Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models

BPM 2010 Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models Matthias Weidlich , Remco Dijkman, Mathias Weske September 16, 2010

Behaviour Compatibility
Question whether two process models show the same behaviour
Use Cases
Process models that assume different perspectives
Management of process variants
Implementation of a reference model
© www.biojobblog.com

Behaviour Inheritance
Behaviour equivalences for extended behavioural models
Extended parts may be blocked or hidden
Blocking Protocol Inheritance Hiding Projection Inheritance

Complex Correspondences

Research Challenges
Definition What means behaviour compatibility for complex correspondences?
Computational Complexity Can we decide behaviour compatibility efficiently for a certain class of models?

Agenda
Background on Behaviour Compatibility
Notions of Behaviour Compatibility for Trace Semantics
A Structural Characterisation of Compatibility
Experimental Results
Conclusion & Outlook

General Idea
Focus on trace semantics & trace equivalence
Idea
Complex correspondence has semantics – relation between subtraces
Dependencies between these subtraces should be equal for two correspondences
Partitioning of traces induced by the correspondences should be equal

Trace Partitioning
Interleaving transitions: may be enabled concurrently
Complete traces are partitioned
Subtraces comprising non-interleaving transitions
Subtraces comprising interleaving transitions
< A1 B1 A2 A3 > < A4 B3 A5 B2 B3 >

Notions of Behaviour Compatibility
Projection Compatibility For two correspondences and each complete trace in P1, there is a complete trace with the same partitioning in P2 once extensions are hidden
Protocol Compatibility For two correspondences and each complete trace in P1, there is a complete trace with the same partitioning in P2 once extensions are blocked
Compatibility for Process Models
Check if all pairs of correspondences are compatible
Decidable for finite state spaces

Back to the Example

Agenda

Structural Characterisation – Scope
Focus on free-choice sound WF-nets
Dedicated initial and final places
Free of behavioural anomalies (e.g., deadlocks)
No interference of choices and synchronisations
Concurrency relation and exclusiveness relation can be computed efficiently

Structural Characterisation – Reasoning
For pair of correspondences
Concurrency relation identifies interleaving transitions
Preprocessing removes concurrent or exclusive paths
Remaining paths are partitioned similar to the traces
Path Consistency For each complete path in P1, there is a complete path with the same partitioning in P2 once extensions are hidden
Path Consistency ↔ Projection Compatibility

Agenda

Experimental Setup
Collection of 10 pairs of process models
Implementation of standard process by Dutch municipalities
Correspondences defined by process analysts
Results:
Projection compatibility: 83% / 30% compatible
Protocol compatibility: 38% / 8% compatible
Discussion:
Incompatibilities identified
Protocol compatibility not appropriate for this use case
Need for compact representation of incompatibilities

Notion of behaviour compatibility that copes with extensions and complex correspondences
Structural characterisation of behaviour compatibility for free-choice sound WF-nets
Future work:
Model transformations that preserve behaviour compatibility
Compact representation of incompatibilities

Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models

by matthias.weidlich on Oct 03, 2010

Accessibility

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Deciding Behaviour Compatibility of Complex Correspondences between Process Models — Presentation Transcript