On Logic and Standards for Structuring Documents

  • David M. Eyers
  • Andrew J. I. Jones
  • Steven O. Kimbrough
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 22)


The advent of XML has been widely seized upon as an opportunity to develop document representation standards that lend themselves to automated processing. This is a welcome development and much good has come of it. That said, present standardization efforts may be criticized on a number of counts. We explore two issues associated with document XML standardization efforts. We label them (i) the dynamic point and (ii) the logical point. Our dynamic point is that in many cases experience has shown that the search for a final, or even reasonably permanent, document representation standard is futile. The case is especially strong for electronic data interchange (EDI). Our logical point is that formalization into symbolic logic is materially helpful for understanding and designing dynamic document standards.


EDI messaging messaging standards XML logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO 20022, Payments standards – clearing and settlement (October 2006), (accessed 2007-1-7). File: Payments_Standards-Clearing_and_Settlement_updated.pdf
  2. 2.
    Kowalski, R.: Logic for problem solving. Artificial Intelligence Series, vol. 7. North Holland, New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kimbrough, S.O.: Reasoning about the objects of attitudes and operators: Towards a disquotation theory for representation of propositional content. In: Proceedings of ICAIL 2001, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimbrough, S.O.: A note on interpretations for federated languages and the use of disquotation. In: Gardner, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), Bologna, Italy, In cooperation with ACM SIGART and The American Association for Artificial Intelligence, June 6–11, 2005, pp. 10–19 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 20022, Financial services — UNIversal Financial Industry message scheme — part 1: Overall methodology and format specifications for inputs to and outputs from the iso 20022 repository (December 2004), (accessed 2007-1-10). Reference number ISO 20022-1:2004(E)
  6. 6.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic database constraints, violation and recovery. Studia Logica 57, 139–165 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.J.: On the characterization of law and computer systems: The normative systems perspective. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pp. 275–307. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 265–343. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Eyers
    • 1
  • Andrew J. I. Jones
    • 2
  • Steven O. Kimbrough
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.King’s College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations