Using Semantic Web technologies and production rules for reasoning on obligations,permissions,and prohibitions 1

Abstract

Nowadays the studies on the formalization, enforcement, and monitoring of policies and norms is crucial in different fields of research and in numerous applications. ODRL 2.2 (Open Digital Right Language) is a W3C standard policy expression language formalized using Semantic Web technologies. It is used to represent permitted and prohibited actions over a certain asset, and obligations required to be met by parties involved in the exchange of a digital asset. In this paper, we propose to extend the model of obligation, permission, and prohibition proposed by ODRL 2.2 in two directions. Firstly, by inserting in the model the notion of activation event (or action) and by expressing event and action as complex constructs having types and application-independent properties. Secondly, by considering the temporal aspects of obligations, permissions, and prohibitions (e.g. expiration dates and deadlines) as part of their application independent model. These extensions are necessary in order to be able to propose an application-independent operational semantics of the extended model, which is formalized using State Machines and is computed by a specific production rule system. The proposed approach has been tested by developing a framework in Java able to get as input a set of policies formalized using Semantic Web languages, and to compute their evolution in time based on the events and actions that happen in the interaction among the parties involved in the specified policies.

Keywords

Norms policies obligations prohibitions permissions multiagent systems Semantic Web technologies production rules

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brachman and

Levesque, Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2004. ISBN 1558609326.

J.M.

Bradshaw,

Uszok,

Breedy,

Bunch,

T.C.

Eskridge,

P.J.

Feltovich,

Johnson,

Lott and

Vignati, The KAoS Policy Services Framework, 2013.

Cauvin,

Oren and

Vasconcelos, Policies to regulate distributed data exchange, in: AT 2018: 6th International Conference on Agreement Technologies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2018.

da Silva Figueiredo,

Torres da Silva and

de Oliveira Braga, Modeling norms in multi-agent systems with NormML, in: Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI: COIN 2010 International Workshops, COIN@AAMAS 2010, Toronto, Canada, May 2010, COIN@MALLOW 2010, Lyon, France, August 2010, Revised Selected Papers, M. De Vos, N. Fornara, J.V. Pitt and G. Vouros, eds, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 39–57. ISBN 978-3-642-21268-0. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_3.

Dastani,

Dix,

Verhagen and

Villata, Normative multi-agent systems (Dagstuhl seminar 18171), Dagstuhl Reports 8(4) (2018), 72–103, http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/9761 . doi:10.4230/DagRep.8.4.72.

C.L.

Forgy, On the efficient implementation of production systems, PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1979, AAI7919143.

Fornara, Specifying and monitoring obligations in open multiagent systems using Semantic Web technology, in: Semantic Agent Systems: Foundations and Applications, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 344, Springer-Verlag, 2011, pp. 25–46. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18308-9_2.

Fornara,

Chiappa and

Colombetti, Using Semantic Web technologies and production rules for reasoning on obligations and permissions, in: Agreement Technologies,

Lujak, ed., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 49–63. ISBN 978-3-030-17294-7.

Fornara and

Colombetti, Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language, in: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 2, AAMAS ’02, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2002, pp. 536–542. ISBN 1-58113-480-0. doi:10.1145/544862.544868.

10.

Fornara and

Colombetti, Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions, in: Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VI,

Baldoni,

T.C.

Son,

M.B.

van Riemsdijk and

Winikoff, eds, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-3-540-93920-7.

11.

Fornara and

Colombetti, Representation and monitoring of commitments and norms using OWL, AI Commun. 23(4) (2010), 341–356.

12.

Fornara and

Colombetti, Operational semantics of an extension of ODRL able to express obligations, in: Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies – 15th European Conference, EUMAS 2017, and 5th International Conference, AT 2017, Revised Selected Papers, Évry, France, December 14–15, 2017,

Belardinelli and

Argente, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10767, Springer, 2018, pp. 172–186. ISBN 978-3-030-01713-2. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01713-2_13.

13.

Fornara,

Viganò,

Verdicchio and

Colombetti, Artificial institutions: A model of institutional reality for open multiagent systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1) (2008), 89–105. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9055-z.

14.

Garcia-Camino,

Noriega and

J.A.

Rodriguez-Aguilar, Implementing norms in electronic institutions, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS ’05, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2005, pp. 667–673. ISBN 1-59593-093-0. doi:10.1145/1082473.1082575.

15.

Governatori,

Olivieri,

Rotolo and

Scannapieco, Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 42(6) (2013), 799–829. doi:10.1007/s10992-013-9295-1.

16.

Governatori,

Rotolo,

Villata and

Gandon, One license to compose them all – A deontic logic approach to data licensing on the web of data, in: ISWC 2013 – 12th International Semantic Web Conference, Proceedings, Part I, Sydney, NSW, Australia, October 21–25, 2013,

Alani et al., eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8218, Springer, 2013, pp. 151–166. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_10.

17.

Iannella,

Guth,

Paehler and

Kasten, ODRL Version 2.1 Core Model, 2015, https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/ (accessed 15/09/2017).

18.

A.J.I.

Jones and

Sergot, A formal characterisation of institutionalised power, Logic Journal of the IGPL 4(3) (1996), 427–443. doi:10.1093/jigpal/4.3.427.

19.

Kasten and

Grimm, Making the semantics of ODRL and URM explicit using web ontologies, in: Virtual Goods, 2010, pp. 77–91.

20.

Kirrane,

Villata and

d’Aquin, Privacy, security and policies: A review of problems and solutions with Semantic Web technologies, Semantic Web 9(2) (2018), 153–161. doi:10.3233/SW-180289.

21.

Kokciyan and

Yolum, PriGuard: A semantic approach to detect privacy violations in online social networks, IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng. 28(10) (2016), 2724–2737. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2016.2583425.

22.

Moskal and

C.J.

Matheus, Detection of suspicious activity using different rule engines – comparison of BaseVISor, Jena and Jess Rule engines, in: Rule Representation, Interchange and Reasoning on the Web, International Symposium, RuleML 2008, Proceedings, Orlando, FL, USA, October 30–31, 2008,

Bassiliades,

Governatori and

Paschke, eds, LNCS, Vol. 5321, Springer, 2008, pp. 73–80. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88808-6_10.

23.

Padget,

Elakehal,

Li and

De Vos, InstAL: An institutional action language, in: Social Coordination Frameworks for Social Technical Systems, Law, Governance and Technology Series, Vol. 30, Springer Verlag, 2016, p. 101. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33570-4_6.

24.

Panagiotidi,

Alvarez-Napagao and

Vázquez-Salceda, Towards the norm-aware agent: Bridging the gap between deontic specifications and practical mechanisms for norm monitoring and norm-aware planning, in: Revised Selected Papers of the COIN 2013, Vol. 8386, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 346–363. ISBN 978-3-319-07313-2. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_19.

25.

Rodríguez-Doncel,

Villata and

Gómez-Pérez, A dataset of RDF licenses, in: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 10–12 December 2014,

Hoekstra, ed., Vol. 271, IOS Press, 2014, pp. 187–188. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-468-8-187.

26.

Sensoy,

T.J.

Norman,

W.W.

Vasconcelos and

K.P.

Sycara, OWL-POLAR: A framework for semantic policy representation and reasoning, J. Web Sem. 12 (2012), 148–160. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011.11.005.

27.

Steyskal and

Polleres, Towards formal semantics for ODRL policies, in: Rule Technologies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications – 9th International Symposium, RuleML 2015, Proceedings, Berlin, Germany, August 2–5, 2015,

Bassiliades,

Gottlob,

Sadri,

Paschke and

Roman, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9202, 2015, pp. 360–375. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_23.

28.

Uszok,

J.M.

Bradshaw,

Lott,

M.R.

Breedy,

Bunch,

P.J.

Feltovich,

Johnson and

Jung, New developments in ontology-based policy management: Increasing the practicality and comprehensiveness of KAoS, in: POLICY 2008, Palisades, New York, USA, 2–4 June 2008, IEEE Computer Society, 2008, pp. 145–152. doi:10.1109/POLICY.2008.47.

29.

G.H.

von Wright, Deontic logic, Mind, New Series 60(237) (1951), 1–15.

30.

G.H.

von Wright, Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.