A Semantic Web Based Architecture for e-Contracts in Defeasible Logic

  • Guido Governatori
  • Duy Pham Hoang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3791)

Abstract

We introduce the DR-CONTRACT architecture to represent and reason on e-Contracts. The architecture extends the DR-device architecture by a deontic defeasible logic of violation. We motivate the choice for the logic and we show how to extend RuleML to capture the notions relevant to describe e-contracts for a monitoring perspective in Defeasible Logic.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In (AAAI-2000), pp. 401–405. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) ECAI 2000, pp. 459–463. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoniou, G., Maher, M., Billington, D.: Defeasible logic versus logic programming without negation as failure. J. of Logic Programming 41(1), 45–57 (2000)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic web. In: Antoniou, G., Boley, H. (eds.) RuleML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3323, pp. 49–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: DR-DEVICE: A defeasible logic system for the Semantic Web. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boley, H., Tabet, S., Wagner, G.: Design rationale for ruleml: A markup language for semantic web rules. In: Cruz, I.F., Decker, S., Euzenat, J., McGuinness, D.L. (eds.) SWWS 2001, pp. 381–401 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleM. Int. J. of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. J. of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Logic of Violations: A Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In: Gardner, A. (ed.) 10th ICAIL, pp. 25–34. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Griethuysen, J.J. (ed.): Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base. Publ. nr. ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3-N695, ANSI, New York,10036 (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grosof, B.N.: Representing e-commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3(1), 2–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grosof, B.N., Poon, T.C.: SweetDeal: representing agent contracts with exceptions using XML rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. In: 12th WWW, pp. 340–349. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, R.M.: A logic model for electronic contracting. Decision Support Systems 4, 27–44 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linington, P., Milosevic, Z., Cole, J., Gibson, S., Kulkarni, S., Neal, S.: A unified behavioural model and a contract for extended enterprise. Data & Knowledge Engineering 51, 5–29 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maher, M., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Miller, T.: Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. Int. J. of AI Tools 10(4), 483–501 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milosevic, Z., Gibson, S., Linington, P.F., Cole, J., Kulkarni, S.: On design and implementation of a contract monitoring facility. In: 1st IWEC, pp. 62–70. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    RuleML.: The Rule Markup Initiative (September 1, 2005) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skylogiannis, T., Antoniou, G., Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G.: DRNEGOTIATE – a system for automated agent negotiation with defeasible logicbased strategies. In: EEE 2005, pp. 44–49. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Torre, L., Tan, Y.-H.: The many faces of defeasibility. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 79–121. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner, G.: How to design a general rule markup language. In: Proceedings of XML Technology for the Semantic Web (XSW 2002), GI. LNI, vol. 14, pp. 19–37 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, G., Tabet, S., Boley, H.: MOF-RuleML: The abstract syntax of RuleML as a MOF model. In: OMG Meeting, Boston (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Governatori
    • 1
  • Duy Pham Hoang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations