Advertisement

A Legal Interpretation of Choreography Models

  • Jan LadleifEmail author
  • Mathias Weske
Conference paper
  • 142 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 362)

Abstract

Model/driven smart contract development approaches are gaining in importance since one of the most popular realizations, blockchain/based smart contracts, are prone to coding errors. However, these modeling approaches predominantly focus on operational aspects of smart contracts, neglecting the legal perspective as manifested by deontic concepts such as obligations or permissions. In this paper, we explore an approach at connecting existing models to Legal Ontologies (LOs) on the example of choreography models, effectively interpreting them as legal contracts. We show how the execution of a choreography imposes sequences of legal states, and discuss consequences and limitations.

Keywords

Smart contracts Choreography Legal ontologies 

References

  1. 1.
    Adamo, G., Borgo, S., Francescomarino, C.D., Ghidini, C., Rospocher, M.: BPMN 2.0 choreography language: interface or business contract? In: Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry, A., Milosevic, Z.: Extending choreography with business contract constraints. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14, 131–179 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breaux, T.D., Vail, M.W., Antón, A.I.: Towards regulatory compliance: extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In: IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), pp. 46–55 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2006.68
  4. 4.
    Casellas, N.: Legal Ontology Engineering: Methodologies, Modelling Trends, and the Ontology of Professional Judicial Knowledge, Law, Governance and Technology, vol. 3. Springer, Cham (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1497-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clack, C.D., Bakshi, V.A., Braine, L.: Smart contract templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions. CoRR (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00771
  6. 6.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing compliant business processes with obligations and permissions. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 5–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11837862_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9223-3. ISSN 1572-8382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC, pp. 221–232 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffo, C., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Conceptual modeling of legal relations. In: Trujillo, J.C., 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
  10. 10.
    Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., Boer, A.: The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. 321, 43–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohfeld, W.N.: Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law J. 26(8), 710–770 (1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kabilan, V.: Contract workflow model patterns using BPMN. In: Proceedings of CAiSE 2005 Workshops, CEUR-WS.org, vol. 363 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Kõlvart, M., Poola, M., Rull, A.: Smart contracts. In: Kerikmäe, T., Rull, A. (eds.) The Future of Law and eTechnologies, pp. 133–147. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ladleif, J., Weske, M., Weber, I.: Modeling and enforcing blockchain-based choreographies. In: Hildebrandt, T., van Dongen, B.F., Röglinger, M., Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11675, pp. 69–85. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26619-6_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mendling, J., Weber, I., et al.: Blockchains for business process management - challenges and opportunities. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. (TMIS) 9(1), 4:1–4:16 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3183367. ISSN 2158–656XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S., Orlowska, M.: Translating business contract into compliant business processes. In: IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC, pp. 211–220 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0.2 (December 2013). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/
  19. 19.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Aarhus University Denmark, Computer Science Department (1981)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management, 2nd edn. Springer, Cham (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations