Advertisement

Chain of Events: Modular Process Models for the Law

  • Søren DeboisEmail author
  • Hugo A. López
  • Tijs Slaats
  • Amine Abbad Andaloussi
  • Thomas T. Hildebrandt
Conference paper
  • 33 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12546)

Abstract

In this paper, we take technical and practical steps towards the modularisation of compliant-by-design executable declarative process models. First, we demonstrate by example how the specific language of timed DCR graphs is capable of modelling complex legislation, with examples from laws regulating the functioning of local governments in Denmark. We then identify examples of law paragraphs that are beyond these modelling capabilities. This incompatibility arises from subtle and—from a computer science perspective—non-standard interactions between distinct paragraphs of the law, which must then become similar interactions between model fragments. To encompass these situations, we propose a notion of networks of processes, where the processes are allowed to interact and regulate their interaction through the novel mechanisms of exclusion and linking. Networks are parametric in the underlying process formalism, allowing interactions between processes specified in arbitrary and possibly distinct trace-language semantics formalisms as the individual models. Technically, we provide a sufficient condition for a good class of network compositions to realise refinement of the constituent processes. Finally, parts of the theoretical framework (networks and exclusion) have been implemented by our industry partners, and we report on a preliminary evaluation suggesting that inter-model synchronisation is indeed both necessary and helpful in practical modelling scenarios.

Keywords

Law Compliance by design Process modelling Refinement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Nicklas Healy of Syddjurs Municipality.

References

  1. 1.
    Bekendtgørelse af lov om social service, Børne- og Socialministeriet (August 2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aa, H., Di Ciccio, C., Leopold, H., Reijers, H.A.: Extracting declarative process models from natural language. In: Giorgini, P., Weber, B. (eds.) CAiSE 2019. LNCS, vol. 11483, pp. 365–382. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21290-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11841197_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andaloussi, A.A.: Evaluation of DCR networks: Interview recordings and full analysis (February 2020). http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3724874
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems, pp. 37–45. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P.: Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif. Intell. Law 1(1), 65–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bench-Capon, T., et al.: A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Art. Intell. Law 20(3), 215–319 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bugliesi, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Modularity in logic programming. J. Log. Program. 19–20, 443–502 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. Introducing Qualitative Methods series. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Riguzzi, F., Sebastianis, M., Storari, S.: Checking compliance of execution traces to business rules. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNBIP, vol. 17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00328-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T.: Replication, refinement & reachability: complexity in dynamic condition-response graphs. Acta Informatica 55(6), 489–520 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00236-017-0303-8MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dragoni, M., Villata, S., Rizzi, W., Governatori, G.: Combining natural language processing approaches for rule extraction from legal documents. In: Pagallo, U., Palmirani, M., Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Villata, S. (eds.) AICOL 2015, AICOL 2016, AICOL 2016, AICOL 2017, AICOL 2017. LNCS, vol. 10791. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eberle, H., Unger, T., Leymann, F.: Process fragments. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5870. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05148-7_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordon, T.F., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Rules and norms: requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04985-9_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16289-3_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Normative requirements for business process compliance. In: Davis, J., Demirkan, H., Motahari-Nezhad, H. (eds.) ASSRI 2013. LNBIP, vol. 177. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07950-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative Event-Based Workflow as Distributed Dynamic Condition Response Graphs. PLACES 69, 59–73 (2010). EPTCSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Safe distribution of declarative processes. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24690-6_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hildebrandt, T.T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T., Zanitti, F.: Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed dynamic condition response graphs. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 82(5–7), 164–185 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holfter, A., Haarmann, S., Pufahl, L., Weske, M.: Checking compliance in data-driven case management. In: Di Francescomarino, C., Dijkman, R., Zdun, U. (eds.) BPM 2019. LNBIP, vol. 362. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37453-2_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kindler, E., Petrucci, L.: Towards a standard for modular Petri Nets: a formalisation. In: Franceschinis, G., Wolf, K. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5606. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02424-5_5CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lohmann, N.: Compliance by design for artifact-centric business processes. Inf. Syst. 38(4), 606–618 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    López, H.A., Debois, S., Slaats, T., Hildebrandt, T.T.: Business process compliance using reference models of law. In: Wehrheim, H., Cabot, J. (eds.) FASE 2020. LNCS, vol. 12076. Springer, Cham (2020).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45234-6_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    López, H.A., Marquard, M., Muttenthaler, L., Strømsted, R.: Assisted declarative process creation from natural language descriptions. In: EDOC Workshops, pp. 96–99. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Social Appeals Board (Ankestyrelsen): Annual report for the 2018 case process (May 2019). https://ast.dk/publikationer/arsopgorelse-2018
  28. 28.
    National Social Appeals Board (Ankestyrelsen): Appeals Board decisions on the Services Act in Q2 to Q4 2018 (...) (May 2019). https://bit.ly/3glQOBK
  29. 29.
    Object Management Group BPMN Technical Committee: Business Process Model and Notation, Version 2.0 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Van der Aalst, W.: DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: EDOC, p. 287 (October 2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Slaats, T., Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A.: The semantics of hybrid process models. In: Debruyne, C., et al. (eds.) OTM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10033. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Debois, S.: Formalisation: Modular Process Models for the Law (June 2019). https://www.itu.dk/people/debois/thys/ifm20
  33. 33.
    The Danish Ministry of Social Affairs and the Interior: Consolidation Act on Social Services (September 2015). http://english.sm.dk/media/14900/consolidation-act-on-social-services.pdf. Executive Order no. 1053
  34. 34.
    Slaats, T., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.: Open to change: a theory for iterative test-driven modelling. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11080, pp. 31–47. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Winter, K., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Deriving and combining mixed graphs from regulatory documents based on constraint relations. In: Giorgini, P., Weber, B. (eds.) CAiSE 2019. LNCS, vol. 11483, pp. 430–445. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21290-2_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren Debois
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hugo A. López
    • 2
    • 4
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 2
  • Amine Abbad Andaloussi
    • 3
  • Thomas T. Hildebrandt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceIT University of CopenhagenKøbenhavnDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceCopenhagen UniversityKøbenhavnDenmark
  3. 3.Technical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  4. 4.DCR Solutions A/SCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations