skip to main content
10.1145/2514601.2514605acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Managing legal interpretation in regulatory compliance

Published:10 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Maintaining regulatory compliance is an increasing area of concern for business. Legal Knowledge Management systems that combine repositories of legislation with legal ontologies can support the work of in-house compliance managers. But there are challenges to overcome, of interpreting legal knowledge and mapping that knowledge onto business processes, and developing systems that can adequately handle the complexity with clarity and ease. In this paper we extend the Legal Knowledge Management system Eunomos to deal with alternative interpretations of norms connecting it with Business Process Management systems. Moreover, we propose a workflow involving the different roles in a company, which takes legal interpretation into account in mapping norms and processes, using Eunomos as a support.

References

  1. Gianmaria Ajani, Guido Boella, Leonardo Lesmo, Marco Martin, Alessandro Mazzei, Daniele P. Radicioni, and Piercarlo Rossi. Multilevel legal ontologies. In Enrico Francesconi, Simonetta Montemagni, Wim Peters, and Daniela Tiscornia, editors, Semantic Processing of Legal Texts, pages 136--154. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ahmed Awad, Gero Decker, and Mathias Weske. Efficient compliance checking using bpmn-q and temporal logic. In Marlon Dumas, Manfred Reichert, and Ming-Chien Shan, editors, Business Process Management, volume 5240 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 326--341. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Imran Sarwar Bajwa, Mark G. Lee, and Behzad Bordbar. SBVR business rules generation from natural language specification. In Artificial Intelligence for Busienss Agility: Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium Series, pages 541--545, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Guido Boella, Llio Humphreys, Marco Martin, Piercarlo Rossi, and Leendert van der Torre. Eunomos, a legal document management system based on legislative xml and ontologies. In Legal Applications of Human Language Technology (AHLTL) at ICAIL'11, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Guido Boella, Llio Humphreys, Marco Martin, Piercarlo Rossi, Andrea Violato, and Leendert van der Torre. Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for regulatory compliance. In Information Systems: Crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering (ITAIS11), pages 571--578. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brigitte Burgemeestre, Joris Hulstijn, and Yao-Hua Tan. Rule-based versus principle-based regulatory compliance. In G. Governatori, editor, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (JURIX 2009), pages 37--46. IOS Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Brigitte Burgemeestre, Joris Hulstijn, and Yao-Hua Tan. Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(2-3):149--186, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Luigi Di Caro, K. Selçuk Candan, and Maria Luisa Sapino. Navigating within news collections using tag-flakes. J. Vis. Lang. Comput., 22(2):120--139, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. COSO. Enterprise risk management - integrated framework. Technical report, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ken Doughty. The three lines of defence related to risk governance. ISACA Journal, 5, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ronald Dworkin. Taking Rights Seriously. Duckworth, London, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marwane El Kharbili, Qin Ma, Pierre Kelsen, and Elke Pulvermueller. Corel: Policy-based and model-driven regulatory compliance management. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), 2011 15th IEEE International, pages 247--256. IEEE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Welmoed Fokkema and Joris Hulstijn. Process compliance in public information chains. In Proceedings of The Tenth Conference on Electronic Government (EGOV 2011), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Stijn Goedertier, Raf Haesen, and Jan Vanthienen. Rule-based business process modelling and enactment. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management, 3(3):194--207, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Yiwei Gong and Marijn Janssen. From policy implementation to business process management: Principles for creating flexibility and agility. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1):S61S71, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Guido Governatori and Shazia Sadiq. The journey to business process compliance, pages 426--445. IGI Global, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jana Koehler. The process-rule continuum: Can BPMN & SBVR cope with the challenge? In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC'2011). IEEE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ruopeng Lu, Shazia Sadiq, and Guido Governatori. Measurement of compliance distance in business work practice. Information Systems Management, 25(4):344--355, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Michael Power. Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford University Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):331--368, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Piercarlo Rossi and Christian Vogel. Terms and concepts; towards a syllabus for european private law. European Review of Private Law (ERPL), 12(2):293--300, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Anne Rozinat and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Inf. Syst., 33(1):64--95, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. David Schumm, editor. Compliance-driven Models, Languages, and Architectures for Services (COMPAS): Achievements and Lessons Learned. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeroen van Grondelle, Ronald Heller, Emiel van Haandel, and Tim Verburg. Involving business users in formal modeling using natural language pattern sentences. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Knowledge engineering and management by the masses, EKAW'10, pages 31--43, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Douglas Walton. Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1--24. Springer, Berlin, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. Managing legal interpretation in regulatory compliance

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICAIL '13: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
        June 2013
        277 pages
        ISBN:9781450320801
        DOI:10.1145/2514601
        • Conference Chair:
        • Enrico Francesconi,
        • Program Chair:
        • Bart Verheij

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 10 June 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        ICAIL '13 Paper Acceptance Rate17of53submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate69of169submissions,41%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader