Formal Analysis of OWL-S Process Model by FDR

Toward the Formalization of Business Process Model and Notation

10.3233/faia210024 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Honoré Hounwanou ◽

Laila Boumlik ◽

Mohamed Mejri

Keyword(s):

Web Services ◽

Programming Languages ◽

Business Process ◽

Process Model ◽

Business Processes ◽

Formal Analysis ◽

Business Process Model ◽

Business Process Execution ◽

Developer Tools ◽

Almost All

Due to its versatility and wide variety of constructs, BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation) is today the leading standard notation for creating visual models of business or organizational processes. It is a rich and expressive graphical language specially designed to provide a notation that is easily understood by all members of a company. Sometimes, however, this large number of controls and action nodes available can become a weakness since a given semantics can be represented in many ways, causing some ambiguity and raising the question of bisimilarity between two models. Today, it is universally recognized that formal methods are useful for the specification, design and verification of almost all systems, and essential for the most critical ones. On the other hand, the Business Process Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL) is an executable language structured in blocks, supported by many execution platforms, making it possible to specify the actions in the business processes with Web services. Since BPMN and BPEL share almost the same level of abstraction, we present in this article a formalization of the BPMN language through a mapping to BPEL, aiming to remove its ambiguities, to solve the complex modeling and interaction problems and open the door to many formal analysis such as model checking. We first formalize the BPEL language using the K framework, we then map the BPMN language to this formalized version of BPEL. The K Framework is a rewriting/reachability based framework enabling language developers to formally define all programming languages. Once a language is formally specified in the K framework, the framework automatically outputs a range of formal verification tool sets, compilers, debuggers and other developer tools for it.

Download Full-text

The Do’s and Don’ts of Psychophysical Methods for Interpretability of Psychometric Functions and Their Descriptors

The Spanish Journal of Psychology ◽

10.1017/sjp.2019.49 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 22 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Miguel Ángel García-Pérez ◽

Rocío Alcalá-Quintana

Keyword(s):

Process Model ◽

Signal Detection Theory ◽

Formal Analysis ◽

Detection Threshold ◽

Difference Limen ◽

Data Display ◽

Alternative Framework ◽

Threshold Difference ◽

Response Formats ◽

Presentation Methods

Abstract Many areas of research require measuring psychometric functions or their descriptors (thresholds, slopes, etc.). Data for this purpose are collected with psychophysical methods of various types and justification for the interpretation of results arises from a model of performance grounded in signal detection theory. Decades of research have shown that psychophysical data display features that are incompatible with such framework, questioning the validity of interpretations obtained under it and revealing that psychophysical performance is more complex than this framework entertains. This paper describes the assumptions and formulation of the conventional framework for the two major classes of psychophysical methods (single- and dual-presentation methods) and presents various lines of empirical evidence that the framework is inconsistent with. An alternative framework is then described and shown to account for all the characteristics that the conventional framework regards as anomalies. This alternative process model explicitly separates the sensory, decisional, and response components of performance and represents them via parameters whose estimation characterizes the corresponding processes. Retrospective and prospective evidence of the validity of the alternative framework is also presented. A formal analysis also reveals that some psychophysical methods and response formats are unsuitable for separation of the three components of observed performance. Recommendations are thus given regarding practices that should be avoided and those that should be followed to ensure interpretability of the psychometric function, or descriptors (detection threshold, difference limen, point of subjective equality, etc.) obtained with shortcut methods that do not require estimation of psychometric functions.

Download Full-text

Process \'prǎ|,ses\n: The Action of Moving Forward Progressively from One Point to Another on the Way to Completion

Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders ◽

10.1044/jshd.4401.03 ◽

1979 ◽

Vol 44 (1) ◽

pp. 3-30 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Carol A. Pruning

Keyword(s):

Process Model ◽

Communicative Behaviors ◽

Adult Level ◽

Remedial Programs ◽

Stage Process ◽

The Way

A rationale for the application of a stage process model for the language-disordered child is presented. The major behaviors of the communicative system (pragmatic-semantic-syntactic-phonological) are summarized and organized in stages from pre-linguistic to the adult level. The article provides clinicians with guidelines, based on complexity, for the content and sequencing of communicative behaviors to be used in planning remedial programs.

Download Full-text