P.C. Attie, M.P. Singh, E.A. Emerson, A.P. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 3(4):222--238, December 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....[6] or transactions in active databases [7, 2] The concept of transaction closure enables us to model such advanced applications in a modular way. Transaction dependencies have been recognized as a valuable method in describing certain restrictions on the executions of sets of transactions [1, 12]. In [11] we have introduced different kinds of binary dependencies. We distinguished between termination, object visibility, and execution dependencies. However, there are application scenarios which cannot be modeled by only binary dependencies. This is due to the fact that in general n ary ....

P. C. Attie, M. P. Singh, E. A. Emerson, A. Sheth, M. Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling Workflows by Enforcing Intertask Dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering, 3(4):222--238, 1996.

....scheduling to accommodate processing entities that require some autonomy, can be tasked by other workflow managers, may break down, or have variable capabilities. For example, there has been some work on exploiting the dependencies between activities within the workflow task allocation problem (Attie et al. 1996). Enactment Control, Execution Monitoring, and Failure Recovery The workflow engine must maintain all the knowledge and internal control data to identify the states of each of the individually instantiated activities, transition conditions, connections among processes (for example, parent child ....

Attie, P.; Singh, M.; Emerson, E.; Sheth, A.; and Rusinkiewicz, M. 1996. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal 3.

....unit of a workflow have compatible serialization orders at all sites they access. A similar approach is proposed in [54] In this work, a set of activities are grouped into a consistency unit and traditional correctness techniques are used to provide serializable execution of this unit. In [9], workflows are treated as multidatabase transactions and a limited form of correctness is defined. The correctness criterion requires a consistent ordering on serialization events of activities belonging to a given workflow. In [47] a formal graph based workflow model (ADEPT) is presented. ....

P. A. Attie, M. P. Singh, E. Emerson, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz, Scheduling Workflows by Enforcing Intertask Dependencies, Dist. Sys. Engineering, 3(4): 222-238, Dec. 1996.

....be critical to accommodate processing entities that require some autonomy, can be tasked by other workflow managers, may break down, or have variable capabilities. For example, there has been some work on exploiting the dependencies between activities within the workflow task allocation problem [3]. Enactment Control, Execution Monitoring, and Failure Recovery The workflow engine must maintain all the knowledge and internal control data to identify the states of each of the individually instantiated activities, transition conditions, connections among processes (for example, parent child ....

P. Attie, M. Singh, E. Emerson, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 3, 1996.

....the lines of retrying the activity that failed, undoing the activities that previously succeeded (i.e. committed) or undoing some of the activities and then retrying the rest of the workflow. The Carnot Project developed a generic event scheduling approach based on branching time temporal logic [1]. This approach captures the skeletal behavior of individual tasks and transactions through significant events based on ACTA [6] Singh developed a related approach based on guard evaluations, which supported distributed execution [19] This approach has also been reimplemented in a more ....

Paul C. Attie, Munindar P. Singh, E. Allen Emerson, Amit Sheth, and Marek Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 3(4):222--238, December 1996.

No context found.

P.C. Attie, M.P. Singh, E.A. Emerson, A.P. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 3(4):222--238, December 1996.

No context found.

Attie, P. C.; Singh, M. P.; Emerson, E. ; Sheth, A.; Rusinkiewicz, M.: "Scheduling Workflows by Enforcing Intertask Dependencies ". Distributed Systems Engineering, 3(4) (1996), pp. 222-238.

No context found.

P. Attie, M. Singh, E.A. Emerson, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 3(4):222--238, December 1996.

No context found.

P. Attie, M. Singh, E.A. Emerson, A. Sheth, and M. Rusinkiewicz. Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies. Distributed Systems Engineering Journal, 3(4):222--238, December 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC