Towards an Ontological Foundation for Services Science: The Legal Perspective

  • Roberta FerrarioEmail author
  • Nicola Guarino
  • Meritxell Fernández-Barrera
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 1)


As a growing number of economic transactions tend to happen in the Web, their legal implications and assumptions need to be made explicit in the proper way, in order to facilitate interoperability across different normative systems, encourage transparency towards the end users and ultimately promote trust in automated services. In particular, potentially ambiguous terms (and often apparently unproblematic ones) mentioned in these transactions need to be carefully analyzed in order to clarify the distinctions between slightly different meanings, describing hidden relationships and implicit constraints. One of these terms, highly overloaded nowadays, is “service”. Indeed, the very fact that services are now offered through the Web, and that the notion of service is at the core of a wholly new organizational paradigm—service-oriented systems—suggests the need to carefully (re)consider this notion. In this paper we shall attempt this analysis under the perspective of formal ontology, with a special attention to the legal aspects. The approach we take is that services are complex temporal entities (events) based on the central notion of commitment. Analyzing services as complex events allows us to clarify the relationships between the various agents that participate to these events playing specific roles, with specific responsibilities; moreover, this analysis explains a classic economic (and legal) distinction between services and goods, based on the fact that goods are both transactable and transferable, while services are transactable but not transferable. Assuming that transferability is intended as transferability of ownership, we argue that the ontological reason why services are not transferable is exactly because they are events: you cannot own an event, since if owning implies being in control of temporal behaviour, then, strictly speaking (at the token level), the temporal behaviour of an event is already determined, and changing it would result in a different event. So events are not transferable simply because they are not “ownable”. Since services are events, they are not transferable as well. Of course, this implies a shared understanding of what ownership, responsibility, duty, right etc. mean, and the paper is a first effort in this direction.


Service Level Agreement Service Process Service Producer Legal Responsibility Service Content 
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.



This work is carried out under the scope of the activities of the LEGO lab (, a joint e-government initiative located in Trento, as well as the TOCAI.IT project, funded by the Italian Ministry of Research (Tecnologie Orientate alla Conoscenza per Aggregazioni di Imprese su InterneT) and the project “CSS—Cartella Socio-Sanitaria” founded by the Autonomous Province of Trento. The initial ideas at the basis of this project have emerged from a fruitful collaboration with “Servizio Politiche Sociali e Abitative” of the Autonomous Province of Trento concerning the revision of a catalog of social services, to be shared among different Public Administrations. The first author is funded by a PostDoc grant from the Autonomous Province of Trento.


  1. Alter, S. (2008). Service System Fundamentals: Work System, Value Chain, and Life Cycle. IBM Systems Journal, 2008; 47(1): 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baida, Z., J. Gordijn, H. Akkermans (2001). Service Ontology. Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Baida, Z. (2006). Software-Aided Service Bundling—Intelligent Methods & Tools for Graphical Service Modeling. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American Journal of Sociology, LXVI: 32–40.Google Scholar
  5. Beladiez Rojo, M. (1997). Responsabilidad e imputación de danos por el funcionamiento de los servicios públicos. Tecnos, Madrid.Google Scholar
  6. Castelfranchi, C. (2003). Grounding We-Intention in Individual Social Attitudes: On Social Commitment Again. In M. Sintonen, K. Miller (Eds.) Realism in Action—Essays in the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Cauvet, C., G. Guzelian (2008). Business Process Modeling: A Service-Oriented Approach. In HICSS ’08, 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H., J. Spohrer (2006). A Research Manifesto for Services Science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7): 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumas, M., et al. (2003) Towards a Semantic Framework for Service Description. In Data Semantics 9: Semantic Issues in E-Commerce. Kluwer, Hong Kong, 239.Google Scholar
  10. Falcone, R., C. Castelfranchi (2001). The Human in the Loop of a Delegated Agent: The Theory of Adjustable Social Autonomy. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 31(5): 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fensel, D., C. Bussler (2002). The Web Service Modeling Framework WSMF. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1: 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gronroos, C. (1978). A Service-Oriented Approach to Marketing of Services. European Journal of Marketing, 12(8): 588–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, T.P. (1977). On Goods and Services. Review of Income and Wealth, 23(4): 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hohfeld, W.N. (1913). Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1): 16–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janssen, M., R. Wagenaar (2003). From Legacy to Modularity: A Roadmap Towards Modular Architectures Using Web Services Technology. In Electronic Government. Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Jennings, N.R. (1993). Commitment and Conventions: The Foundation of Coordination in Multi-Agent Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(3): 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehtinen, U., J.R. Lehtinen (1982). Service Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions. Service Management Institute, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  18. Lucy, W. (2007). Philosophy of Private Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Masolo, C., et al. (2003). The WonderWeb Library of Fundational Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology. WonderWeb Deliverable D18, Final Report (vr. 1.0. 31-12-2003).Google Scholar
  20. McCarty, L.T. (2002). Ownership: A Case Study in the Representation of Legal Concepts. Artificial Intellingence and Law, 10(1–3): 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Sullivan, J. (2006). Towards a Precise Understanding of Service Properties. In Faculty of Information Technology. Queensland University of Technology, 232.Google Scholar
  22. Papazoglou, M.P., D. Georgakopoulos (2003). Service-Oriented Computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(10): 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Rersearch. Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pérez Moreno, A. (1999). Responsabilidad en la gestión indirecta de obras y servicios públicos. In J.L. Martínez, A. Calonge (Eds.) La responsabilidad patrimonial de los poderes públicos. Marcial Pons, Madrid, Barcelona, 399–418.Google Scholar
  25. Petrie, C., C. Bussler (2008). The Myth of Open Web Services: The Rise of the Service Parks. IEEE Internet Computing, 12(3): 94–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roman, D., et al. (2005). Web Service Modeling Ontology. Applied Ontology, 1(1): 77–106.Google Scholar
  27. Sasser, W.E.J., R.P. Olsen, D.D. Wyckoff (1978). Management of Service Operations: Text and Cases. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Singh, M.P. (1997). An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems: Toward a Unification of Normative Concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sycara, K. (2007). Unthethering Semantic Web Services. In D. Martin, J. Domingue (Eds.) Semantic Web Services, Part 2, D. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 11–13.Google Scholar
  30. Terlouw, L., A. Albani, An Enterprise Ontology-Based Approach to Service Specification. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, to appear.Google Scholar
  31. Traverso, P., M. Pistore (2004). Automated Composition of Semantic Web Services into Executable Processes. In International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’04). Hiroshima, Japan.Google Scholar
  32. Verdicchio, M., M. Colombetti (2003). A Logical Model of Social Commitment for Agent Communication. In AAMAS 2003. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  33. Vetere, G., M. Lenzerini (2005). Models for Semantic Interoperaility in Service-Oriented Architectures. IBM Systems Journal, 44(4): 887–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weigand, H., et al. (2009). Value-Based Service Modeling and Design: Toward a Unified View of Services. In P. van Eck, J. Gordijn, R. Wieringa (Eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Springer, Berlin, 410–424.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberta Ferrario
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicola Guarino
    • 2
  • Meritxell Fernández-Barrera
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied OntologyISTC-CNRTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Law DepartmentEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.UAB Institute of Law and TechnologyAutonomous University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations