Query Stability in Monotonic Data-Aware Business Processes

Authors Ognjen Savkovic, Elisa Marengo, Werner Nutt

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.59 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ognjen Savkovic
Elisa Marengo
Werner Nutt

Cite AsGet BibTex

Ognjen Savkovic, Elisa Marengo, and Werner Nutt. Query Stability in Monotonic Data-Aware Business Processes. In 19th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 48, pp. 16:1-16:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)


Organizations continuously accumulate data, often according to some business processes. If one poses a query over such data for decision support, it is important to know whether the query is stable, that is, whether the answers will stay the same or may change in the future because business processes may add further data. We investigate query stability for conjunctive queries. To this end, we define a formalism that combines an explicit representation of the control flow of a process with a specification of how data is read and inserted into the database. We consider different restrictions of the process model and the state of the system, such as negation in conditions, cyclic executions, read access to written data, presence of pending process instances, and the possibility to start fresh process instances. We identify for which restriction combinations stability of conjunctive queries is decidable and provide encodings into variants of Datalog that are optimal with respect to the worst-case complexity of the problem.
  • Business Processes
  • Query Stability


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. S. Abiteboul, V. Vianu, B.S. Fordham, and Y. Yesha. Relational Transducers for Electronic Commerce. In PODS, pages 179-187, 1998. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/275487.275507.
  2. M. Ajtai, R. Fagin, and L.J. Stockmeyer. The Closure of Monadic NP. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 60(3):660-716, 2000. Google Scholar
  3. Y. Amsterdamer, S. B. Davidson, D. Deutch, T. Milo, J. Stoyanovich, and V. Tannen. Putting Lipstick on Pig: Enabling Database-Style Workflow Provenance. PVLDB, 5(4):346-357, 2011. Google Scholar
  4. B. Bagheri Hariri, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, A. Deutsch, and M. Montali. Verification of Relational Data-Centric Dynamic Systems with External Services. In PODS, pages 163-174, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2463664.2465221.
  5. C. Beeri, A. Eyal, S. Kamenkovich, and T. Milo. Querying Business Processes. In VLDB, pages 343-354, 2006. Google Scholar
  6. K. Bhattacharya, C. E. Gerede, R. Hull, R. Liu, and J. Su. Towards Formal Analysis of Artifact-Centric Business Process Models. In BPM, pages 288-304, 2007. Google Scholar
  7. Bonitasoft. Bonita BPM. Accessed: 2015-12-16. URL: http://www.bonitasoft.com.
  8. G. Cong, W. Fan, F. Geerts, X. Jia, and S. Ma. Improving Data Quality: Consistency and Accuracy. In VLDB, pages 315-326, 2007. Google Scholar
  9. E. Dantsin, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and A. Voronkov. Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. ACM Comput. Surv., 33(3):374-425, 2001. Google Scholar
  10. A. Deutsch, R. Hull, F. Patrizi, and V. Vianu. Automatic Verification of Data-Centric Business Processes. In ICDT, pages 252-267, 2009. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1514894.1514924.
  11. A. Deutsch, L. Sui, and V. Vianu. Specification and Verification of Data-Driven Web Services. In PODS, pages 71-82, 2004. Google Scholar
  12. C. Elkan. Independence of Logic Database Queries and Updates. In PODS, pages 154-160, 1990. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/298514.298557.
  13. W. Fan, F. Geerts, and J. Wijsen. Determining the Currency of Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 37(4):25, 2012. Google Scholar
  14. C. E. Gerede, K. Bhattacharya, and J. Su. Static Analysis of Business Artifact-Centric Operational Models. In SOCA, pages 133-140, 2007. Google Scholar
  15. C. E. Gerede and J. Jianwen Su. Specification and Verification of Artifact Behaviors in Business Process Models. In ICSOC, pages 181-192, 2007. Google Scholar
  16. F. T. Heath, D. Boaz, M. Gupta, R. Vaculín, Y. Sun, R. Hull, and L. Limonad. Barcelona: A Design and Runtime Environment for Declarative Artifact-Centric BPM. In ICSOC, pages 705-709, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45005-1_65.
  17. R. Hull. Artifact-Centric Business Process Models: Brief Survey of Research Results and Challenges. In OTM, pages 1152-1163, 2008. Google Scholar
  18. K. Jensen and L.M. Kristensen. Coloured Petri Nets: Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  19. N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, W. Faber, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, S. Perri, and F. Scarcello. The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 7(3):499-562, 2006. Google Scholar
  20. A.Y. Levy and Y. Sagiv. Queries Independent of Updates. In VLDB, pages 171-181, 1993. Google Scholar
  21. E. Marengo, W. Nutt, and O. Savković. Towards a Theory of Query Stability in Business Processes. In AMW, volume 1189 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2014. Google Scholar
  22. Object Management Group. Business Process Model and Notation 2.0 (BPMN), Jan 2011. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/.
  23. S. Razniewski and W. Nutt. Completeness of Queries over Incomplete Databases. PVLDB, 4(11):749-760, 2011. Google Scholar
  24. O. Savković, E. Marengo, and W. Nutt. Query Stability in Data-aware Business Processes. Technical Report KRDB15-1, KRDB Research Center, Free Univ. Bozen-Bolzano, 2015. URL: http://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/pub/tech-rep.php.
  25. M. Spielmann. Verification of Relational Transducers for Electronic Commerce. In PODS, pages 92-103. ACM, 2000. Google Scholar
  26. W.M.P. van der Aalst. Verification of Workflow Nets. In ICATPN, pages 407-426, 1997. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9_48.
  27. W.M.P. van der Aalst, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, B. Kiepuszewski, and A.P. Barros. Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14(1):5-51, 2003. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail