Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Verifying Business Process Compliance by Reasoning about Actions

  • Conference paper
Book cover Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6245))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper we address the problem of verifying business process compliance with norms. To this end, we employ reasoning about actions in a temporal action theory. The action theory is defined through a combination of Answer Set Programming and Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic (DLTL). The temporal action theory allows us to formalize a business process as a temporal domain description, possibly including temporal constraints. Obligations in norms are captured by the notion of commitment, which is borrowed from the social approach to agent communication. Norms are represented using (possibly) non monotonic causal laws which (possibly) enforce new obligations. In this context, verifying compliance amounts to verify that no execution of the business process leaves some commitment unfulfilled. Compliance verification can be performed by Bounded Model Checking.

This work has been partially supported by Regione Piemonte, Project “ICT4LAW - ICT Converging on Law: Next Generation Services for Citizens, Enterprises, Public Administration and Policymakers”.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Specification and Verification of Agent Interaction Protocols in a Logic-based System. In: SAC 2004, pp. 72–78 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P., Sartor, G.: Mapping of Deontic Operators to Abductive Expectations. In: NORMAS, pp. 126–136 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic 2, 255–287 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Strichman, O., Zhu, Y.: Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers 58, 118–149 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109(1-2), 297–356 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Chopra, A.K., Sing, M.P.: Producing compliant interactions: Conformance, coverage and interoperability. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U. (eds.) DALT 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4327, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(2), 129–187 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: Planning under Incomplete Knowledge. In: Computational Logic, pp. 807–821 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining Interaction Protocols using a Commitment-based Agent Communication Language. In: AAMAS 2003, pp. 520–527 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M.: Answer Sets. In: Handbook of Knowledge Representation, ch. 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ghose, A., Koliadis, G.: Auditing business process compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Giblin, C., Müller, S., Pfitzmann, B.: From Regulatory Policies to Event Monitoring Rules: Towards Model-Driven Compliance Automation. IBM Reasearch Report (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Theseider Dupré, D.: Reasoning about Actions with Temporal Answer Sets. In: Proc. CILC 2010, 25th Italian Conference on Computational Logic (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Schwind, C.: Reasoning About Actions in Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic. The Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 289–303 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Schwind, C.: Specifying and Verifying Interaction Protocols in a Temporal Action Logic. Journal of Applied Logic (Special issue on Logic Based Agent Verification) 5, 214–234 (2007)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Logic of Violations: A Gentzen System for Reasoning with Contrary-To-Duty Obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic 4, 193–215 (2006)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Guerin, F., Pitt, J.: Verification and Compliance Testing. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Bounded LTL model checking with stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4-5), 519–550 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Henriksen, J.G., Thiagarajan, P.S.: Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic. Annals of Pure and Applied logic 96(1-3), 187–207 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Jennings, N.R.: Commitments and Conventions: the foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The knowledge engineering review 8(3), 233–250 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kartha, G.N., Lifschitz, V.: Actions with Indirect Effects (Preliminary Report). In: KR 1994, pp. 341–350 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lifschitz, V.: Frames in the Space of Situations. Artif. Intellig. 46, 365–376 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for Agent Communication Languages. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1916, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.: Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Sidorova, N., Verbeek, H.M.W., Voorhoeve, M., Wynn, M.T.: Soundness of Workflow Nets: Classification, Decidability, and Analysiss. BPM Center Report BPM-08-02, BPMcenter.org (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weber, I., Hoffmann, J., Mendling, J.: Beyond soundness: On the verification of semantic business process models. Distributed and Parallel Databases 27(3), 271–343 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible Protocol Specification and Execution: Applying Event Calculus Planning using Commitments. In: AAMAS 2002, pp. 527–534 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università del Piemonte Orientale,  

    Davide D’Aprile, Laura Giordano & Daniele Theseider Dupré

  2. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino,  

    Valentina Gliozzi, Alberto Martelli & Gian Luca Pozzato

Authors
  1. Davide D’Aprile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Giordano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valentina Gliozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alberto Martelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gian Luca Pozzato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniele Theseider Dupré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clausthal University of Technology, Julius-Albert-Str. 4, 38678, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany

    Jürgen Dix

  2. Departamento de Informática, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências de Tecnologia, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

    João Leite

  3. NICTA,, P.O. Box 6030, 4067, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    Guido Governatori

  4. University of Luxembourg, Campus Kirchberg, 6, rue, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, 1359, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Wojtek Jamroga

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

D’Aprile, D., Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Martelli, A., Pozzato, G.L., Theseider Dupré, D. (2010). Verifying Business Process Compliance by Reasoning about Actions. In: Dix, J., Leite, J., Governatori, G., Jamroga, W. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6245. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14977-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14977-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14976-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14977-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation