Laura Giordano
ABSTRACT
The verification of compliance of business processes to norms requires the representation of different kinds of obligations, including achievement obligations, maintenance obligations, obligations with deadlines and contrary to duty obligations. In this paper we develop a deontic temporal extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP) suitable for verifying compliance of a business process to norms involving such different types of obligations. To this end, we extend Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic (DLTL) with deontic modalities to define a Deontic DLTL. We then combine it with ASP to define a deontic action language in which until formulas and next formulas are allowed to occur within deontic modalities. We show that in the language we can model the different kinds of obligations which are useful in the verification of compliance to normative requirements. The verification can be performed by bounded model checking techniques.
- M. Alberti, M. Gavanelli, E. Lamma, P. Mello, P. Torroni, and G. Sartor. Mapping of Deontic Operators to Abductive Expectations. NORMAS, pages 126--136, 2005.Google Scholar
- G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M. J. Maher. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic, 2:255--287, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Baldoni, A. Martelli, V. Patti, and L. Giordano. Programming rational agents in a modal action logic. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 41(2-4), 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. M. Clarke, O. Strichman, and Y. Zhu. Bounded model checking. Advances in Computers, 58:118--149, 2003.Google Scholar
- J. Broersen. Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to atl, with an application to chisholm's scenario. In DEON 06, LNCS 4048, pages 53--68, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Broersen and J. Brunel. 'What I fail to do today, I have to do tomorrow': A logical study of the propagation of obligations. In CLIMA, LNCS 5056, pages 82--99, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. Broersen, F. Dignum, V. Dignum, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In DEON 04, LNCS 3065, pages 43--56, 2004.Google Scholar
- A. K. Chopra and M. P. Singh. Producing compliant interactions: Conformance, coverage and interoperability. DALT IV, LNCS(LNAI) 4327, pages 1--15, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. D'Aprile, L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, A. Martelli, G. L. Pozzato, and D. Theseider Dupré. Verifying business process compliance by reasoning about actions. In CLIMA XI, pages 99--116, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. P. Delgrande, T. Schaub, and H. Tompits. A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 3(2):129--187, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Demolombe and M. del Pilar Pozos Parra. A simple and tractable extension of situation calculus to epistemic logic. In ISMIS, pages 515--524, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Deutsch, R. Hull, F. Patrizi, and V. Vianu. Automatic verification of data-centric business processes. In ICDT, pages 252--267, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Dignum and R. Kuiper. Combining dynamic deontic logic and temporal logic for the specification of deadlines. In HICSS (5), pages 336--346, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Gelfond. Answer Sets. Handbook of Knowledge Representation, chapter 7, Elsevier, 2007.Google Scholar
- M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell., 2:193--210, 1998.Google Scholar
- A. Ghose and G. Koliadis. Auditing business process compliance. ICSOC, LNCS 4749, pages 169--180, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Tbox and abox reasoning in expressive description logics. In KR, pages 316--327, 1996.Google Scholar
- L. Giordano, A. Martelli, M. Spiotta, and D. Theseider Dupré. Business processes verification with temporal ASP: from process annotations to data awareness. In Proc. KIBP 2012.Google Scholar
- L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and D. Theseider Dupré. Reasoning about actions with temporal answer sets. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 13:201--225, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Governatori. Law, logic and business processes. In Third International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law. IEEE, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Governatori, J. Hulstijn, R. Riveret, and A. Rotolo. Characterising deadlines in temporal modal defeasible logic. In Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, LNCS 4830, pages 486--496, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Governatori and A. Rotolo. Logic of Violations: A Gentzen System for Reasoning with Contrary-To-Duty Obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic, 4:193--215, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Governatori and S. Sadiq. The journey to business process compliance. Handbook of Research on BPM, IGI Global, pages 426--454, 2009.Google Scholar
- D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, pages 497--604, 1984.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Heljanko and I. Niemelä. Bounded LTL model checking with stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 3(4-5):519--550, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. G. Henriksen and P. S. Thiagarajan. Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic. Annals of Pure and Applied logic, 96(1-3):187--207, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Hoffmann, I. Weber, and G. Governatori. On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models. Information Systems Frontieres, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Knuplesch, L. T. Ly, S. Rinderle-Ma, H. Pfeifer, and P. Dadam. On enabling data-aware compliance checking of business process models. In Proc. ER 2010, 29th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pages 332--346, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Lomuscio and M. J. Sergot. Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica, 75(1):63--92, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Lutz, F. Wolter, and Michael Zakharyaschev. Temporal description logics: A survey. In TIME, pages 3--14, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Montali, P. Torroni, F. Chesani, P. Mello, M. Alberti, and E. Lamma. Abductive logic programming as an effective technology for the static verification of declarative business processes. Fundamenta Informaticae, 102(3-4):325--361, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Palacios and H. Geffner. Compiling uncertainty away: Solving conformant planning problems using a classical planner (sometimes). In AAAI, pages 900--905, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Pesic and W. M. P. van der Aalst. A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Business Process Management Workshops, LNCS 4103, pages 169--180. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. 1997.Google Scholar
- Klaus Schild. Combining terminological logics with tense logic. In EPIA, pages 105--120, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. P. Singh. A social semantics for Agent Communication Languages. Issues in Agent Communication, LNCS(LNAI) 1916, pages 31--45, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. van der Torre. Causal deontic logic. In Deon'2000, 2000.Google Scholar
- M. Venkatraman and M. P. Singh. Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3), 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. von Wright. Deontic logic. Mind, 60:1--15, 1951.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Weber, J. Hoffmann, and J. Mendling. Beyond soundness: On the verification of semantic business process models. Distributed and Parallel Databases (DAPD), 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Temporal deontic action logic for the verification of compliance to norms in ASP
Recommendations
A Neutral Temporal Deontic STIT Logic
Logic, Rationality, and InteractionAbstractIn this work we answer a long standing request for temporal embeddings of deontic STIT logics by introducing the multi-agent STIT logic . The logic is based upon atemporal utilitarian STIT logic. Yet, the logic presented here will be neutral: ...
Security policy compliance with violation management
FMSE '07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Formal methods in security engineeringA security policy of an information system is a set of security requirements that correspond to permissions, prohibitions and obligations to execute some actions when some contextual conditions are satisfied. Traditional approaches consider that the ...
Towards an Intuitionistic Deontic Logic Tolerating Conflicting Obligations
Logic, Language, Information, and ComputationAbstractWe propose a minimal deontic logic, called MIND, based on intuitionistic logic. This logic gives a very simple solution to handling conflicting obligations: the presence of two conflicting obligations does not entail the triviality of the set of ...
Comments