Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Enforcement vs. freedom of action an integrated approach to flexible workflow enactment

Enforcement vs. freedom of action an integrated approach to flexible workflow enactment and add extra ones, all in an accountable manner. For the above example, an agent may choose to update wll.stepl.next=wfl.step3, skipping the approval step because the manager is away, but having to provide a n excuse (for which she has an authorization). Extensible taxonomies of exceptions can also play an important role in organizing and selecting appropriate handlers. When resuming with violations that persist, our safety policies start checking assumptions at run-time, to deal with, e.g., changes in control flow. In the above example, suppose there is a step later on to debit the purchase amount from the client department's budget, where an assumption says: self.step2 in ENDED, meaning the approval step is completed. Due to the skipping above, the assumption checking is activated, resulting later in an exception that prevents this non-standard workcase from escaping the intended regulations. The generality of our approach is shown by applying it to a second process model -- the Workflow Net Model of Agostini and De Michelis. The result is illustrated by an example that accommodates a coordination deviation in a generic "review-process". Our approach supports flexibility during process enactment by allowing changes to the data values used by the PSS http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png ACM SIGOIS Bulletin Association for Computing Machinery

Enforcement vs. freedom of action an integrated approach to flexible workflow enactment

Faustmann, Gert
ACM SIGOIS Bulletin , Volume 20 (3) – Dec 1, 1999
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/enforcement-vs-freedom-of-action-an-integrated-approach-to-flexible-3yUxhL3ZB7

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by ACM Inc.
ISSN
0894-0819
DOI
10.1145/605610.605613
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

and add extra ones, all in an accountable manner. For the above example, an agent may choose to update wll.stepl.next=wfl.step3, skipping the approval step because the manager is away, but having to provide a n excuse (for which she has an authorization). Extensible taxonomies of exceptions can also play an important role in organizing and selecting appropriate handlers. When resuming with violations that persist, our safety policies start checking assumptions at run-time, to deal with, e.g., changes in control flow. In the above example, suppose there is a step later on to debit the purchase amount from the client department's budget, where an assumption says: self.step2 in ENDED, meaning the approval step is completed. Due to the skipping above, the assumption checking is activated, resulting later in an exception that prevents this non-standard workcase from escaping the intended regulations. The generality of our approach is shown by applying it to a second process model -- the Workflow Net Model of Agostini and De Michelis. The result is illustrated by an example that accommodates a coordination deviation in a generic "review-process". Our approach supports flexibility during process enactment by allowing changes to the data values used by the PSS

Journal

ACM SIGOIS Bulletin – Association for Computing Machinery

Published: Dec 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.