Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:46:32.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enabling reasoning with LegalRuleML

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2018

HO-PUN LAM  and
MUSTAFA HASHMI
HO-PUN LAM
Affiliation:
Data61, CSIRO, Sydney, NSW, Australia (e-mail: brian.lam@data61.csiro.au)
MUSTAFA HASHMI
Affiliation:
Data61, CSIRO, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (e-mail: mustafa.hashmi@data61.csiro.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to automate verification process, regulatory rules written in natural language need to be translated into a format that machines can understand. However, none of the existing formalisms can fully represent the elements that appear in legal norms. For instance, most of these formalisms do not provide features to capture the behavior of deontic effects, which is an important aspect in automated compliance checking. This paper presents an approach for transforming legal norms represented using legalruleml to a variant of modal defeasible logic (and vice versa) such that a legal statement represented using LegalRuleML can be transformed into a machine-readable format that can be understood and reasoned about depending upon the client's preferences.

Keywords

Deontic logicmodal defeasible logiclegal reasoningLegalRuleMLbusiness contracts
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 10th International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML 2016), J. J. Alferes, L. Bertossi, G. Governatori, P. Fodor and J. Hall, Eds, Springer, 2016, pp. 241–257.

References

Antoniou, G. 2004. A discussion of some intuitions of defeasible reasoning. In Proc. of the 3rd Hellenic Conference on AI: Methods and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vouros, G. A. and Panayiotopoulos, T., Eds. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Samos, Greece, 311–320.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G. and Bikakis, A. 2007. DR-Prolog: A system for defeasible reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19, 2, 233–245.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2000. A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In Proc. of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Austin, Texas, USA, 405–410.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2001. Representation Results for Defeasible Logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 2, 255–286.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G., Dimaresis, N. and Governatori, G. 2009. A modal and deontic defeasible reasoning system for modelling policies and multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2, 4125–4134.Google Scholar
Athan, T., Boley, H., Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Paschke, A. and Wyner, A. 2013. OASIS LegalRuleML. In Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, Rome, Italy, 3–12.Google Scholar
Athan, T., Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Paschke, A. and Wyner, A. 2015. LegalRuleML: Design principles and foundations. In Proc. of the 11th Reasoning Web Summer School, Faber, W. and Paschke, A., Eds. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 151–188.Google Scholar
Baget, J., Gutierrez, A., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M., Rocher, S. and Sipieter, C. 2015. Datalog+, RuleML and OWL 2: Formats and translations for existential rules. In Proc. of the RuleML 2015 Challenge, Bassiliades, N., Fodor, P., Giurca, A., Gottlob, G., Kliegr, T., Nalepa, G. J., Palmirani, M., Paschke, A., Proctor, M., Roman, D., Sadri, F., and Stojanovic, N., Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G. and Vlahavas, I. 2004. DR-DEVICE: A defeasible logic system for the semantic web. In Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Ohlbach, H. J. and Schaffert, S., Eds. Springer-Verlag, St Malo, France, 134–148.Google Scholar
Bos, J. 2008. Wide-coverage semantic analysis with boxer. In Proc. of the 2008 Conference on Semantics in Text Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 277–286.Google Scholar
Calì, A., Gottlob, G. and Lukasiewicz, T. 2012. A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 14, 57–83.Google Scholar
Carmo, J. and Jones, A. J. I. 2002. Deontic logic and contrary-to-uties. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed., Vol. 8, Gabbay, D. and Guentner, F., Eds. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 265–343.Google Scholar
Deagustini, C. A., Martinez, M. V., Falappa, M. A. and Simari, G. R. 2015. On the Influence of incoherence in inconsistency-tolerant semantics for datalog±. In Proc. of the Joint Ontology Workshops, Papini, O., Benferhat, S., Garcia, L., Mugnier, M.-L., Fermé, E., Meyer, T., Wassermann, R., Baclawski, K., Krisnadhi, A., Klinov, P., Borgo, S., Kutz, O., and Porello, D., Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
ESTRELLA Project. 2008. The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF). Deliverable 4.1, European Commission.Google Scholar
Farrell, A. D. H., Sergot, M. J., Salle, M., Bartolini, C., Trastour, D. and Christodoulou, A. 2004. Performance monitoring of service-level agreements for utility computing using the event calculus. In Proc. of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting. San Diego, CA, USA, 17–24.Google Scholar
Goedertier, S. and Vanthienen, J. 2006. Designing compliant business processes with obligations and permissions. In Business Process Management Workshops, Eder, J. and Dustdar, S., Eds. Springer, Heidelberg, Vienna, Austria, 5–14.Google Scholar
Gordon, T. F., Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2009. Rules and norms: Requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. In Proc. of the 2009 International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 282–296.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. 2005. Representing business contracts in RuleML. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14, 2–3, 181–216.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Hashmi, M., Lam, H.-P., Villata, S. and Palmirani, M. 2016. Semantic business process regulatory compliance checking using LegalRuleML. In Proc. of the 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Blomqvist, E. and Vitali, F., Eds. Springer, Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Maher, M. J., Antoniou, G. and Billington, D. 2004. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14, 5, 675–702.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Milosevic, Z. 2005. Dealing with contract violations: Formalism and domain specific language. In Proc. of the 9th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference. IEEE Computer Society, Enschede, the Netherlands, 46–57.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S. and Cristani, M. 2011. Designing for compliance: Norms and goals. In Proc. of the 5th International Symposium on Rule-Based Modeling and Computing on the Semantic Web, Olken, F., Palmirani, M., and Sottara, D., Eds. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 282–297.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2004. Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation. In Proc. of the 7th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Lomuscio, A. and Nute, D., Eds. Springer-Verlag, Madeira, Portugal, 114–128.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2006. Logic of violations: A gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic 4, 193–215.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2008a. A computational framework for institutional agency. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16, 1, 25–52.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2008b. BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17, 1, 36–69.Google Scholar
Grosof, B. and Poon, T. C. 2012. SweetDeal: Representing agent contracts with exceptions using XML rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. In the 12th International World Wide Web Conference. ACM, Budapest, Hungary, 340–349.Google Scholar
Grosof, B. N. 2004. Representing e-commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3, 1, 2–20.Google Scholar
Hashmi, M. and Governatori, G. 2017. Norms modeling constructs of business process compliance management frameworks: A conceptual evaluation. Artificial Intelligence and Law. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9215-8 [in print].Google Scholar
Hashmi, M., Governatori, G. and Wynn, M. T. 2016. Normative requirements for regulatory compliance: An abstract formal framework. Information Systems Frontiers 18, 3, 429–455.Google Scholar
Hecham, A., Croitoru, M. and Bisquert, P. 2017. Argumentation-based defeasible reasoning for existential rules. In Proc. of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Larson, K., Winikoff, M., Das, S. and Durfee, E. H., Eds. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Sã Paulo, Brazil, 1568–1569.Google Scholar
Herrestad, H. 1991. Norms and Formalization. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, Oxford, England, 175–184.Google Scholar
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B. and Dean, M. 2004. SWRL: A semantic web rule language. URL: https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Kamada, A., Governatori, G. and Sadiq, S. 2010. Transformation of SBVR compliant business rules to executable FCL rules. In Rule-Based Modeling and Computing on the Semantic Web, Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A. and Tabet, S., Eds. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Washington, DC, USA, 153–161.Google Scholar
Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G. and Antoniou, G. 2011. A modal defeasible reasoner of deontic logic for the semantic web. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 7, 1, 18–43.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P. 2014. SPINdle User Guide. CSIRO, Australia. Accessed 15 March 2018. URL: http://spindle.data61.csiro.au/spindle/documentation.html.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P. and Governatori, G. 2009. The making of SPINdle. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications, Paschke, A., Governatori, G. and Hall, J., Eds. Springer-Verlag, Las Vegas, Nevada, 315–322.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P. and Governatori, G. 2011. What are the necessity rules in defeasible reasoning? In Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 187–192.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P. and Governatori, G. 2013. Towards a model of UAVs navigation in urban canyon through Defeasible Logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 23, 2, 373–395.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G. and Riveret, R. 2016. On ASPIC+ and defeasible logic. In Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Baroni, P., Gordon, T. F., Scheffler, T. and Stede, M., Eds. IOS Press, Potsdam, Germany, 359–370.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P., Hashmi, M. and Scofield, B. 2016. Enabling reasoning with LegalRuleML. In Proc. of the 10th International Web Rule Symposium, Alferes, J. J., Bertossi, L., Governatori, G., Fodor, P., and Roman, D., Eds. Springer International Publishing, Stony Brook, NY, USA, 241–257.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J. 2001. Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 6, 691–711.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billington, D. and Miller, T. 2001. Efficient Defeasible Reasoning Systems. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 10, 4, 483–501.Google Scholar
Martin, D., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., LAssila, O., McDermott, D., Mcllraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sirin, E., Srinvasan, N. and Sycara, K. 2004. OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services. URL: https://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Martinez, M. V., Deagustini, C. A. D., Falappa, M. A. and Simari, G. R. 2014. Inconsistency-tolerant reasoning in Datalog± ontologies via an argumentative semantics. In Proc. of the 14th Ibero-American Conference on AI, Bazzan, A. L. and Pichara, K., Eds. Springer International Publishing, Santiago de Chile, Chile, 15–27.Google Scholar
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. 2013. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence 195, 361–397.Google Scholar
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. 2014. The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial. Argument & Computation 5, 1, 31–62.Google Scholar
Nute, D. 2001. Defeasible logic: Theory, implementation and applications. In Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Applications of Prolog. Springer, Berlin, Tokyo, Japan, 151–169.Google Scholar
OASIS LegalRuleML TC. 2013. OASIS LegalRuleML. URL: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalruleml. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
OMG 2000. Unified Modeling Language (UML). OMG. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
OMG 2008a. Business Process Model And Notation (BPMN). OMG. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
OMG 2008b. Semantics of Business Vocabulary And Rules (SBVR). OMG. URL: http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Palmirani, M., Governatori, G., Athan, T., Boley, H., Paschke, A. and Wyner, A. 2015. LegalRuleML Core Specifications. URL: http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalruleml/legalruleml-core-spec/v1.0/legalruleml-core-spec-v1.0.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Paschke, A., Bichler, M. and Dietrich, J. 2005. ContractLog: An approach to rule based monitoring and execution of service level agreements. In Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Galway, Ireland, 209–217.Google Scholar
Pesic, M. and Aalst, W. M. P. 2006. A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In BPM Workshops 2006. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Austria, 169–180.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1, 2, 93–124.Google Scholar
Roman, D., Keller, U., Lausen, H., de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., Polleres, A., Feier, C., Bussler, C. and Fensel, D. 2005. Web service modeling ontology. Applied Ontology 1, 1, 77–106.Google Scholar
RuleML Inc. 2000. RuleML: The rule markup initiative. URL: http://www.ruleml.org. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1997. The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Selway, M., Grossmann, G., Mayer, W. and Stumptner, M. 2015. Formalising natural language specifications using a cognitive linguistic/configuration based approach. Information Systems 54, 191–208.Google Scholar
Song, I. 2008. Design agent chips. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Steen, B., Pires, L. F. and Iacob, M.-E. 2010. Automatic generation of optimal business processes from business rules. In Proc. of the 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops. Vitoria, Brazil, 117–126.Google Scholar
The OWL Services Coalition. 2006. OWL-S Specification. URL: http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/services/owl-s/. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Vojìr, S., Kliegr, T., Hazucha, A., Skrabal, R. and Simunek, M. 2013. Transforming association rules to business rules: EasyMiner meets drools. In Joint Proc. of the 7th International Rule Challenge, the Special Track on Human Language Technology and the 3rd RuleML Doctoral Consortium, Fodor, P., Roman, D., Anicic, D., Wyner, A., Palmirani, M., Sottara, D., and Lévy, F., Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Seattle, USA.Google Scholar
W3C RIF Working Group. 2005. RIF: Rule Interchange Format. URL: https://www.w3.org/standards/techs/rif. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
Wood, G. 2014. Ethereum: A Secure Decentralised Generalised Transaction Ledger. Accessed 12 March 2016. URL: http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Wyner, A. and Governatori, G. 2013. A study on translating regulatory rules from natural language to defeasible logic. In Joint Proc. of the 7th International Rule Challenge, the Special Track on Human Language Technology and the 3rd RuleML Doctoral Consortium, Fodor, P., Roman, D., Anicic, D., Wyner, A., Palmirani, M. and Lévy, D. S. F., Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Seatle, USA.Google Scholar