Temporal deontic action logic for the verification of compliance to norms in ASP

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.

[1]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Logic of Violations: A gentzen systems for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations , 2006 .

[2]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Verifying Business Process Compliance by Reasoning about Actions , 2010, CLIMA.

[3]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  TBox and ABox Reasoning in Expressive Description Logics , 1996, KR.

[4]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[5]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Beyond soundness: on the verification of semantic business process models , 2010, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[6]  Jan M. Broersen.  Strategic Deontic Temporal Logic as a Reduction to ATL, with an Application to Chisholm's Scenario , 2006, DEON.

[7]  Guido Governatori,et al.  The Journey to Business Process Compliance , 2009, Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling.

[8]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Answer Sets , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[9]  Guido Governatori,et al.  On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models , 2012, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[11]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Law, logic and business processes , 2010, 2010 Third International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law.

[12]  Maria del Pilar Pozos Parra,et al.  A Simple and Tractable Extension of Situation Calculus to Epistemic Logic , 2000, ISMIS.

[13]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Reasoning about actions with Temporal Answer Sets , 2011, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[14]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Compiling Uncertainty Away: Solving Conformant Planning Problems using a Classical Planner (Sometimes) , 2006, AAAI.

[15]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Representation results for defeasible logic , 2000, TOCL.

[16]  P. S. Thiagarajan,et al.  Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic , 1997, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[17]  Leendert van der Torre.  Causal deontic logic. , 2000 .

[18]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Temporal Description Logics: A Survey , 2008, 2008 15th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning.

[19]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Combining dynamic deontic logic and temporal logic for the specification of deadlines , 1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[20]  Jan M. Broersen,et al.  'What I Fail to Do Today, I Have to Do Tomorrow': A Logical Study of the Propagation of Obligations , 2008, CLIMA.

[21]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Verifying Compliance with Commitment Protocols Enabling Open Web-Based Multiagent Systems , 1999 .

[22]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Producing Compliant Interactions: Conformance, Coverage, and Interoperability , 2006, DALT.

[23]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Bounded LTL model checking with stable models , 2003, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[24]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Verifying Compliance with Commitment Protocols , 1998, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[25]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Programming Rational Agents in a Modal Action Logic , 2004, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[26]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  Dynamic Logic , 2007, The KeY Approach.

[27]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Mapping deontic operators to abductive expectations , 2006, NORMAS.

[28]  Munindar P. Singh.  A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[29]  Armin Biere,et al.  Bounded model checking , 2003, Adv. Comput..

[30]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Action Languages , 1998, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[31]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  Automatic verification of data-centric business processes , 2009, ICDT '09.

[32]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[33]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  Deontic Interpreted Systems , 2003, Stud Logica.

[34]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management , 2006, Business Process Management Workshops.

[35]  Paul McNamara,et al.  Deontic logic , 2006, Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century.

[36]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Designing a Deontic Logic of Deadlines , 2004, DEON.

[37]  Klaus Schild,et al.  Combining Terminological Logics with Tense Logic , 1993, EPIA.

[38]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Characterising Deadlines in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic , 2007, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[39]  Aditya K. Ghose,et al.  Auditing Business Process Compliance , 2007, ICSOC.

[40]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Abductive Logic Programming as an Effective Technology for the Static Verification of Declarative Business Processes , 2010, Fundam. Informaticae.

[41]  Peter Dadam,et al.  On Enabling Data-Aware Compliance Checking of Business Process Models , 2010, ER.