Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL)

Torre, Leendert van der; Tan, Yao‐Hua

doi:10.1007/3-540-49545-2_6

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Automatic negotiation of the supported obligations will be our future work, Deontic Logic (among others presented in [15]) could provide the necessary means. Nevertheless as the obligations are of an arbitrary application domain their relationship most likely has to be specified by humans to some extent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic obligation specification and negotiation

Lischka¹

2010

2010 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium - NOMS 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OASIS XACML has become a recognized standard for the specification of access control policies, and has specified a generic framework for access control. While the XACML policy language is very flexible for access privileges, there is currently no method to specify the obligations send from a policy decision point (PDP) to a policy enforcement point (PEP) in a generic way. Potential conflicts between obligations are not even considered in the language specification, thus no generic detection of these conflicts is possible. But this becomes an important aspect in a distributed environment like SaaS, in which the policies and their enforcement are not coordinated by a single entity. In this paper we will present a dynamic obligation specification language which covers the following aspects. First, it allows us to define the actual obligation and its parameters including the relationship, especially conflicts among them. Second, the negotiation of the supported obligation between distributed PDP and PEP is introduced. Third, potential conflicts are detected and partially solved at runtime based on the definition of the obligations. We show how the introduced extensible obligation markup language (XOML) could be integrated into the XACML standard.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%