Reasoning about Conditions and Exceptions to Laws in Regulatory Conformance Checking

  • Nikhil Dinesh
  • Aravind Joshi
  • Insup Lee
  • Oleg Sokolsky
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5076)


This paper considers the problem of checking whether an organization conforms to a body of regulation. Conformance is cast as a trace checking question – the regulation is represented in a logic that is evaluated against an abstract trace or run representing the operations of an organization. We focus on a problem in designing a logic to represent regulation.

A common phenomenon in regulatory texts is for sentences to refer to others for conditions or exceptions. We motivate the need for a formal representation of regulation to accomodate such references between statements. We then extend linear temporal logic to allow statements to refer to others. The semantics of the resulting logic is defined via a combination of techniques from Reiter’s default logic and Kripke’s theory of truth.


Logic Program Logic Programming Linear Temporal Logic Consistent Evaluation Default Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Code of Federal Regulations,
  2. 2.
    Abrahams, A.: Developing and Executing Electronic Commerce Applications with Occurrences. PhD thesis, Univeristy of Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breaux, T.D., Vail, M.W., Anton, A.I.: Towards regulatory compliance: Extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giblin, C., Liu, A., Muller, S., Pfitzmann, B., Zhou, X.: Regulations Expressed as Logical Models (REALM). In: Moens, M.F., Spyns, P. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross, A.: Directives and Norms. Routlege and Kegan Paul (1968)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on AI and law (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. In: Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning, pp. 68–93. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCarty, L.T.: A language for legal discourse - i. basic features. In: Proceedings of ICAIL (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sergot, M., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory, H.: The british nationality act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM 29(5), 370–386 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kripke, S.: Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy 72, 690–716 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dinesh, N., Joshi, A., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Logic-based regulatory conformance checking. In: Proceedings of the 14th Monterey Workshop (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bench-Capon, T., Robinson, G., Routen, T., Sergot, M.: Logic programming for large scale applications in law: A formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on AI and Law (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holzmann, G.: The Spin model checker. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Permissions from an input/output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4) (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prakken, H., Sergot, M.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57(1), 91–115 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marcus, R.B.: Iterated deontic modalities. Mind 75(300) (1966)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. ACM 32, 733–749 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dinesh, N., Joshi, A., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: A default temporal logic for regulatory conformance checking. Technical Report MS-CIS-08-07, University of Pennsylvania (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudin, W.: Real and Complex Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vardi, M.: The complexity of relational query languages. In: STOC (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lakemeyer, G., Levesque, H.: Towards an axiom system for default logic. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halpern, J., Lakemeyer, G.: Multi-agent only knowing. Journal of Logic and Compuation 11(1) (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fitting, M.: A Kripke/Kleene Semantics for logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 2 (1985)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monteiro, L., Porto, A.: A language for contextual logic programming. In: Apt, K., de Bakker, J., Rutten, J. (eds.) Logic Programming Languages: Constraints, Functions and Objects (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dinesh, N., Joshi, A., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Checking traces for regulatory conformance. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Runtime Verification (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikhil Dinesh
    • 1
  • Aravind Joshi
    • 1
  • Insup Lee
    • 1
  • Oleg Sokolsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations