On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models
Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life c...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Hoffmann, Jörg [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2009 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Information systems frontiers - Springer US, 1999, 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:14 ; year:2009 ; number:2 ; day:23 ; month:05 ; pages:155-177 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2034127978 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2034127978 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503101519.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2009 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2034127978 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 070 |a 004 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 24,1 |a 3,2 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hoffmann, Jörg |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2009 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Compliant process design | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Compliance checking | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Business process design | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Formal process verification | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Weber, Ingo |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Governatori, Guido |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Information systems frontiers |d Springer US, 1999 |g 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 |w (DE-627)333991958 |w (DE-600)2057666-3 |w (DE-576)444637265 |x 1387-3326 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:14 |g year:2009 |g number:2 |g day:23 |g month:05 |g pages:155-177 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-BUB | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-MAT | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-WIW | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-BBI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_26 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4029 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 14 |j 2009 |e 2 |b 23 |c 05 |h 155-177 | ||
| author_variant |
j h jh i w iw g g gg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13873326:2009----::nopinehcigocaslosritiant |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2009 |
| publishDate |
2009 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2034127978 (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn Hoffmann, Jörg verfasserin aut On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models 2009 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification Weber, Ingo aut Governatori, Guido aut Enthalten in Information systems frontiers Springer US, 1999 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 (DE-627)333991958 (DE-600)2057666-3 (DE-576)444637265 1387-3326 nnns volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 AR 14 2009 2 23 05 155-177 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2034127978 (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn Hoffmann, Jörg verfasserin aut On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models 2009 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification Weber, Ingo aut Governatori, Guido aut Enthalten in Information systems frontiers Springer US, 1999 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 (DE-627)333991958 (DE-600)2057666-3 (DE-576)444637265 1387-3326 nnns volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 AR 14 2009 2 23 05 155-177 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2034127978 (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn Hoffmann, Jörg verfasserin aut On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models 2009 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification Weber, Ingo aut Governatori, Guido aut Enthalten in Information systems frontiers Springer US, 1999 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 (DE-627)333991958 (DE-600)2057666-3 (DE-576)444637265 1387-3326 nnns volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 AR 14 2009 2 23 05 155-177 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2034127978 (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn Hoffmann, Jörg verfasserin aut On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models 2009 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification Weber, Ingo aut Governatori, Guido aut Enthalten in Information systems frontiers Springer US, 1999 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 (DE-627)333991958 (DE-600)2057666-3 (DE-576)444637265 1387-3326 nnns volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 AR 14 2009 2 23 05 155-177 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2034127978 (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn Hoffmann, Jörg verfasserin aut On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models 2009 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification Weber, Ingo aut Governatori, Guido aut Enthalten in Information systems frontiers Springer US, 1999 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 (DE-627)333991958 (DE-600)2057666-3 (DE-576)444637265 1387-3326 nnns volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 AR 14 2009 2 23 05 155-177 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Information systems frontiers 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Information systems frontiers 14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177 volume:14 year:2009 number:2 day:23 month:05 pages:155-177 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification |
| dewey-raw |
070 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Information systems frontiers |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Hoffmann, Jörg @@aut@@ Weber, Ingo @@aut@@ Governatori, Guido @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2009-05-23T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
333991958 |
| dewey-sort |
270 |
| id |
OLC2034127978 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2034127978</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503101519.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2009 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2034127978</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">070</subfield><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">24,1</subfield><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hoffmann, Jörg</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Compliant process design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Compliance checking</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Business process design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Formal process verification</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weber, Ingo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Governatori, Guido</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Information systems frontiers</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1999</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)333991958</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2057666-3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)444637265</subfield><subfield code="x">1387-3326</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2009</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:23</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:155-177</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-BUB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-BBI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2009</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">23</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">155-177</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Hoffmann, Jörg |
| spellingShingle |
Hoffmann, Jörg ddc 070 ssgn 24,1 misc Compliant process design misc Compliance checking misc Business process design misc Formal process verification On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| authorStr |
Hoffmann, Jörg |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)333991958 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
070 - News media, journalism & publishing 004 - Data processing & computer science |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1387-3326 |
| topic_title |
070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models Compliant process design Compliance checking Business process design Formal process verification |
| topic |
ddc 070 ssgn 24,1 misc Compliant process design misc Compliance checking misc Business process design misc Formal process verification |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 070 ssgn 24,1 misc Compliant process design misc Compliance checking misc Business process design misc Formal process verification |
| topic_browse |
ddc 070 ssgn 24,1 misc Compliant process design misc Compliance checking misc Business process design misc Formal process verification |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Information systems frontiers |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
333991958 |
| dewey-tens |
070 - News media, journalism & publishing 000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Information systems frontiers |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)333991958 (DE-600)2057666-3 (DE-576)444637265 |
| title |
On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2034127978 (DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p |
| title_full |
On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| author_sort |
Hoffmann, Jörg |
| journal |
Information systems frontiers |
| journalStr |
Information systems frontiers |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
000 - Computer science, information & general works |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2009 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
155 |
| author_browse |
Hoffmann, Jörg Weber, Ingo Governatori, Guido |
| container_volume |
14 |
| class |
070 004 VZ 24,1 3,2 ssgn |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Hoffmann, Jörg |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 |
| dewey-full |
070 004 |
| title_sort |
on compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| title_auth |
On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| abstract |
Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Weber, Ingo Governatori, Guido |
| author2Str |
Weber, Ingo Governatori, Guido |
| ppnlink |
333991958 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:43:23.670Z |
| _version_ |
1803588262871171072 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2034127978</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503101519.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2009 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2034127978</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10796-009-9179-7-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">070</subfield><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">24,1</subfield><subfield code="a">3,2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hoffmann, Jörg</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Compliance management is important in several industry sectors where there is a high incidence of regulatory control. It must be ensured that business practices, as reflected in business processes, comply with the rules. Such compliance checks are challenging due to (1) the different life cycles of rules and processes, and (2) their disparate representations. (1) requires retrospective checking of process models. To address (2), we herein devise a framework where processes are annotated to capture the semantics of task execution, and compliance is checked against a set of constraints posing restrictions on the desirable process states. Each constraint is a clause, i.e., a disjunction of literals. If a process can reach a state that falsifies all literals of one of the constraints, then that constraint is violated in that state, and indicates non-compliance. Naively, such compliance can be checked by enumerating all reachable states. Since long waiting times are undesirable, it is important to develop efficient (low-order polynomial time) algorithms that (a) perform exact compliance checking for restricted cases, or (b) perform approximate compliance checking for more general cases. Herein, we observe that methods of both kinds can be defined as a natural extension of our earlier work on semantic business process validation. We devise one method of type (a), and we devise two methods of type (b); both are based on similar restrictions to the processes, where the restrictions made by methods (b) are a subset of those made by method (a). The approximate methods each guarantee either of soundness (finding only non-compliances) or completeness (finding all non-compliances). We describe how one can trace the state evolution back to the process activities which caused the (potential) non-compliance, and hence provide the user with an error diagnosis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Compliant process design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Compliance checking</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Business process design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Formal process verification</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weber, Ingo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Governatori, Guido</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Information systems frontiers</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1999</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2009), 2 vom: 23. Mai, Seite 155-177</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)333991958</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2057666-3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)444637265</subfield><subfield code="x">1387-3326</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2009</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:23</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:155-177</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-BUB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-BBI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2009</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">23</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">155-177</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3992968 |