A Self-Policing Policy Language

  • Sebastian Speiser
  • Rudi Studer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6496)


Formal policies allow the non-ambiguous definition of situations in which usage of certain entities are allowed, and enable the automatic evaluation whether a situation is compliant. This is useful for example in applications using data provided via standardized interfaces. The low technical barriers of integrating such data sources is in contrast to the manual evaluation of natural language policies as they currently exist. Usage situations can themselves be regulated by policies, which can be restricted by the policy of a used entity. Consider for example the Google Maps API, which requires that applications using the API must be available without a fee, i.e. the application’s policy must not require a payment. In this paper we present a policy language that can express such constraints on other policies, i.e. a self-policing policy language. We validate our approach by realizing a use case scenario, using a policy engine developed for our language.


Policy Language Conjunctive Query Policy Structure Triple Pattern XPath Query 
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.


  1. 1.
    Lampson, B.W.: Protection. In: Proc. Fifth Princeton Symposium on Information Sciences and Systems, pp. 437–443. Princeton University, Princeton (March 1971); reprinted in Operating Systems Review 8 (1), 18 – 24 (January 1974)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dodds, L.: Rights Statements on the Web of Data. Nodalities Magazine (9) (2010),
  3. 3.
    Seneviratne, O., Kagal, L., Berners-Lee, T.: Policy Aware Content Reuse on the Web. In: Bernstein, A., Karger, D.R., Heath, T., Feigenbaum, L., Maynard, D., Motta, E., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 553–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W3C: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  5. 5.
    Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, vol. II. Computer Science Press, Rockville (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kephart, J.O., Walsh, W.E.: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective on Autonomic Computing Policies. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W3C: RIF Core Dialect. W3C Recommendation (2010),
  9. 9.
    W3C: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility. W3C Recommendation (2010),
  10. 10.
    Polleres, A., Feier, C., Harth, A.: Rules with Contextually Scoped Negation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 332–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abelson, H., Adida, B., Linksvayer, M., Yergler, N.: ccREL: The Creative Commons Rights Expression Language. W3C Submission (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kagal, L., Hanson, C., Weitzner, D.: Using Dependency Tracking to Provide Explanations for Policy Management. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W3C: RIF Basic Logic Dialect. W3C Recommendation (2010),
  14. 14.
    Gottlob, G., Leone, N., Scarcello, F.: The complexity of acyclic conjunctive queries. Journal of the ACM 48(3), 431–498 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodman, N., Shmueli, O.: Tree queries: a simple class of relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 7(4), 653–677 (1982)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandra, A.K., Merlin, P.M.: Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In: Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OASIS: eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) Version 2.0. OASIS Standard (2005),
  18. 18.
    W3C: Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework. W3C Recommendation (2007),
  19. 19.
    Verma, K., Akkiraju, R., Goodwin, R.: Semantic matching of web service policies. In: Semantic and Dynamic Web Processes (SDWP) In Conjunction with the Third International Conference on Web Services, ICWS 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolovski, V., Parsia, B.: WS-Policy and Beyond: Application of OWL Defaults to Web Service Policies. In: Semantic Web Policy Workshop (SWPW) at 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uszok, A., Bradshaw, J., Jeffers, R., Suri, N., Hayes, P., Breedy, M., Bunch, L., Johnson, M., Kulkarni, S., Lott, J.: KAoS Policy and Domain Services: Toward a Description-Logic Approach to Policy Representation, Deconfliction, and Enforcement. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonatti, P.A., De Coi, J.L., Olmedilla, D., Sauro, L.: A Rule-based Trust Negotiation System. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonatti, P.A., Olmedilla, D., Peer, J.: Advanced Policy Explanations on the Web. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bonatti, P.A., Mogavero, F.: Comparing Rule-Based Policies. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Speiser
    • 1
  • Rudi Studer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Applied Informatics and Formal Description Methods (AIFB)Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations