Towards Self-automatable and Unambiguous Smart Contracts: Machine Natural Language
A smart contract originally drafted by natural language is an essential task of many applications in blockchain technology. Firstly, natural language cannot be directly executed by computers, self-executing requires terms of the smart contract be computer-readable and executable. Secondly, in crossing environments or parties, contract translation needs the overall meaning of a sentence to have a meticulous precision, besides, low tolerance of mistakes for reducing a tedious process. Lastly, many kinds of templates of smart contracts need a common sense of agreement where each party agrees on the context of the contract. This paper explores the problems of the smart contract in natural language and self-executing to redefine the smart contract through an approach, which supports a human-readable, computer-understandable and self-executable contract representations with enabling semantic structural based on Machine Natural Language (MNL). Meanwhile, a common dictionary (CoDic) transfers natural languages into universal machine codes or languages without the ambiguity across parties.
KeywordsMachine natural language Smart contracts Semantic document Universal grammar
This research is partially supported by the University of Macau Research Grant No. MYRG2017-00091-FST.
- 1.Szabo, N.: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, [S.l.] (1997)Google Scholar
- 3.Dale, R.: Classical approaches to natural language processing. In: Indurkhya, N., Damerau, F.J. (eds.) Handbook of Natural Language Processing, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar
- 4.Katz, D.M.: Quantitative legal prediction–or–how i learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data-driven future of the legal services industry. Emory Law J. 62, 909–936 (2013)Google Scholar
- 6.Qin, P., Guo, J., Xu, Y., Wang, L.: Semantic document exchange through mediation of machine natural language. In: Proceeding of 15th IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE 2018), pp. 245–250. IEEE Computer Society (2018)Google Scholar
- 7.Pettersson, E.J., Edström, R.: Safer smart contracts through type-driven development. Ph.D. thesis, Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden (2015)Google Scholar
- 8.Idelberger, F., Governatori, G., Riveret, R., Sartor, G.: Evaluation of logic-based smart contracts for blockchain systems. In: 10th International Symposium, RuleML 2016, 6–9 July 2016, pp. 167–183 (2016)Google Scholar
- 9.Grigg, I.: The Ricardian contract. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Electronic Contracting, pp. 25–31. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Grigg, I.: On the intersection of Ricardian and smart contracts (2017). http://iang.org/papers/intersection_ricardian_smart.html
- 11.Frantz, C.K., Nowostawski, M.: From institutions to code: towards automated generation of smart contracts. In: 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W), pp. 210–215. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
- 12.Clack, C.D., Bakshi, V.A., Braine, L.: Smart contract templates: essential requirements and design options, ArXiv eprints, December 2016Google Scholar
- 13.Xiao, G.: Semantic document exchange for electronic business through user-autonomous document sense-making. Doctoral thesis, University of Macau (2015)Google Scholar
- 16.Almadhoun, R., Kadadha, M., Alhemeiri, M., Alshehhi, M., Salah, K.: A user authentication scheme of IoT devices using blockchain-enabled fog nodes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACS 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), October–November 2018, pp. 1–8 (2018)Google Scholar