@phdthesis{Becker2013,
  author    = {Becker, Basil},
  title     = {Architectural modelling and verification of open service-oriented systems of systems},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-70158},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Systems of Systems (SoS) have received a lot of attention recently. In this thesis we will focus on SoS that are built atop the techniques of Service-Oriented Architectures and thus combine the benefits and challenges of both paradigms. For this thesis we will understand SoS as ensembles of single autonomous systems that are integrated to a larger system, the SoS. The interesting fact about these systems is that the previously isolated systems are still maintained, improved and developed on their own. Structural dynamics is an issue in SoS, as at every point in time systems can join and leave the ensemble. This and the fact that the cooperation among the constituent systems is not necessarily observable means that we will consider these systems as open systems. Of course, the system has a clear boundary at each point in time, but this can only be identified by halting the complete SoS. However, halting a system of that size is practically impossible. Often SoS are combinations of software systems and physical systems. Hence a failure in the software system can have a serious physical impact what makes an SoS of this kind easily a safety-critical system. The contribution of this thesis is a modelling approach that extends OMG's SoaML and basically relies on collaborations and roles as an abstraction layer above the components. This will allow us to describe SoS at an architectural level. We will also give a formal semantics for our modelling approach which employs hybrid graph-transformation systems. The modelling approach is accompanied by a modular verification scheme that will be able to cope with the complexity constraints implied by the SoS' structural dynamics and size. Building such autonomous systems as SoS without evolution at the architectural level --- i. e. adding and removing of components and services --- is inadequate. Therefore our approach directly supports the modelling and verification of evolution.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Polyvyanyy2012,
  author    = {Polyvyanyy, Artem},
  title     = {Structuring process models},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59024},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {One can fairly adopt the ideas of Donald E. Knuth to conclude that process modeling is both a science and an art. Process modeling does have an aesthetic sense. Similar to composing an opera or writing a novel, process modeling is carried out by humans who undergo creative practices when engineering a process model. Therefore, the very same process can be modeled in a myriad number of ways. Once modeled, processes can be analyzed by employing scientific methods. Usually, process models are formalized as directed graphs, with nodes representing tasks and decisions, and directed arcs describing temporal constraints between the nodes. Common process definition languages, such as Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) and Event-driven Process Chain (EPC) allow process analysts to define models with arbitrary complex topologies. The absence of structural constraints supports creativity and productivity, as there is no need to force ideas into a limited amount of available structural patterns. Nevertheless, it is often preferable that models follow certain structural rules. A well-known structural property of process models is (well-)structuredness. A process model is (well-)structured if and only if every node with multiple outgoing arcs (a split) has a corresponding node with multiple incoming arcs (a join), and vice versa, such that the set of nodes between the split and the join induces a single-entry-single-exit (SESE) region; otherwise the process model is unstructured. The motivations for well-structured process models are manifold: (i) Well-structured process models are easier to layout for visual representation as their formalizations are planar graphs. (ii) Well-structured process models are easier to comprehend by humans. (iii) Well-structured process models tend to have fewer errors than unstructured ones and it is less probable to introduce new errors when modifying a well-structured process model. (iv) Well-structured process models are better suited for analysis with many existing formal techniques applicable only for well-structured process models. (v) Well-structured process models are better suited for efficient execution and optimization, e.g., when discovering independent regions of a process model that can be executed concurrently. Consequently, there are process modeling languages that encourage well-structured modeling, e.g., Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) and ADEPT. However, the well-structured process modeling implies some limitations: (i) There exist processes that cannot be formalized as well-structured process models. (ii) There exist processes that when formalized as well-structured process models require a considerable duplication of modeling constructs. Rather than expecting well-structured modeling from start, we advocate for the absence of structural constraints when modeling. Afterwards, automated methods can suggest, upon request and whenever possible, alternative formalizations that are "better" structured, preferably well-structured. In this thesis, we study the problem of automatically transforming process models into equivalent well-structured models. The developed transformations are performed under a strong notion of behavioral equivalence which preserves concurrency. The findings are implemented in a tool, which is publicly available.},
  language  = {en}
}