On the Equivalence of Defeasible Deontic Logic and Temporal Defeasible Logic

  • Marc Allaire
  • Guido Governatori
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8861)


In this paper we formally prove that compliance results derived from temporal defeasible logic are equivalent to the ones obtained in the standard defeasible deontic logic. In order to do so we first introduce an operator allowing us to translate rules from the standard to the temporal framework. Then we consider the sets of obligations used in the compliance checking algorithm from [19] and prove that they are isomorphic to the previously defined operator. Being able to add time to standard deontic logic will allow for a better and more elegant representation of obligations and improvement in computational efficiency.


Business Process Semantic Annotation Deontic Logic Task Number Superiority Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20(2-4), 133–157 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: On the modeling and analysis of regulations. In: ACIS 1999, pp. 20–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: ECAI 2000, pp. 459–463. IOS Press (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniou, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D.: Defeasible logic versus logic programming without negation as failure. J. Log. Program. 42(1), 47–57 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Visually Specifying Compliance Rules and Explaining their Violations for Business Processes. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 22(1), 30–55 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about constitutive norms, counts-as conditionals, institutions, deadlines and violations. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) PRIMA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colombo Tosatto, S., Governatori, G., Kelsen, P.: Business process regulatory compliance is hard. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elgammal, A., Türetken, O., van den Heuvel, W.J.: Using patterns for the analysis and resolution of compliance violations. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 21(1), 31–54 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pasquier, P., Flores, R., Chaib-draa, B.: Modelling flexible social commitments and their enforcement. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3451, pp. 139–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabaldon, A.: Making golog norm compliant. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G., van der Torre, L. (eds.) CLIMA XII 2011. LNCS, vol. 6814, pp. 275–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    García-Camino, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.-A., Vasconcelos, W.W.: A Distributed Architecture for Norm Management in Multi-Agent Systems. In: Sichman, J.S., Padget, J., Ossowski, S., Noriega, P. (eds.) COIN 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4870, pp. 275–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated planning – theory and practice. Elsevier (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goedertier, S., Vanthienen, J.: Designing Compliant Business Processes with Obligations and Permissions. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 5–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Governatori, G.: Business Process Compliance: An Abstract Normative Framework. IT-Information Technology 55, 231–238 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Governatori, G.: Thou shalt is not you will. Tech. Rep. 8026, NICTA (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Logic of violations: A Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic 4, 193–215 (2006)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: A conceptually rich model of business process compliance. In: APCCM 2010, pp. 3–12. ACS (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Norm compliance in business process modeling. In: Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2010. LNCS, vol. 6403, pp. 194–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Justice delayed is justice denied: Logics for a temporal account of reparations and legal compliance. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G., van der Torre, L. (eds.) CLIMA XII 2011. LNCS, vol. 6814, pp. 364–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Cardoso, J., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Governatori, G., Shek, S.: Regorous: a business process compliance checker. In: ICAIL 2013, pp. 245–246. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Governatori, G., Terenziani, P.: Temporal extensions to defeasible logic. In: Orgun, M.A., Thornton, J. (eds.) AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4830, pp. 476–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.P.M.: Ubi lex, ibi poena: Designing norm enforcement in E-institutions. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 101–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G.: A methodological evaluation of business process compliance management frameworks. In: Song, M., Wynn, M.T., Liu, J. (eds.) AP-BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 159, pp. 106–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Business process data compliance. In: Bikakis, A., Giurca, A. (eds.) RuleML 2012. LNCS, vol. 7438, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herrestad, H.: Norms and formalization. In: ICAIL 1991, pp. 175–184. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.: From organisation specification to normative programming in multi-agent organisations. In: Dix, J., Leite, J., Governatori, G., Jamroga, W. (eds.) CLIMA XI. LNCS, vol. 6245, pp. 117–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knorr, M., Gabaldon, A., Gonçalves, R., Leite, J., Slota, M.: Time is up! – norms with deadlines in action languages. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 223–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koons, R.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/reasoning-defeasible/
  32. 32.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Göser, K., Dadam, P.: On enabling integrated process compliance with semantic constraints in process management systems - requirements, challenges, solutions. Information Systems Frontiers 14(2), 195–219 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maggi, F., Montali, M., Westergaard, M., van der Aalst, W.: Monitoring Business Constraints with Linear Temporal Logic: An Approach Based on Colored Automata. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mailund, T., Westergaard, M.: Obtaining memory-efficient reachability graph representations using the sweep-line method. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 177–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Stanford University, USA (1968)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McNamara, P.: Deontic logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/logic-deontic/
  37. 37.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nute, D. (ed.): Defeasible deontic logic. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sadiq, S., Governatori, G.: Managing regulatory compliance in business processes. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2, pp. 265–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sadiq, W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Allaire
    • 1
  • Guido Governatori
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTA QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations