• Journal of Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.191-199
• /
• 2006

Effective management of business processes is a crucial issue to every enterprise in e-business environment. What's needed is a new framework of applications that can automatically manage distributed and heterogeneous business processes that span multiple functions of a company. In this paper, we propose technical design of a new enactment model that can coordinate such business process that involves multiple functional units or even multiple companies. In our approach, a process model is decomposed into several structural units, called 'process block', according to their procedural characteristics. Each of them is controlled by autonomous enactment units that can communicate with each other using a mutually agreed coordination protocol. The protocol takes the use of 'associative communication' concept, which allows the autonomy for each unit and secure the correctness of process execution.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2020

Smart contracts are implemented by blockchain technology, which stores the terms of the contracts of both parties on the blockchain. In the event of an international dispute over smart contracts and blockchains, no special solution has been proposed, such as the enactment of the International Unification Act. The blockchain platform which operates smart contracts is decentralized and operates through distributed nodes around the world without central servers, making it difficult to establish jurisdiction and governing laws. As an alternative to traditional dispute-solving methods, a new mediation model-smart arbitration-is being attempted. The arbitration process is likely to be a preferred means of resolving disputes over smart contracts in practice. There are many problems, such as the fairness of the arbitration center on the selection and judgment of arbitrators, the question of securing reliability, the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, and how much the court can be involved in the case. Preparations at the national level, such as fostering blockchains and smart contract experts, and overhauling the legal system, are needed.

• Proceedings of the Korea Database Society Conference
• /
• 1998.09a
• /
• pp.525-543
• /
• 1998

This paper proposes a conceptual taxonomy of architectures far workflow management systems. The systematic classification work is based on a framework for workflow architectures. The framework, consisting of generic-level, conceptual-level and implementation-level architectures, provides common architectural principles for designing a workflow management system. We define the taxonomy by considering the possibilities for centralization or distribution of data, control, and execution. That is, we take into account three criteria. How are the major components of a workflow model and system, like activities, roles, actors, and workcases, concretized in workflow architecture？ Which of the components is represented as software modules of the workflow architecture？ And how are they configured and operating in the architecture？ The workflow components might be embodied, as active (processes or threads) modules or as passive (data) modules, in the software architecture of a workflow management system. One or combinations of the components might become software modules in the software architecture. Finally, they might be centralized or distributed. The distribution of the components should be broken into three: Vertically, Horizontally and Fully distributed. Through the combination of these aspects, we can conceptually generate about 64 software Architectures for a workflow management system. That is, it should be possible to comprehend and characterize all kinds of software architectures for workflow management systems including the current existing systems as well as future systems. We believe that this taxonomy is a significant contribution because it adds clarity, completeness, and "global perspective" to workflow architectural discussions. The vocabulary suggested here includes workflow levels and aspects, allowing very different architectures to be discussed, compared, and contrasted. Added clarity is obtained because similar architectures from different vendors that used different terminology and techniques can now be seen to be identical at the higher level. Much of the complexity can be removed by thinking of workflow systems. Therefore, it is used to categorize existing workflow architectures and suggest a plethora of new workflow architectures. Finally, the taxonomy can be used for sorting out gems and stones amongst the architectures possibly generated. Thus, it might be a guideline not only for characterizing the existing workflow management systems, but also for solving the long-term and short-term architectural research issues, such as dynamic changes in workflow, transactional workflow, dynamically evolving workflow, large-scale workflow, etc., that have been proposed in the literature.

• The Journal of Information Technology and Database
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.97-108
• /
• 1998

This paper proposes a conceptual taxonomy of architectures for workflow management systems. The systematic classification work is based on a framework for workflow architectures. The framework, consisting of generic-level, conceptual-level and implementation-level architectures, provides common architectural principles for designing a workflow management system. We define the taxonomy by considering the possibilities for centralization or distribution of data, control, and execution. That is, we take into account three criteria. How are the major components of a workflow model and system, like activities, roles, actors, and workcases, concretized in workflow architecture. Which of the components is represented as software modules of the workflow architecture\ulcorner And how are they configured and operating in the architecture\ulcorner The workflow components might be embodied, as active (processes or threads) modules or as passive (data) modules, in the software architecture of a workflow management system. One or combinations of the components might become software modules in the software architecture. Finally, they might be centralized or distributed. The distribution of the components should be broken into three: Vertically, Horizontally and Fully distributed. Through the combination of these aspects, we can conceptually generate about 64 software Architectures for a workflow management system. That is, it should be possible to comprehend and characterize all kinds of software architectures for workflow management systems including the current existing systems as well as future systems. We believe that this taxonomy is a significant contribution because it adds clarity, completeness, and global perspective to workflow architectural discussions. The vocabulary suggested here includes workflow levels and aspects, allowing very different architectures to be discussed, compared, and contrasted. Added clarity is obtained because similar architectures from different vendors that used different terminology and techniques can now be seen to be identical at the higher level. Much of the complexity can be removed by thinking of workflow systems. Therefore, it is used to categorize existing workflow architectures and suggest a plethora of new workflow architectures. Finally, the taxonomy can be used for sorting out gems and stones amongst the architectures possibly generated. Thus, it might be a guideline not only for characterizing the existing workflow management systems, but also for solving the long-term and short-term architectural research issues, such as dynamic changes in workflow, transactional workflow, dynamically evolving workflow, large-scale workflow, etc., that have been proposed in the literature.