Transformation of SBVR Compliant Business Rules to Executable FCL Rules

  • Aqueo Kamada
  • Guido Governatori
  • Shazia Sadiq
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6403)


The main source of changing requirements of the dynamic business environment is response to changes in regulations and contracts towards which businesses are obligated to comply. At the same time, many organizations have their business processes specified independently of their business obligations (which include adherence to contracts laws and regulations). Thus, the problem of mapping business changes into computational systems becomes much more complicated. In this paper we address the problem by providing an automated transformation of business rules into a formal language capable of directly mapping onto executable specifications. The model transformation is consistent with MDA/MOF/QVT concepts using ATL to perform the mapping. Business rules are compliant to SBVR metamodel, and are transformed into FCL, a logic based formalism, known to have a direct mapping onto executable specifications. Both, source and target rules are based on principles of deontic logic, the core of which are obligations, permissions and prohibitions.


Business Contract Business Rule Transformation SBVR FCL MDA 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hildreth, S.: Rounding Up Business Rules. ComputerWorld Software. ID (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG , MDA Guide Version 1.0.1 (2003), (access in March/2010)
  3. 3.
    OMG Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), v1.0 OMG Available Specification (2008), (access in March/2010)
  4. 4.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: Proc. The 10th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference - EDOC, Hong Kong, pp. 221–232 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beller, S.: Deontic norms, deontic reasoning, and deontic conditionals. Thinking & Reasoning 14(4), 305–341 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ATLAS group, LINA, INRIA, ATL: Atlas Transformation Language ATL User Manual - version 0.7, Nantes (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification, version 1.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG, MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, v2.1.1 (2005), (access in March/2010)
  9. 9.
    Kamada, Service Execution based on Business Rules, PhD Thesis in Computing Engineering, Unicamp, Campinas, Brazil (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamada, A.F., Rodrigues, M.: Ontology based Business Rules and Services Integration Environment. In: Ajeeli, A.T.A., Al-bastaki, Y.A.L., Abu-tayeh, J. (eds.) Handbook of Research on E-services in the Public Sector: E-government Strategies and Advancements. Information Science Publishing, United Kingdom (March 2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z.: A Formal Analysis of a Business Contract Language. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 15(4), 659–685 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. of Cooperative Inf. Sys. 14(2-3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanger, S.: Law and logic. Theoria 38, 105–132 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kabilan, V.: Contract Workflow Model Patterns Using BPMN, FORUM 100, Kista, Sweden (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grosof, B.N., Poon, T.C.: Representing Agent Contracts with Exceptions using XML Rules, Ontologies, and Process Descriptions. In: Proc. 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 340–349 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abrahams, D.E., Bacon, J.: An asynchronous rule-based approach for business process automation using obligations. In: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Rule-based Programming, Pittsburgh, USA, pp. 93–103 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aqueo Kamada
    • 1
    • 4
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  • Shazia Sadiq
    • 3
  1. 1.CTI, Rod. Dom Pedro I, km 143.6CampinasBrazil
  2. 2.NICTA, Queensland Research LaboratoryBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.ITEEThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Unicamp, FT, LimeiraBrazil

Personalised recommendations