Ontology and Time Evolution of Obligations and Prohibitions Using Semantic Web Technology

  • Nicoletta Fornara
  • Marco Colombetti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)


The specification and monitoring of conditional obligations and prohibitions with starting points and deadlines is a crucial aspect in the design of open interaction systems. In this paper we regard such obligations and prohibitions as cases of social commitment, and propose to model them in OWL, the logical language recommended by the W3C for Semantic Web applications. In particular we propose an application-independent ontology of the notions of social commitment, temporal proposition, event, agent, role and norms that can be used in the specification of any open interaction system. We then delineate a hybrid solution that uses the OWL ontology, SWRL rules, and a Java program to dynamically monitor or simulate the temporal evolution of social commitments, due to the elapsing of time and to the actions performed by the agents interacting within the system.


Multiagent System Java Program SPARQL Query Social Commitment Closed World Assumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Animated Specifications of Computational Societies. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, W.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 535–542. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berges, I., Bermúdez, J., Goñi, A., Illarramendi, A.: Semantic web technology for agent communication protocols. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 5–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradshaw, J., Beautment, P., Breedy, M., Bunch, L., Drakunov, S., Feltovich, P., Hoffman, R., Jeffers, R., Johnson, M., Kulkarni, S., Lott, J., Raj, A., Suri, N., Uszok, A.: Making agents acceptable to people, pp. 355–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bräuer, M., Lochmann, H.: An ontology for software models and its practical implications for semantic web reasoning. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    da Silva1, V.T.: From the specification to the implementation of norms: an automatic approach to generate rules from norms to govern the behavior of agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1), 113–155 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dastani, M., Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J., Tinnemeier, N.: Normative multi-agent programs and their logics. In: Boella, G., Noriega, P., Pigozzi, G., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 09121. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A., Nutt, W.: An epistemic operator for description logics. Artificial Intelligence 200(1-2), 225–274 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felicissimo, C., Briot, J.-P., Chopinaud, C., Lucena, C.: How to concretize norms in NMAS? An operational normative approach presented with a case study from the television domain. In: International Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN@AAAI 2008), 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chicago, IL, Etats-Unis. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Specifying Artificial Institutions in the Event Calculus. In: Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models of Information science reference, ch. XIV, pp. 335–366. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fornara, N., Viganò, F., Colombetti, M.: Agent communication and artificial institutions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2), 121–142 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fornara, N., Viganò, F., Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: Artificial institutions: A model of institutional reality for open multiagent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1), 89–105 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    García-Camino, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Vasconcelos, W.: Constraint rule-based programming of norms for electronic institutions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 18(1), 186–217 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: How do agents comply with norms? In: Boella, G., Noriega, P., Pigozzi, G., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Dagstuhl, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lam, J.S.-C., Guerin, F., Vasconcelos, W., Norman, T.J.: Representing and reasoning about norm-governed organisations with semantic web languages. In: Sixth European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems Bath, UK, December 18-19 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    López, F., López, Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A Normative Framework for Agent-Based Systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Hatfield (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uszok, A., Bradshaw, J.M., Lott, J., Breedy, M., Bunch, L., Feltovich, P., Johnson, M., Jung, H.: New developments in ontology-based policy management: Increasing the practicality and comprehensiveness of kaos. In: IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pp. 145–152 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Reasoning about commitment in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42, 227–253 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicoletta Fornara
    • 1
  • Marco Colombetti
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Università della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations