Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Document Type
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Modeling (3) (remove)
Institute
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH (3) (remove)
Structuring process models
(2012)
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.
The service-oriented architecture supports the dynamic assembly and runtime reconfiguration of complex open IT landscapes by means of runtime binding of service contracts, launching of new components and termination of outdated ones. Furthermore, the evolution of these IT landscapes is not restricted to exchanging components with other ones using the same service contracts, as new services contracts can be added as well. However, current approaches for modeling and verification of service-oriented architectures do not support these important capabilities to their full extend.In this report we present an extension of the current OMG proposal for service modeling with UML - SoaML - which overcomes these limitations. It permits modeling services and their service contracts at different levels of abstraction, provides a formal semantics for all modeling concepts, and enables verifying critical properties. Our compositional and incremental verification approach allows for complex properties including communication parameters and time and covers besides the dynamic binding of service contracts and the replacement of components also the evolution of the systems by means of new service contracts. The modeling as well as verification capabilities of the presented approach are demonstrated by means of a supply chain example and the verification results of a first prototype are shown.
The development of self-adaptive software requires the engineering of an adaptation engine that controls and adapts the underlying adaptable software by means of feedback loops. The adaptation engine often describes the adaptation by using runtime models representing relevant aspects of the adaptable software and particular activities such as analysis and planning that operate on these runtime models. To systematically address the interplay between runtime models and adaptation activities in adaptation engines, runtime megamodels have been proposed for self-adaptive software. A runtime megamodel is a specific runtime model whose elements are runtime models and adaptation activities. Thus, a megamodel captures the interplay between multiple models and between models and activities as well as the activation of the activities. In this article, we go one step further and present a modeling language for ExecUtable RuntimE MegAmodels (EUREMA) that considerably eases the development of adaptation engines by following a model-driven engineering approach. We provide a domain-specific modeling language and a runtime interpreter for adaptation engines, in particular for feedback loops. Megamodels are kept explicit and alive at runtime and by interpreting them, they are directly executed to run feedback loops. Additionally, they can be dynamically adjusted to adapt feedback loops. Thus, EUREMA supports development by making feedback loops, their runtime models, and adaptation activities explicit at a higher level of abstraction. Moreover, it enables complex solutions where multiple feedback loops interact or even operate on top of each other. Finally, it leverages the co-existence of self-adaptation and off-line adaptation for evolution.