Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Symposium on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web

RuleML 2015: Rule Technologies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications pp 388–403Cite as

Explanation of Proofs of Regulatory (Non-)Compliance Using Semantic Vocabularies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9202))

Abstract

With recent regulatory advances, modern enterprises have to not only comply with regulations but have to be prepared to provide explanation of proof of (non-)compliance. On top of compliance checking, this necessitates modeling concepts from regulations and enterprise operations so that stakeholder-specific and close to natural language explanations could be generated. We take a step in this direction by using Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules to model and map vocabularies of regulations and operations of enterprise. Using these vocabularies and leveraging proof generation abilities of an existing compliance engine, we show how such explanations can be created. Basic natural language explanations that we generate can be easily enriched by adding requisite domain knowledge to the vocabularies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. French Caldwell, J.A.W.: Magic quadrant for enterprise governance, risk and compliance platforms (Gartner) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. English, S., Hammond, S.: Cost of compliance 2014 (Thomson Reuters Accelus) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. FRC: What constitutes an explanation under ‘comply or explain’? Report of discussions between companies and investors (February 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sadiq, W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling Control Objectives for Business Process Compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu, Y., Müller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business process models. IBM Systems Journal 46(2), 335–362 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. El Kharbili, M., Stein, S., Markovic, I., Pulvermüller, E.: Towards a framework for semantic business process compliance management. In: The Impact of Governance, Risk, and Compliance on Information Systems (GRCIS), June 17. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 339, Montpellier, France, pp. 1–15 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Knuplesch, D., Dadam, P.: Monitoring business process compliance using compliance rule graphs. In: Meersman, R. (ed.) OTM 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7044, pp. 82–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Hashmi, M., Governatori, G.: A methodological evaluation of business process compliance management frameworks. In: Song, M., Wynn, M.T., Liu, J. (eds.) AP-BPM 2013. LNBIP, vol. 159, pp. 106–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Fellmann, M., Zasada, A.: State-of-the-art of business process compliance approaches. In: Avital, M., Leimeister, J.M., Schultze, U. (eds.) 22st European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2014, June 9–11, Tel Aviv, Israel (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bikakis, A., Papatheodorou, C., Antoniou, G.: The DR-Prolog tool suite for defeasible reasoning and proof explanation in the semantic web. In: Darzentas, J., Vouros, G.A., Vosinakis, S., Arnellos, A. (eds.) SETN 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5138, pp. 345–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Awad, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Resolution of compliance violation in business process models: a planning-based approach. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5870, pp. 6–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Boella, G., Janssen, M., Hulstijn, J., Humphreys, L., van der Torre, L.: Managing legal interpretation in regulatory compliance. In: Francesconi, E., Verheij, B. (eds.) International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2013, pp. 23–32. ACM. Rome (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Eggert, M., Schwittay, S.: Generalizability and applicability of modelbased business process compliance-checking approaches – a state-of-the-art analysis and research roadmap. BuR – Business Research 5(2), 221–247 (2012); Publication status: Published

    Google Scholar 

  14. Antoniou, G., Bikakis, A., Dimaresis, N., Genetzakis, M., Georgalis, G., Governatori, G., Karouzaki, E., Kazepis, N., Kosmadakis, D., Kritsotakis, M., Lilis, G., Papadogiannakis, A., Pediaditis, P., Terzakis, C., Theodosaki, R., Zeginis, D.: Proof explanation for a nonmonotonic semantic web rules language. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64(3), 662–687 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G.: Visualizing semantic web proofs of defeasible logic in the DR-DEVICE system. Knowl.-Based Syst. 24(3), 406–419 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bratko, I.: PROLOG Programming for Artificial Intelligence, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tobermann, G., Beckstein, C.: What’s in a trace: The box model revisited. In: Fritzson, P.A. (ed.) AADEBUG 1993. LNCS, vol. 749, pp. 171–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Kholkar, D., Yelure, P., Tiwari, H., Deshpande, A., Shetye, A.: Experience with industrial adoption of business process models for user acceptance testing. In: Van Gorp, P., Ritter, T., Rose, L.M. (eds.) ECMFA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7949, pp. 192–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Antoniou, G., Dimaresis, N., Governatori, G.: A modal and deontic defeasible reasoning system for modelling policies and multi-agent systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(2), 4125–4134 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Antoniou, G., Dimaresis, N., Governatori, G.: A System for modal and deontic defeasible reasoning. In: Orgun, M.A., Thornton, J. (eds.) AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4830, pp. 609–613. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Ramezani, E., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Where did i misbehave? diagnostic information in compliance checking. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 262–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Awad, A., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Specification, verification and explanation of violation for data aware compliance rules. In: Baresi, L., Chi, C.-H., Suzuki, J. (eds.) ICSOC-ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 5900, pp. 500–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Governatori, G., Hoffmann, J., Sadiq, S., Weber, I.: Detecting regulatory compliance for business process models through semantic annotations. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 5–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Goedertier, S., Mues, C., Vanthienen, J.: Specifying process-aware access control rules in SBVR. In: Paschke, A., Biletskiy, Y. (eds.) RuleML 2007. LNCS, vol. 4824, pp. 39–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamada, A., Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: Transformation of SBVR compliant business rules to executable FCL rules. In: Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2010. LNCS, vol. 6403, pp. 153–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Abi-Lahoud, E., Butler, T., Chapin, D., Hall, J.: Interpreting regulations with SBVR. In: Fodor, P., Roman, D., Anicic, D., Wyner, A., Palmirani, M., Sottara, D., Lévy, F. (eds.) Joint Proceedings of the 7th International Rule Challenge, the Special Track on Human Language Technology and the 3rd RuleML Doctoral Consortium. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1004. CEUR-WS.org, Seattle (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Rifaut, A.: Legal goal-oriented requirement language (legal GRL) for modeling regulations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, MiSE 2014, pp. 1–6. ACM, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  28. OMG: Business Motivation Model - Version 1.2 (May 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sunkle, S., Kholkar, D., Rathod, H., Kulkarni, V.: Incorporating directives into enterprise TO-BE architecture. In: Grossmann, G., Hallé, S., Karastoyanova, D., Reichert, M., Rinderle-Ma, S. (eds.) 18th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations, EDOC Workshops 2014, September 1–2, Ulm, Germany, pp. 57–66. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tata Research Development and Design Center, Tata Consultancy Services, 54B, Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune , 411013, India

    Sagar Sunkle, Deepali Kholkar & Vinay Kulkarni

Authors
  1. Sagar Sunkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deepali Kholkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vinay Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sagar Sunkle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Nick Bassiliades

  2. University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Georg Gottlob

  3. Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Fariba Sadri

  4. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Adrian Paschke

  5. SINTEF/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Dumitru Roman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sunkle, S., Kholkar, D., Kulkarni, V. (2015). Explanation of Proofs of Regulatory (Non-)Compliance Using Semantic Vocabularies. In: Bassiliades, N., Gottlob, G., Sadri, F., Paschke, A., Roman, D. (eds) Rule Technologies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications. RuleML 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9202. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21541-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21542-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation