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)


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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