Using Semantic Web Technologies and Production Rules for Reasoning on Obligations and Permissions

  • Nicoletta FornaraEmail author
  • Alessia Chiappa
  • Marco Colombetti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11327)


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 permission and obligation 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 and permissions (expiration dates and deadlines) as part of their application independent model. The operational semantics of the proposed model of obligations and permissions is specified using Discrete State Machines and is computed using a 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 policies.


  1. 1.
    Brachman, R., Levesque, H.: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradshaw, J.M., et al.: The KAoS policy services framework. In: Eighth Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research Workshop, CSIIRW 2013. Oak Ridge National Labs, Oak Ridge (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    da Silva Figueiredo, K., Torres da Silva, V., de Oliveira Braga, C.: Modeling norms in multi-agent systems with NormML. In: De Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds.) COIN -2010. LNCS, vol. 6541, pp. 39–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forgy, C.L.: On the efficient implementation of production systems. Ph.D. thesis, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1979). AAI7919143Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fornara, N.: Specifying and monitoring obligations in open multiagent systems using semantic web technology. In: Elçi, A., Koné, M.T., Orgun, M.A. (eds.) Semantic Agent Systems: Foundations and Applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence, chap. 2, vol. 344, pp. 25–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: 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 2002, pp. 536–542. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Representation and monitoring of commitments and norms using OWL. AI Commun. 23(4), 341–356 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Operational semantics of an extension of ODRL able to express obligations. In: Belardinelli, F., Argente, E. (eds.) EUMAS/AT -2017. LNCS, vol. 10767, pp. 172–186. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A.: Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2005, pp. 667–673. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: BIO logical agents: norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 17(1), 36–69 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Villata, S., Gandon, F.: One license to compose them all. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iannella, R., Guth, S., Paehler, D., Kasten, A.: ODRL Version 2.1 Core Model (2015). Accessed 15 Sept 2017
  13. 13.
    Kasten, A., Grimm, R.: Making the semantics of ODRL and URM explicit using web ontologies. In: Virtual Goods, pp. 77–91 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirrane, S., Villata, S., d’Aquin, M.: Privacy, security and policies: a review of problems and solutions with semantic web technologies. Semant. Web 9(2), 153–161 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kokciyan, N., Yolum, P.: PriGuard: a semantic approach to detect privacy violations in online social networks. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 28(10), 2724–2737 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moskal, J., Matheus, C.J.: Detection of suspicious activity using different rule engines—comparison of BaseVISor, Jena and Jess rule engines. In: Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2008. LNCS, vol. 5321, pp. 73–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panagiotidi, S., Alvarez-Napagao, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J.: Towards the Norm-aware agent: bridging the gap between deontic specifications and practical mechanisms for norm monitoring and norm-aware planning. In: Balke, T., Dignum, F., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Chopra, A.K. (eds.) COIN 2013. LNCS, vol. 8386, pp. 346–363. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sensoy, M., Norman, T.J., Vasconcelos, W.W., Sycara, K.P.: OWL-POLAR: a framework for semantic policy representation and reasoning. J. Web Sem. 12, 148–160 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steyskal, S., Polleres, A.: Towards formal semantics for ODRL policies. In: Bassiliades, N., Gottlob, G., Sadri, F., Paschke, A., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2015. LNCS, vol. 9202, pp. 360–375. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uszok, A., et al.: 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, pp. 145–152. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind New Ser. 60(237), 1–15 (1951)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations