Designing for Compliance: Norms and Goals

Abstract

We address the problem of define a modal defeasible theory able to capture intuitions as "being compliant" with a set of norms and a set of goals. We will treat norms and goals as modalised literals. From the definition of this new kind of logic, two main issues arises whether a theory is compliant or not: (a) how to revise a non compliant theory to obtain a new compliant one; (b) in case the theory is compliant how to create an entirely new process starting from the theory, i.e., from the fully declarative description of the specifications for a process and the norms. M. Palmirani et al (eds)

Compliant Business Process Design by Declarative Specifications

“…Line 6 selects the compliant choices for each active outcome rule. If the step picks more than one element (if condition at line 7), then we represent them with an X-OR pattern (then branch at lines [8][9][10][11][12][13][14], otherwise no additional construct is needed (lines 19-20).…”

“…The contribution of this paper is twofold: (1) we extended the definition of compliance provided in [8] to accommodate the notion of outcome, and, as the main contribution of the paper, (2) we presented algorithms to generate outcome and norm compliant business processes starting from the description of the environment, norms and the agent's capabilities.…”

“…The former is to adapt the notion of norm and goal compliance presented in [8] to the (more expressive) logic proposed in [1]. This will result in determining not just whether an agent is capable of reaching a (sub)set of these outcomes without violating the norms, but also her level of commitment to them (i.e., which mental attitude the agent decides to comply with).…”

Formalizing and appling compliance patterns for business process compliance

“…LKIF-Rule language [36] is extended with defeasible logic (FCL) in [37] for the formal specification of compliance requirements. The work in [38] proposes to extend FCL with the notion of goals (i.e. goal compliance), such that BP models could satisfy at the same time the goals of the organization, and the compliance requirements governing the business.…”

“…In particular, they extend and combine FCL for modelling contracts and regulatory compliance, and the defeasible BIO (Belief-Intention-Obligation) logic for modelling agents [39]. In [38], first, an abstract BP model is specified and checked for compliance and goals satisfaction, which is followed by the automated generation of corresponding concrete compliant BP model. The approaches referred above implicitly assume users who are experienced in formal theories and definitions.…”