BlockConfess: Towards an Architecture for Blockchain Constraints and Forensics

Although Blockchain is still an emerging technology it has the potential to serve as a general purpose information technology platform. Already, smart contract / chaincode platforms, such as Ethereum and Hyperledger Fabric, provide support for the execution of arbitrary computations. However, the suitability of these platforms for specifying and enforcing data and service usage constraints (e.g., usage policies, regulatory obligations, societal norms) and providing guarantees with respect to conformance has yet to be determined. In order to address this gap, in this position paper we argue that symbolic artificial intelligence techniques in the form of semantic technology based policy languages and business process conformance tools and techniques, can together be used to provide guarantees with respect to the behaviour of autonomous smart contract / chaincode applications.

[1]  P. A. Bonatti,et al.  P ROTUNE : A Rule-based PROvisional TrUst NEgotiation Framework , 2009 .

[2]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Validation and Verification of Smart Contracts: A Research Agenda , 2017, Computer.

[3]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Enriching Data Models with Behavioral Constraints , 2019, Ontology Makes Sense.

[4]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Mining Blockchain Processes: Extracting Process Mining Data from Blockchain Applications , 2019, BPM.

[5]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Blockchains for Business Process Management - Challenges and Opportunities , 2017, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Marina De Vos,et al.  ODRL Policy Modelling and Compliance Checking , 2019, RuleML+RR.

[7]  Isil Dillig,et al.  Formal Verification of Workflow Policies for Smart Contracts in Azure Blockchain , 2019, VSTTE.

[8]  Frank Leymann,et al.  Smart Contract Locator (SCL) and Smart Contract Description Language (SCDL) , 2019, ICSOC Workshops.

[9]  Josep Carmona,et al.  Conformance Checking - Relating Processes and Models , 2018 .

[10]  Laura Ricci,et al.  A blockchain based approach for the definition of auditable Access Control systems , 2019, Comput. Secur..

[11]  Gary T. Leavens,et al.  Beyond Assertions: Advanced Specification and Verification with JML and ESC/Java2 , 2005, FMCO.

[12]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data , 2015, 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops.

[13]  Jeffrey P. Bigham,et al.  Beyond autocomplete: Automatic function definition , 2011, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[14]  Ruben Verborgh,et al.  Implementation-independent function reuse , 2020, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[15]  Xiwei Xu,et al.  On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems , 2018, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[16]  Eva Blomqvist,et al.  Event Processing in RDF , 2013, WOP.

[17]  Axel Polleres,et al.  Defining expressive access policies for linked data using the ODRL ontology 2.0 , 2014, SEM '14.

[18]  Simon Steyskal,et al.  If you can't enforce it, contract it: Enforceability in Policy-Driven (Linked) Data Markets , 2015, SEMANTiCS.

[19]  Hemang Subramanian,et al.  Decentralized blockchain-based electronic marketplaces , 2017, Commun. ACM.

[20]  Orlenys López-Pintado,et al.  Extracting Event Logs for Process Mining from Data Stored on the Blockchain , 2019, Business Process Management Workshops.

[21]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Evaluation of Logic-Based Smart Contracts for Blockchain Systems , 2016, RuleML.

[22]  Anna Fensel,et al.  Modeling and Reasoning over Data Licenses , 2018, ESWC.

[23]  Liming Zhu,et al.  Applying Design Patterns in Smart Contracts - A Case Study on a Blockchain-Based Traceability Application , 2018, ICBC.

[24]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  A policy language for a pervasive computing environment , 2003, Proceedings POLICY 2003. IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[25]  Claudio Di Ciccio,et al.  Business Process Monitoring on Blockchains: Potentials and Challenges , 2020, BPMDS/EMMSAD@CAiSE.

[26]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Ontology-Based Data Access for Extracting Event Logs from Legacy Data: The onprom Tool and Methodology , 2017, BIS.

[27]  Andreas Ekelhart,et al.  Finding Non-compliances with Declarative Process Constraints Through Semantic Technologies , 2019, CAiSE Forum.

[28]  William J. Knottenbelt,et al.  Towards Safer Smart Contracts: A Survey of Languages and Verification Methods , 2018, ArXiv.

[29]  Grigore Rosu,et al.  A Language-Independent Approach to Smart Contract Verification , 2018, ISoLA.

[30]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Blockchain-Based Traceability of Inter-organisational Business Processes , 2018, BMSD.

[31]  Marco Montali,et al.  Compliance monitoring in business processes: Functionalities, application, and tool-support , 2015, Inf. Syst..

[32]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[33]  James Cheney,et al.  The W3C PROV family of specifications for modelling provenance metadata , 2013, EDBT '13.

[34]  Lalana Kagal,et al.  Rein : Where Policies Meet Rules in the Semantic Web , 2005 .

[35]  Frank Leymann,et al.  Process-Based Composition of Permissioned and Permissionless Blockchain Smart Contracts , 2019, 2019 IEEE 23rd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC).

[36]  Ingo Weber,et al.  Architecture for Blockchain Applications , 2019, Springer International Publishing.

[37]  Mieke Jans,et al.  How active learning and process mining can act as Continuous Auditing catalyst , 2019, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Piero A. Bonatti,et al.  Rule-Based Policy Representation and Reasoning for the Semantic Web , 2007, Reasoning Web.

[39]  Golden G. Richard,et al.  Toward a more dependable hybrid analysis of android malware using aspect-oriented programming , 2018, Comput. Secur..