Advertisement

A Unifying Model of Legal Smart Contracts

  • Jan LadleifEmail author
  • Mathias Weske
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11788)

Abstract

Legal smart contracts have been a subject of research for decades, especially since the fusion of deontic logic with traditional programming poses significant challenges. The issue of how to develop and verify legal smart contracts is growing in importance, not least due to the rapid adoption of blockchain-based smart contracts. In this paper, we want to pave the way towards a model-driven approach at legal smart contract development. To this end, we combine insights from literature in law and legal informatics with capabilities of existing modeling approaches and give a unifying model that encapsulates essential components of legal smart contracts. The unifying model may be used as a reference for language designers aiming at a holistic representation of legal smart contracts in a model-driven architecture. It may further serve as a basis for comparing existing modeling frameworks, which we demonstrate by applying it to a set of eight distinct languages.

Keywords

Smart contracts Conceptual model Legal contracts 

References

  1. 1.
    Andrychowicz, M., Dziembowski, S., Malinowski, D., Mazurek, Ł.: Modeling bitcoin contracts by timed automata. In: Legay, A., Bozga, M. (eds.) FORMATS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8711, pp. 7–22. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10512-3_2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clack, C.D., Bakshi, V.A., Braine, L.: Smart contract templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions. CoRR abs/1608.00771 (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00771
  3. 3.
    Crawford, S.E.S., Ostrom, E.: A grammar of institutions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89(3), 582–600 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flood, M., Goodenough, O.: Contract as automaton: The computational representation of financial agreements. OFR Working Paper 15–04 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2538224
  5. 5.
    Governatori, G., Idelberger, F., Milosevic, Z., Riveret, R., Sartor, G., Xu, X.: On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems. Artif. Intell. Law 26(4), 377–409 (2018). ISSN 1572–8382,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9223-3
  6. 6.
    Griffo, C., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Conceptual modeling of legal relations. In: Trujillo, J., et al. (eds.) ER 2018. LNCS, vol. 11157, pp. 169–183. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00847-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grigg, I.: The Ricardian contract. In: First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting, pp. 25–31. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haarmann, S., Batoulis, K., Nikaj, A., Weske, M.: DMN decision execution on the ethereum blockchain. In: Krogstie, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10816, pp. 327–341. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91563-0_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hazard, J., Haapio, H.: Wise contracts: smart contracts that work for people and machines. In: Trends and Communities of Legal Informatics, 20th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2017, pp. 425–432 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hearn, M.: Corda: a distributed ledger. Technical White Paper (2016). https://docs.corda.net/_static/corda-technical-whitepaper.pdf
  11. 11.
    Hull, J.: Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hvitved, T.: Contract formalisation and modular implementation of domain-specific languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Härer, F., Fill, H.G.: A comparison of approaches for visualizing blockchains and smart contracts. Jusletter IT Weblaw, ISSN 1664–848X, 21 February 2019 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2585575
  14. 14.
    Kabilan, V.: Contract workflow model patterns using BPMN. In: 10th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2005), CAiSE, vol. 363. CEUR-WS.org (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kabilan, V., Johannesson, P.: Semantic representation of contract knowledge using multi/tier ontology. In: First International Conference on Semantic Web and Databases, pp. 378–397. CEUR-WS.org (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al Khalil, F., Butler, T., O’Brien, L., Ceci, M.: Trust in smart contracts is a process, as well. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10323, pp. 510–519. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70278-0_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, R.M.: A logic model for electronic contracting. Decis. Support Syst. 4(1), 27–44 (1988). ISSN 0167–9236,  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(88)90096-6
  18. 18.
    López-Pintado, O., García-Bañuelos, L., Dumas, M., Weber, I., Ponomarev, A.: Caterpillar: A business process execution engine on the Ethereum blockchain. CoRR abs/1808.03517 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/abs/1808.03517
  19. 19.
    Luu, L., Chu, D.H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P., Hobor, A.: Making smart contracts smarter. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 254–269. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mavridou, A., Laszka, A.: Designing secure Ethereum smart contracts: A finite state machine based approach. CoRR abs/1711.09327 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/abs/1711.09327
  21. 21.
    Mendling, J., Weber, I., Aalst, W.V.D., et al.: Blockchains for business process management - challenges and opportunities. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. (TMIS) 9(1), 4:1–4:16 (2018). ISSN 2158–656X,  https://doi.org/10.1145/3183367
  22. 22.
    Meyer, A., et al.: Data perspective in process choreographies: modeling and execution. Technical report BPM-13-29, BPMcenter.org (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0.2, December 2013. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/
  24. 24.
    OMG: Decision Model and Notation (DMN), Version 1.1, December 2016. https://www.omg.org/spec/DMN/1.1/
  25. 25.
    Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Challenges in the specification of full contracts. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 292–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00255-7_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reitwiessner, C.: Babbage – a mechanical smart contract language (2017). https://medium.com/@chriseth/babbage-5c8329ec5a0e
  27. 27.
    Szabo, N.: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2(9) (1997). ISSN 13960466,  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548, https://ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/548
  28. 28.
    Szabo, N.: A formal language for analyzing contracts (2002). https://nakamotoinstitute.org/contract-language/
  29. 29.
    Weber, I., Xu, X., Riveret, R., Governatori, G., Ponomarev, A., Mendling, J.: Untrusted business process monitoring and execution using blockchain. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 329–347. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wood, G.: Ethereum: a secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Technical report EIP-150 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations