Modeling Data Access Legislation with Gorgias

  • Nikolaos I. Spanoudakis
  • Elena Constantinou
  • Adamos Koumi
  • Antonis C. Kakas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10351)


This paper uses argumentation as the basis for modeling and implementing the relevant legislation of an EU country relating to medical data access. Users can consult a web application for determining their allowed level of access to a patient’s medical record and are offered an explanation based on the relevant legislation. The system can also advise a user on what additional information is required for a higher access level. The system is currently in the process of an extensive evaluation through a pilot trial with a special focus group of medical professionals. The development methodology that we have used is generally applicable to any other similar cases of decision making based on legislative regulations. The main advantage of using argumentation is the ability to explain the solutions drawn and the high modularity of software facilitating the extension and adaptation of the system when new relevant legislation becomes available.


Argumentation Legal systems Modular software 



We thank the RISS group at Imperial College for useful discussions.


  1. 1.
    Cyprus law on patient rights, 1(I) (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cyprus law on personal data protection, 138(I) (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandara, A.K., Kakas, A.C., Lupu, E.C., Russo, A.: Using argumentation logic for firewall configuration management. In: Integrated Network Management (IM 2009), 11th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, June 1–5, 2009, pp. 180–187. Hofstra University, Long Island (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benazzouz, Y., Boyle, D.: Argumentation-based conflict resolution in pervasive services. In: Negotiation and Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Fundamentals, Theories, Systems and Applications, pp. 399–419. Bentham Science (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 363–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demetriou, N., Kakas, A.C.: Argumentation with abduction. In: 4th Panhellenic Logic Symposium (PLS 2003), 7–10 July, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 38–43 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: The Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Proceedings, 14–18, 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. In: 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan, 8–12 May, 2006, pp. 384–391 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matteucci, I., Petrocchi, M., Sbodio, M.L.: CNL4DSA: a controlled natural language for data sharing agreements. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), Sierre, Switzerland, 22–26 March, pp. 616–620 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moraitis, P., Spanoudakis, N.I.: Argumentation-based agent interaction in an ambient-intelligence context. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22(6), 84–93 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pendaraki, K., Spanoudakis, N.I.: Portfolio performance and risk-based assessment of the PORTRAIT tool. Oper. Res. 15(3), 359–378 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif. Intell. 227, 214–245 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H.: AI & law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation 19(3), 303–320 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pretschner, A., Hilty, M., Basin, D., Schaefer, C., Walter, T.: Mechanisms for usage control. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (ASIACCS 2008), pp. 240–244. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruiz, J.F., Petrocchi, M., Matteucci, I., Costantino, G., Gambardella, C., Manea, M., Ozdeniz, A.: A lifecycle for data sharing agreements: how it works out. In: Schiffner, S., Serna, J., Ikonomou, D., Rannenberg, K. (eds.) APF 2016. LNCS, vol. 9857, pp. 3–20. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44760-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spanoudakis, N.I., Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Applications of argumentation: the SoDA methodology. In: 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2016), 29 August–2 September, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 1722–1723 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos I. Spanoudakis
    • 1
  • Elena Constantinou
    • 2
  • Adamos Koumi
    • 2
  • Antonis C. Kakas
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied Mathematics and Computers LaboratoryTechnical University of CreteChaniaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations