modelling is to guarantee that the execution of a declarative workflow is compliant with the respective business rules. The purpose of this paper is to establish a formal framework for representing business rules and determining whether any business rules are violated during the executions of declarative process models.
Design/methodology/approach
– In the approach, a business rule is phrased in terms of restricted English that is related to a constraint template. Linear temporal logic (LTL) is employed as a formalism for defining the set of constraint templates. By exploiting the theorem-proving feature of the Logics Workbench (LWB), business rule violations are then detected in an automatic manner.
Findings
– This study explored the viability of encoding: first, process executions by means of LTL and second, business rules in terms of restricted English that built upon pattern-oriented templates and LTL. The LWB was used for carrying out temporal reasoning through automated techniques. The applicability of the formal verification approach was exemplified by a case study concerning supply chain management. The findings showed that practical reasoning could be achieved by combining declarative process modelling, restricted English, pattern-oriented templates, LTL and LWB.
Originality/value
– First, new business rule templates are proposed; second, business rules are expressed in restricted English instead of graphical constructs; third, both finite execution trace and business rules are grounded in LTL. There is no need to deal with the semantic differences between different formalisms; and finally, the theorem prover LWB is used for the conformance checking of a finite execution trace against business rules.
Subject
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous),Business and International Management
Reference21 articles.
1. Awad, A.
(2007), “BPMN-Q: a language to query business processes”,
EMISA
, pp. 115-128.
2. Awad, A.
,
Weidlich, M.
and
Weske, M.
(2011), “Visually specifying compliance rules and explaining their violations for business processes”,
Journal of Visual Languages and Computing
, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 30-55.
3. Bauer, A.
and
Haslum, P.
(2010), “LTL goal specifications revisited”, 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 881-886.
4. Clarke, E.M.
,
Grumberg, O.
and
Peled, D.A.
(1999),
Model Checking
, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. Dwyer, M.B.
,
Avrunin, G.S.
and
Corbett, J.C.
(1998), “Property specification patterns for finite-state verification”, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, pp. 7-15.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献