Blending the Sketched Use Case Scenario with License Agreements Using Semantics

  • Muhammad Asfand-e-yar
  • Amin Anjomshoaa
  • Edgar R. Weippl
  • A Min Tjoa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5914)

Abstract

Software end-users need to sign licenses to seal an agreement with the product providers. Habitually, users agree with the license (i.e. terms and conditions) without fully understanding the agreement. To address this issue, an ontological model is developed that formulates the user requirements formally. This paper, introduces this ontological model that includes an abstract license ontology that contains the common features found in different license agreements. The abstract license ontology is then extended to a few real world license agreements. The resulting model can be used for different purposes such as querying the appropriate licenses for a specific requirement or checking the license terms and conditions with user requirements.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mozilla Public License Version 5.0 (2007), http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms+of+Service (last visited September 2009)
  2. 2.
    Apache License, version 2.0 (January 2004), http://www.apache.org/licenses/ (last visited September 2009)
  3. 3.
    Adobe software License Agreements, http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Gen_WWCombined-combined-20080623_1026.pdf (last visited September 2009)
  4. 4.
    Master End-User License Agreement, MSDN, the Microsoft developer network subscription, http://msdnaa.oit.umass.edu/Neula.asp (last visited September 2009)
  5. 5.
    Terms and Conditions – Andorid Software Development Kit License Agreement, http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html (last visited September 2009)
  6. 6.
    End-User License Agreement (Product & Services) – Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/general/warranty/English/EU1KEN_.html (last visited September 2009)
  7. 7.
    Protégé 3.4 (March 16, 2009), http://protege.stanford.edu/ (last visited September 2009)
  8. 8.
    Gümüs, Ö., Kardas, G., Dikenelli, O., Erdur, R.C., Önal, A.: SMOP: A Semantic Web and Service Driven Information Gathering Environment for Mobile Platforms. In: Ontologies, Databases and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE) 2006 International Conference, pp. 927–940 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uszok, A., Bradshaw, J.M., Johnson, M., Jeffers, R.: KAoS Policy Management for Semantic Web Services. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, IEEE Intelligent Systems archive 19(4), 32–41 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diffusion, M., García, R., Tummarello, G.: Semantic Digital Rights Management for Controlled P2P RDF. In: 2nd Semantic Web Policy Workshop, SWPW 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SPARQL Protocol for RDF; W3C Recommendation (January 15, 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/
  12. 12.
    OWL Profile, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Explanations (last visited September 2009)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad Asfand-e-yar
    • 1
  • Amin Anjomshoaa
    • 1
  • Edgar R. Weippl
    • 2
  • A Min Tjoa
    • 1
  1. 1.Vienna University of Technology WienWienAustria
  2. 2.Secure Business Austria WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations