[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A time interval-based approach for business process fragmentation over cloud and edge resources

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Service Oriented Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an approach for fragmenting business processes over 2 types of complementary platforms referred to as cloud resources and edge resources. Fragmentation caters to the separate needs and requirements of business processes’ owners. Indeed, some owners prioritize the security of their fragmented processes over availability while others prioritize the reliability of their fragmented processes over performance. Despite its benefits, fragmentation raises many concerns like how to reduce communication delays between disparate fragments and how to maintain acceptable loads over all the distributed resources. To identify the necessary cloud and edge resources that would accommodate fragmented business processes, the approach resorts to Allen’s time algebra allowing to simultaneously reason over both resources’ availability-time intervals and processes’ use-time intervals. This reasoning covers a good range of time relations like overlaps, during, and meets, is aware of resources’ properties like limited-but-extensible, and satisfies business processes’ requirements like data freshness. The fragmentation approach, in this paper, is illustrated with a banking case-study, validated through a system developed on top of Google Colaboratory, and evaluated through a set of real experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Puliafito et al. report that “the average round trip time between an Amazon Cloud server in Virginia (USA) and a device in the US Pacific Coast is 66ms; it is equal to 125ms if the end device is in Italy; and reaches 302ms when the device is in Beijing” [19].

  2. In this paper, edge and fog are considered the same.

  3. Requests for extra-time could be repeated, if deemed necessary, but not indefinitely.

  4. https://colab.research.google.com.

  5. https://bpmn.io/modeler.

References

  1. Allen JF (1983) Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Commun ACM 26(11):832–843

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Anis Zemni M, Benbernou S, Soror S (2011) Privacy-preserving business process fragmentation for reusability. In: Proceedings of Atelier Protection de la Vie Privée/Géolocalisation et Vie Privée (APVP’2011), Soreze, France

  3. Bonomi F, Milito R, Natarajan P, Zhu J (2014) Fog computing: a platform for internet of things and analytics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 169–186

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheikhrouhou S, Kallel S, Guidara I, Maamar Z (2020) Business process specification, verification, and deployment in a mono-cloud, multi-edge context. Comput Sci Inf Syst 17(1):293–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheikhrouhou S, Kallel S, Jmaiel M (2014) Toward a verification of time-centric business process models. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (WETICE’2014), Parma, Italy

  6. De Donno M, Tange K, Dragoni N (2019) Foundations and evolution of modern computing paradigms: Cloud, IoT, Edge, and Fog. IEEE Access 7:150936–150948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fdhila W, Indiono C, Rinderle-Ma S, Reichert M (2015) Dealing with change in process choreographies: design and implementation of propagation algorithms. Inf Syst 49:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hens P, Snoeck M, Poels G, De Backer M (2014) Process fragmentation, distribution and execution using an event-based interaction scheme. J Syst Softw 89:170–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hou Sl, Zhao S, Cheng B, Cheng YY, Chen YY (2016) Fragmentation and optimal deployment for iot-aware business process. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC’2016)

  10. Kallel S, Maamar Z, Sellami M, Faci N, Arab AB, Gaaloul W, Baker T (2021) Restriction-based fragmentation of business processes over the cloud. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 37:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khebbeb K, Hameurlain N, Belalab F (2020) A maude-based rewriting approach to model and verify cloud/fog self-adaptation and orchestration. J Syst Arch 110:101821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Logicworks. Why Vendor Lock-In Remains a Big Roadblock to Cloud Success, September 2016 (checked out in April 2017). www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/2016/sep/01/vendor-lock-in-is-big-roadblock-to-cloud-success-survey-finds

  13. Maamar Z, Baker T, Sellami M, Asim M, Ugljanin E, Faci N (2018) Cloud versus edge: who serves the internet-of-things better? Internet Technol Lett 1(5):e66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Maamar Z, Faci N, Sakr S, Boukhebouze M, Barnawi A (2016) Network-based social coordination of business processes. Inf Syst 58:56–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mancioppi M, Danylevych O, Karastoyanova D, Leymann F (2011) Towards classification criteria for process fragmentation techniques. In: Proceedings of the Business Process Management Workshops (BPM’2011), Ulm, Germany, pp 1–12

  16. Nieves EH, Hernández G, González ABG, Rodríguez-González S, Corchado JM (2020) Fog computing architecture for personalized recommendation of banking products. Expert Syst Appl 140:112900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Object Management Group (OMG). Business Process Model and Notation, pp 1–507. www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2

  18. Pourmasoumi A, Kahani M, Bagheri E (2017) Mining variable fragments from process event logs. Inf Syst Front 19(6):1423–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Puliafito C, Mingozzi E, Longo F, Puliafito A, Rana O (2019) Fog computing for the internet of things: a survey. ACM Trans Internet Technol 19(2):1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rahmana MS, Khalila I, Atiquzzaman M, Yi X (2020) Towards privacy preserving AI-based composition framework in edge networks using fully homomorphic encryption. Eng Appl Artif Intell 94:103737, 1–15

  21. Satyanarayanan M, Bahl P, Cáceres R, Davies N (2009) The case for VM-based cloudlets in mobile computing. IEEE Pervasive Comput 8(4):14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Seydoux N, Drira K, Hernandez N, Monteil T (2018) Reasoning on the Edge or in the Cloud? Internet Technol Lett, Wiley, pp e51

  23. Taivalsaari A, Mikkonen T (2017) A roadmap to the programmable world: software challenges in the IoT Era. IEEE Softw 34(1):72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Varghese B, Wang N, Nikolopoulos DS, Buyya R (2017) Feasibility of Fog Computing, pp 127–146, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.05451

  25. Xue G, Liu J, Wu L, Yao S (2018) A Graph-based Technique of Process Partitioning. J Web Eng 17(1 &2):121–140

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ReDCAD, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

    Saoussen Cheikhrouhou, Rawya Mars & Slim Kallel

  2. Zayed University, Dubai, UAE

    Zakaria Maamar

Authors
  1. Saoussen Cheikhrouhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zakaria Maamar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rawya Mars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Slim Kallel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slim Kallel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Screenshots of data, announcement strategy, and resources of the credit application use case, respectively (Figs. 4, 5, 6).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Screenshot of data definition

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Screenshot of announcement strategy selection

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Screenshot of resource definition

Full size image

Appendix 2

Definitions of time intervals of the credit application BP’s tasks, data, and resources, respectively (Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

Table 9 Definition of tasks’ time intervals
Full size table
Table 10 Definition of data’s time intervals
Full size table
Table 11 Definition of available resources
Full size table
Table 12 Resource assignment to tasks/data using the AT announcement strategy (extensible resources)
Full size table
Table 13 Resource assignment to tasks/data using the EF announcement strategy (extensible resource)
Full size table

Appendix 3

figure f
figure g

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheikhrouhou, S., Maamar, Z., Mars, R. et al. A time interval-based approach for business process fragmentation over cloud and edge resources. SOCA 16, 263–278 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-022-00345-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-022-00345-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation