Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utilizing deontic operators in information systems specification

  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One major task in requirements specification is to capture the rules relevant to the problem at hand. Declarative, rule-based approaches have been suggested by many researchers in the field. However, when it comes to modeling large systems of rules, not only for the behavior of the computer system but also for the organizational environment surrounding it, current approaches have problems with limited expressiveness, flexibility, and poor comprehensibility. Hence, rule-based approaches may benefit from improvements in two directions: (1) improvement of the rule languages themselves and (2) better integration with other, complementary modeling approaches.

In this article, both issues are addressed in an integrated manner. The proposal is presented in the context of the Tempora project on rule-based information systems development, but has also been integrated with PPP. Tempora has provided a rule language based on an executable temporal logic working on top of a temporal database. The rule language is integrated with static (ER-like) and dynamic (SA/RT-like) modeling approaches. In the current proposal, the integration with complementary modeling approaches is extended by including organization modeling (actors, roles), and the expressiveness of the rule language is increased by introducing deontic operators and rule hierarchies. The main contribution of the article is not seen as any one of the above-mentioned extensions, but as the resulting comprehensive modeling support. The approach is illustrated by examples taken from an industrial case study done in connection with Tempora.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

⊂:

Subset of set

⊄:

Not subset of set

∈:

Element of set

≢:

Not element of set

≡:

Equivalent to

≢:

Not equivalent to

¬:

Negation

∧:

Logical and

∨:

Logical or

→:

Implication

⧫:

Sometime in past

◊:

Sometime in future

▪:

Always in past

□:

Always in future

•:

Just before

◯:

Just after

u :

Until

s :

Since

τ:

Trigger

ϕ:

Condition

φ s :

State condition

ψ:

Consequence

ψ a :

Action

ψ s :

State

ρ:

Role

α:

Actor

ε:

¬•τ∧τ∧ϕ

∇:

General deontic operator

O :

Obligatory

R :

Recommended

P :

Permitted

D :

Discouraged

F :

Forbidden

▽ρ(ψ/−●τ⋀τ⋀φ):

General rule

t R :

Real time

t M :

Model time

References

  1. Gustafsson MR, Karlsson T, Bubenko JA Jr. A declarative approach to conceptual information modelling. In: Olle TW, Sol HG, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds).Information systems design methodologies: A comparative review. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp 93–142

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hagelstein J. A declarative approach to information systems requirements.Knowledge Based Syst 1988; 1(4): 211–220

    Google Scholar 

  3. Olivé A. A comparison of the operational and deductive approaches to conceptual information systems modelling. In: Kugler HJ (ed).Information processing '86. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  4. van Assche F, Layzell P, Loucopoulos P, Speltincx G. Information systems development: A rule-based approach.Knowledge Based Syst 1988; 1(4) 227–234

    Google Scholar 

  5. Loucopoulos P, McBrien P, Schumacker F, Theodoulidis B, Kopanas V, Wangler B. Integrating database technology, rule-based systems and temporal reasoning for effective information systems: The TEMPORA paradigm.J Inform Syst 1991; 1: 129–152

    Google Scholar 

  6. Seltveit AH.Complexity reduction in information systems modelling. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sartor G. The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law. In:Proceedings of third international conference on artificial intelligence and law, June 1991, 155–164

  8. Wieringa RJ, Meyer J-JC, Weigand H. Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints.Data Knowledge Eng 1989; 4: 157–189

    Google Scholar 

  9. Li X. What's so bad about rule-based programming?IEEE Software 1991; 8(5): 103, 105

    Google Scholar 

  10. Philip CG. Guidelines on improving the maintainability and consultation of rule-based expert systems.Expert Syst Applic 1993; 6(2): 169–179

    Google Scholar 

  11. Watson I, Basden A, Brandon P. The client-centered approach: Expert systems maintenance.Expert Systems 1992; 9(4): 189–196

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yoon Y, Guimaraes T. Selecting expert systems development techniques.Inform Manage 1993; 24(4): 209–223

    Google Scholar 

  13. McBrien P, Niezette M, Pantazis D, et al. A rule language to capture and model business policy specifications. In Andersen et al. [96],Proceedings of the third international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'91), Trondheim, Norway, May 1991. Springer-Verlag, Berlin pp 307–318

  14. Von Wright GH. Deontic logic.Mind 1951; 60: 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  15. Thomason RH. Deontic logic as founded in tense logic. In: Hilpinen R (ed).Deontic logic: Introductory and systematic readings. Reidel, 1971, pp. 165–176

  16. Brown MA, Carmo J (eds).Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin

  17. Horty JF. Combining agency and obligation. In: Brown and Carmo [16],Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international work-shop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin, pp 98–122

  18. Meyer J-JC. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic.J Formal Logic 1988; 29(1): 109–136

    Google Scholar 

  19. Alchourrón CA and Makinson D. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In: Hilpinen R (ed).New studies in deontic logic. Reidel, 1981, pp 125–148

  20. Royakkers L, Dignum F. Defeasible reasoning with legal rules. In: Brown and Carmo [16],Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin, pp 174–193

  21. Artosi A, Governatori G, Sartor G. Towards a computational treatment of deontic defeasibility. In: Brown and Carmo [16],Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin pp 27–46

  22. Brown MA. A logic of comparative obligation. In: Jones and Sergot [34],DEON'94: Second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6–8 January 1994. TANO pp 37–55

  23. Prakken, H. Reasoning with normative hierarchies. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  24. Tan Y-H, van der Torre LWN. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In: Brown and Carmo [16],Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin pp 216–232

  25. Asher N, Bonevac D. Prima facie obligations. In: Jones and Sergot [34]DEON'94: Second, international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6–8 January 1994. TANO, pp 19–36

  26. Horty JF. Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  27. Prakken H. Two approaches to defeasible reasoning. In: Jones and Sergot [34]DEON'94: Second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6–8 January 1994. TANO, pp 281–295

  28. Jones AJI. Towards a formal theory of defeasible deontic conditionals.Ann Math Arti Intell 1993

  29. Jones AJI, Pörn I. “Ought” and “must”.Synthese 1986; 66: 89–93

    Google Scholar 

  30. McNamara P. Doing well enough: Toward a logic of common sense morality. In: Jones and Sergot [34]DEON'94: Second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6–8 January 1994. TANO, pp 165–197

  31. Krogh C, Herrestad H. Getting personal: Some notes on the relationship between personal and impersonal obligation. In: Brown and Carmo [16]Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin, pp 134–153

  32. Stamper R. LEGOL: Modelling legal rules by computers. In: Niblett B (ed)Computer science and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980, pp 45–71

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jones AJI, Sergot M. On the characterisation of law and computer systems: The normative systems perspective. In: Meyer J-JC, Wieringa RJ (eds).Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Wiley, Chichester, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jones AJI, Sergot M (eds).DEON'94: Second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6–8 January 1994. TANO

  35. Meyer J-JC, Wieringa RJ (eds).DEON'91: First internation workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  36. Tempora final review. Technical report, Tempora Consortium, 1994

  37. The Sweden Post case study. Technical report, TEMPORA Consortium, 1991

  38. McBrien P, Seltveit AH, Wangler B. An entity-relationship model extended to describe historical information. In:Proceedings of CISMOD'92, Bangalore, India, July 1992

  39. Gulla JA, Lindland OI, Willumsen G. PPP: An integrated CASE environment. In: Andersen et al. [96]Proceedings of the third international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'91), Trondheim, Norway, May 1991. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 194–221

  40. Krogstie J, McBrien P, Owens R, Seltveit AH. Information systems development using a combination of process and rule based approaches. In: Andersen et al. [96]Proceedings of the third international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'91), Trondheim, Norway, May 1991. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 319–335

  41. McBrien P, Seltveit AH. Coupling process models and business rules. In: Sølvberg A, Krogstie J, Seltveit AH (eds).Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 WC on information systems for decentralized organizations (ISDO'95), Trondheim, Norway, 21–23 August 1995. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 201–217

  42. Seltveit AH. An abstraction-based rule approach to largescale information systems development. In: Rolland et al. [97]Proceedings of the 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 328–351

  43. Krogstie J, Sindre G. Extending a temporal rule language with deontic operators. In:Proceedings from the 6th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE'94), 21–23 June 1994. IEEE, Washington, DC, pp 21–23

  44. Jones AJI, Pörn I. Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic.Synthese 1985; 65: 275–290

    Google Scholar 

  45. Maibaum TSE. Temporal reasoning over deontic specifications. In: Meyer JJC, Wieringa RJ (eds).Deontic logic in computer science: Normative systems specifications. Wiley, Chichester, 1993, pp 141–202

    Google Scholar 

  46. Antón AL, McCracken WM, Potts C. Goal decomposition and scenario analysis in business process reengineering. In: Wijers G, Brinkkemper S, Wasserman T (eds).Proceedings of the 6th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'94), Utrecht, Netherlands, 6–10 June 1994. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 94–104

  47. Conklin J, Begeman MJ. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion.ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 1988; 6(4): 303–331

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ramesh, B, Edwards M. Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering.IEEE Trans Software Eng 1992; 18(6): 498–510

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rittel H. On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations.Bedriftsøkonomen 1972; 34(8)

  50. Krogstie J. Goal-oriented modeling of information systems. In:Proceedings of the seventh international conference on computing and information (ICCI'95), Peterborough, Canada, 5–8 July 1995

  51. Krogstie J.Conceptual modeling for computerized information systems support in organizations. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 21 November 1995

    Google Scholar 

  52. Auramäki E, Hirschheim R, Lyytinen K. Modelling offices throughout discourse analysis: The SAMPO approach.Comput J 1992; 35(4): 342–352

    Google Scholar 

  53. Dietz J. Integrating management of human and computer resources in task processing organizations: A conceptual view. In: Nunamaker and Sprague [98]Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICCS'27), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 4–7 January 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC pp 723–733

  54. Dubois E, Du Bois P, Petit M. ALBERT: An agentoriented language for building and elicitating requirements for real-time systems. In: Nunamaker and Sprague [98]Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICCS'27), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 4–7 January 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC, Vol 4, 713–722

  55. Reenskaug T, Andersen EP, Berre AJ et al. OORASS: Seamless support for the creation and maintenance of object oriented systems.Object Oriented Program October 1992

  56. Krogstie J, Carlsen S. An integrated modelling approach for process support. In: Nunamaker JF, Sprague RH (eds).Proceedings of the thirtieth annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS'30), Vol 2, 1997, pp 189–198

  57. Davis AM.Software requirements analysis and specification. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kopanas V. The rule execution algorithm. Technical report E2469/UMIST/4.1/11, UMIST, Manchester UK, 6 May 1990

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lo TL. The house of quality and service management.CMG Trans 1994; Fall: 39–46

  60. Zultner RE. Quality function deployment (QFD) for software: Structured requirements exploration. In: Schulmeyer GG, McManus JI (eds).Total quality management for software. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992

  61. Jones AJI. Deontic logic and legal knowledge representation.Ratio Juris, 1990

  62. Feather MS. An implementation of bounded obligations. In:Proceedings of the eighth knowledge-based software engineering conference (KBSE'93), Chicago, USA, 20–23 September 1993, pp 114–122

  63. Kent SJH, Maibaum TSE, Quirk WJ. Formally specifying temporal constraints and error recovery. In:Proceedings of the IEE international symposium on requirements engineering, San Diego, USA, 4–6 January 1993, pp 208–215

  64. Minsky NH, Lockman A. Extending authorization by adding obligations to permissions. Technical report, Computer Science Laboratory, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Canada, January 1985

    Google Scholar 

  65. Krogstie J, Lindland OI, Sindre G. Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering. In: Iivari J, Lyytinen K, Rossi M (eds).Proceedings of the 7th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'95), Jyväskylä, Finland, 12–16 June 1995. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 82–95

  66. TEMPORA Consortium.Tempora Project Manual, August 1992

  67. Costello RJ, Liu D-B. Metrics for requirements engineering.J Syst Software 1995; 29(1): 39–63

    Google Scholar 

  68. Vestli M, Nordbø I, Sølvberg A. Modeling control in rulebased systems.IEEE Software 1994; March: pp 77–81

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sølvberg A, Kung CH. Activity modelling and behaviour modelling. In: Olle TW, Sol HG, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds).Information systems design methodologies: Improving the practice. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tsalgatidou A, Loucopoulos P. An object-oriented rulebased approach to the dynamic modelling of information systems. In: Sol HG, van Hee KM (eds).Dynamic modelling of information systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam 1991

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ming LW. Object-oriented rule based approach to enhance software maintenance: An implementation. In:Software engineering: New technologies and business payoffs, Proceedings of the SCS Silver Jubilee Conference. Singapore Computer Society, October 1992

  72. Yu ESK, Mylopoulos J. Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering. In: Nunamaker and Sprague [98]Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICCS'27), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 4–7 January 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC, pp 234–243

  73. Carmo J, Jones A. Deontic database constraints and the characterisation of recovery. In: Jones and Sergot [34]DEON'94: Second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Oslo, Norway, 6–8 January 1994. TANO, pp 56–85

  74. Lee RM. Bureaucraties and deontic systems.ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 1988; 6(2) 87–108

    Google Scholar 

  75. Allen LE, Saxon CS. A-Hohfeld: A language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam pp 52–71

  76. Allen LE. From the fundamental legal conceptions of Hohfeld to legal relations: Refining the enrichment of solely deontic legal relations. In Brown and Carmo [16]Deontic logic, agency and normative systems. DEON'96: Third international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 11–13 January 1996. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–26

  77. Herrestad H, Krogh C. Obligations directed from bearers to counterparties. In:Proceedings from the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, University of Maryland, USA, 21–24 May 1995. ACM Press, 1995, pp 210–218

  78. McCarty LT. A language for legal discourse: Basic features. In:The second international conference on artificial intelligence and Law, 25–28 June 1989, pp 180–189

  79. Lee RM. A logic model for electronic contracting.Decision Support Syst 1988; 4: 27–44

    Google Scholar 

  80. Bieber P, Cuppens F. Computer security policies and deontic logic. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, pp 51–71

  81. Dignum F, Kemme T, Kreuzen W, Weigand R, van de Riet RP. Constraint modelling using a conceptual prototyping language.Data Knowledge Eng 1987; (2): 213–254

  82. Willars H.Handbok i ABS-metoden (in Swedish). Plandata Strategi, 1988

  83. Pohl K, Haumer P. Hydra: A hypertext model for structuring informal requirements representations. In: Peters P, Pohl K (eds).REFSQ'95, 1995

  84. Feather MS. Requirement reconnoitering at the juncture of domain and instance. In:Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'93), San Diego, USA. 4–6 January 1993, pp 73–76

  85. Chung L. Dealing with security requirements during the development of information systems. In: Rolland et al. [97]Proceedings of the 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 234–251

  86. Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B. Representing and using non-functional requirements: A process-oriented approach.IEEE Trans Software Eng 1992; 18(6): 483–497

    Google Scholar 

  87. Darimont R, van Lamsweerde A. Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. In: Garlan D (ed).Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering (SIGSOFT'96), San Francisco, USA, 16–18 October 1996, pp 47–65

  88. Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM. Bridging the requirements gap: Policies, goals and domains. In:Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on software specification and design (IWSSD-7), Redondo Beach, USA, 6–7 December 1993, pp 52–55

  89. Easterbrook, S. Domain modelling with hierarchies of alternative viewpoints. In:Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE'93), San Diego, USA, 4–6 January 1993, pp 65–72

  90. Chandrasekaran B, Goel AK, Iwasaki Y. Functional representation as design rationale.IEEE Comput 1993; 26(1): 48–56

    Google Scholar 

  91. Gotel OCZ, Finkelstein A. An analysis of the requirements tracability problem. In:Proceedings of the first international conference on requirements engineering (ICRE'94), Colorado Springs, USA, 18–22 April 1994. IEEE, Washington, DC, pp 94–101

  92. Moffett JD. Distributed systems management policies: An application for deontic logic? In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, pp 281–293

  93. Wieringa RJ, Meyer J-JC. Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. In: Meyer and Wieringa [35]DEON'91: First international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam, Holland, 11–13 December, 1991. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, pp 15–41

  94. Ryu YU. Conditional deontic logic augmented with defeasible reasoning.Data Knowledge Eng 1995; 16(1): pp 73–91

    Google Scholar 

  95. Lindland OI, Krogstie J. Validating conceptual models by transformational prototyping. In: Rolland et al. [97]Proceedings of the 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 165–183

  96. Andersen R, Bubenko JA Jr, Sølvberg A (eds).Proceedings of the third international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'91), Trondheim, Norway, May 1991. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

  97. Rolland C, Bodart F, Cauvet C (eds).Proceedings of the 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

  98. Nunamaker JF, Sprague RH (eds).Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICCS'27), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 4–7 January 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC

  99. Schumacker F. Towards an execution mechanism for TEMPORA. Technical Report E2469/ULG/T3.2/1/2, ULG, Liége, Belgium, 15 March 1990

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Andersen Consulting, Skoyen, Box 228, N-0212, Oslo, Norway

    John Krogstie

  2. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Guttorm Sindre

Authors
  1. John Krogstie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guttorm Sindre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Krogstie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krogstie, J., Sindre, G. Utilizing deontic operators in information systems specification. Requirements Eng 1, 210–237 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01587101

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01587101

Keywords

Search

Navigation