Advertisement

Automated Reasoning for Regulatory Compliance

  • Alberto Siena
  • Silvia Ingolfo
  • Anna Perini
  • Angelo Susi
  • John Mylopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8217)

Abstract

Regulatory compliance is gaining attention from information systems engineers who must design systems that at the same time satisfy stakeholder requirements and comply with applicable laws. In our previous work, we have introduced a conceptual modelling language called Nòmos 2 that aids requirements engineers analyze law to identify alternative ways for compliance. This paper presents an implemented reasoning tool that supports analysis of law models. The technical contributions of the paper include the formalization of reasoning mechanisms, their implementation in the NRTool, as well as an elaborated evaluation framework intended to determine whether the tool is scalable with respect to problem size, complexity as well as search space. The results of our experiments with the tool suggest that this conceptual modelling approach scales to real life regulatory compliance problems.

Keywords

Conceptual Modeling Automated Reasoning Experimental Evaluation Regulatory Compliance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alviano, M., Faber, W., Leone, N., Perri, S., Pfeifer, G., Terracina, G.: The disjunctive datalog system DLV. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 282–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darimont, R., Lemoine, M.: Goal-oriented analysis of regulations. In: ReMo2V, held at CAiSE 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9, 248–260 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gent, I.P., Walsh, T.: Beyond np: the qsat phase transition. In: Hendler, J., Subramanian, D. (eds.) AAAI/IAAI, pp. 648–653. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: Towards a framework for tracking legal compliance in healthcare. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Sebastiani, R.: Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the tropos methodology. Eng. Appl. of AI 18(2), 159–171 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ingolfo, S., Siena, A., Jureta, I., Susi, A., Perini, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Reasoning with stakeholder preferences and law. research report. Technical report, University of Trento, Italy, TR-DISI-12-042 (2012), http://selab.fbk.eu/lawvariability/
  9. 9.
    Ingolfo, S., Siena, A., Jureta, I., Susi, A., Perini, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Choosing compliance solutions through stakeholder preferences. In: Doerr, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) REFSQ 2013. LNCS, vol. 7830, pp. 206–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khadraoui, A., Leonard, M., Thi, T.T.P., Helfert, M.: A Framework for Compliance of Legacy Information Systems with Legal Aspect. In: AIS Trans. Enterprise Sys. GITO Publishing GmbH (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3), 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 243–276 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olbrich, S., Simon, C.: Process modelling towards e-government - visualisation and semantic modelling of legal regulations as executable process sets. In: European Conference on E-Government (ECEG), pp. 405–414 (June 2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paja, E., Dalpiaz, F., Poggianella, M., Roberti, P., Giorgini, P.: Sts-tool: Socio-technical security requirements through social commitments. In: Heimdahl, M.P.E., Sawyer, P. (eds.) RE, pp. 331–332. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do the pictures mean? guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 327–342 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Passera, S., Haapio, H.: Facilitating collaboration through contract visualization and modularization. In: ECCE 2011, pp. 57–60. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Sebastiani, R.: A new general method to generate random modal formulae for testing decision procedures. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 18, 351–389 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Recker, J.C.: Conceptual model evaluation towards more paradigmatic rigor. In: CAiSE 2005 Workshops, pp. 569–580 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rifaut, A., Dubois, E.: Using goal-oriented requirements engineering for improving the quality of iso/iec 15504 based compliance assessment frameworks. In: RE 2008, pp. 33–42 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siena, A., Jureta, I., Ingolfo, S., Susi, A., Perini, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Capturing variability of law with Nòmos 2. In: Atzeni, P., Cheung, D., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2012 Main Conference 2012. LNCS, vol. 7532, pp. 383–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Speck, A., Feja, S., Witt, S., Pulvermüller, E., Schulz, M.: Formalizing business process specifications. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 8(2), 427–446 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, Y., McIlraith, S.A., Yu, Y., Mylopoulos, J.: Monitoring and diagnosing software requirements. Autom. Softw. Eng. 16(1), 3–35 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Siena
    • 1
  • Silvia Ingolfo
    • 1
  • Anna Perini
    • 2
  • Angelo Susi
    • 2
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.FBK-IrstTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations