In this paper we present a Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. The intuition behind the system is that a contrary-to-duty is a special kind of normative exception. The logical machinery to formalise this idea is taken from substructural logics and it is based on the definition of a new non-classical connective capturing the notion of reparational obligation. Then the system is tested against well-known contrary-to-duty paradoxes. 1

This paper presents a formal system for reasoning about violations of obligations in contracts. The system is based on the formalism for the representation of contrary-to-duty obligations. These are the obligations that take place when other obligations are violated as typically applied to penalties in contracts. The paper shows how this formalism can be mapped onto the key policy concepts of a contract specification language. This language, called Business Contract Language (BCL) was previously developed to express contract conditions of relevance for run time contract monitoring. The aim of this mapping is to establish a formal underpinning for this key subset of BCL. 1.

Abstract. This paper presents an approach for the specification and implementation of e-contracts for Web monitoring. This is done in the setting of RuleML. We argue that monitoring contract execution requires also a logical account of deontic concepts and of violations. Accordingly, RuleML is extended to cover these aspects. 1

Abstract. Defeasible Logic is extended to programming languages for cognitive agents with preferences and actions for planning. We define rule-based agent theories that contain preferences and actions, together with inference procedures. We discuss patterns of agent types in this setting. Finally, we illustrate the language by an example of an agent reasoning about web-services. 1

Abstract. We are interested in programming languages for cognitive agents with preferences. We define rule-based agent theories and inference procedures in defeasible logic, and in this setting we discuss patterns of agent behavior called agent types. 1

We continue the study, started in [5], on the formal relationships between a domain specific contract language (BCL) and the logic of violation (FCL) proposed in [6, 7]. We discuss the use of logical methods for the representation and analysis of business contracts. The proposed analysis is based on the notions of normal and canonical forms of contracts expressed in FCL. Finally we present a mapping from FCL to BCL that can be used to provide an executable model of a formal representation of a contract. 1.

Abstract: We introduce the DR-CONTRACT architecture to represent and reason on e-Contracts. The architecture extends the DR-device architecture by a deontic defeasible logic of violation. We motivate the choice for the logic and we show how to extend RuleML to capture the notions relevant to describe e-contracts for a monitoring perspective in Defeasible Logic.

This paper addresses the problem of ensuring compliance of business processes, implemented within and across organisational boundaries, with the constraints stated in related business contracts. In order to deal with the complexity of this problem we propose two solutions that allow for a systematic and increasingly automated support for addressing two specific compliance issues. One solution provides a set of guidelines for progressively transforming contract conditions into business processes that are consistent with contract conditions thus avoiding violation of the rules in contract. Another solution compares rules in business contracts and rules in business processes to check for possible inconsistencies. Both approaches rely on a computer interpretable representation of contract conditions that embodies contract semantics. This semantics is described in terms of a logic based formalism allowing for the description of obligations, prohibitions, permissions and violations conditions in contracts. This semantics was based on an analysis of typical building blocks of many commercial, financial and government contracts. The study proved that our contract formalism provides a good foundation for describing key types of conditions in contracts, and has also given several insights into valuable transformation techniques and formalisms needed to establish better alignment between these two, traditionally separate areas of research and endeavour. The study also revealed a number of new areas of research, some of which we intend to address in near future. 1