pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.12276 · v2 · pith:FFGCZRX5new · submitted 2025-11-15 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.PL

Reflections on the design, applications and implementations of the normative specification language eFLINT

L. Thomas van Binsbergen , Christopher A. Esterhuyse , Tim M\"uller This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.PL
keywords eFLINTnormative specification languageautomated compliancedeclarative and procedural elementslegal conceptssoftware systemscompliance checksdomain-specific language
0
0 comments X

The pith

eFLINT combines declarative and procedural elements to automate software compliance checks before, during and after execution.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reflects on the design of eFLINT, a domain-specific language created to experiment with automating compliance of software against laws, regulations and contracts. It argues that this language can address the difficulties of subjective legal interpretation, frequent regulatory changes and the need for both legal and software expertise by supporting multiple forms of reasoning. A sympathetic reader would care because embedding software in societal practices makes manual compliance increasingly costly and hard to adapt. The design goals include formalizing links between legal concepts and computational ones so that checks become possible at different stages of a system's life. The reflection aims to share insights that can help other developers working on automated compliance languages.

Core claim

The central claim is that the abstract syntax and semantics of eFLINT, which blend declarative and procedural elements while formalizing connections between legal concepts and computational concepts, enable the automation of compliance checks before a software system runs, while it runs, and after it has run, despite challenges such as subjective qualification processes and constant revisions to laws.

What carries the argument

The abstract syntax and semantics of eFLINT that support different types of reasoning for various compliance applications.

If this is right

  • Compliance checks become feasible before deployment, at runtime, and after execution.
  • The language can accommodate new laws and revisions through its adaptable structure.
  • Cross-disciplinary work between legal experts and software developers is supported by the formalized connections.
  • Insights from the design can be used by other developers creating languages for automated compliance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be tested on specific regulations such as data-protection rules to measure how well it handles real revisions.
  • Integration with existing software development tools might allow compliance verification to become a standard step in deployment pipelines.
  • Similar language designs could be explored for non-legal normative domains such as safety standards or ethical guidelines.

Load-bearing premise

Conflicting requirements from different design goals and application areas can be reconciled in a single language design without compromising its utility for compliance automation.

What would settle it

A concrete case in which eFLINT produces an incorrect compliance verdict for a revised regulation or a subjective legal qualification would show that the design does not successfully support automated checks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.12276 by Christopher A. Esterhuyse, L. Thomas van Binsbergen, Tim M\"uller.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic overview of the processes of interpretation, qual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A FLINT and eFLINT specification of the same act. Sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example translating eFLINT (top) to Clingo (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Speed in unfolding long derivation chains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Speed in reasoning with substantial integer arithmetic. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Speed in reasoning in cases requiring the enumeration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: the simplest scenario induces 2× speedup, and the largest scales up to 17× speedup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Speed in reasoning about the same, moderate reasoning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Speed in enumerating all prime numbers up to a maximum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Checking the compliance of software against laws, regulations and contracts is increasingly important and costly as the embedding of software into societal practices is becoming more pervasive. Moreover, the digitalised services provided by governmental organisations and companies are governed by an increasing amount of laws and regulations, requiring highly adaptable compliance practices. A potential solution is to automate compliance using software. However, automating compliance is difficult for various reasons. Legal practices involve subjective processes such as interpretation and qualification. New laws and regulations come into effect regularly and laws and regulations, as well as their interpretations, are subjected to constant revision. In addition, computational reasoning with laws requires a cross-disciplinary process involving both legal and software expertise. This paper reflects on the domain-specific language eFLINT developed to experiment with novel solutions to these challenges. Specifically, the language has been developed to experiment with the abstract syntax and semantics of a language supporting different types of reasoning for various applications. The language combines declarative and procedural elements, formalises connections between legal concepts and computational concepts, and is designed to automate compliance checks before, during and after a software system runs. The various design goals and applications areas for the language give rise to (conflicting) requirements. This paper presents and reflects on the current design of the language by recalling applications and requirements. As such, this paper reports on results and insights of an investigation that can benefit language developers within the field of automated compliance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reflects on the design, applications, and implementations of the eFLINT normative specification language, a domain-specific language developed to experiment with abstract syntax and semantics for automating compliance checks of software against laws, regulations, and contracts. It emphasizes the combination of declarative and procedural elements, mappings between legal and computational concepts, and support for pre-, during-, and post-execution reasoning, while discussing how conflicting requirements from various applications are addressed through an ongoing experimental process.

Significance. The manuscript provides experiential insights into reconciling declarative and procedural features in a single language for automated compliance, which can inform language design in software engineering and legal informatics. Credit is due for grounding the discussion in recalled applications and requirements rather than unsubstantiated claims; however, the absence of quantitative benchmarks or external validation means the significance rests on the utility of these qualitative reflections for practitioners.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the language 'is designed to automate compliance checks before, during and after a software system runs' but does not preview how the paper structures the discussion of these three phases across sections; adding a brief roadmap would improve readability.
  2. The discussion of conflicting requirements arising from design goals and application areas is presented as motivating the current design, but the manuscript would benefit from a dedicated subsection or table explicitly enumerating the requirements and how each is (or is not) met.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed summary of the manuscript and the positive assessment of its contributions to reconciling declarative and procedural features in normative specification languages. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No major comments were provided in the report, so we have no specific points to address point-by-point. We will incorporate any minor editorial suggestions in the revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative reflection on the design and applications of eFLINT, enumerating features such as declarative/procedural elements and compliance automation without any equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictive claims. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes; the text reports experiential insights from requirements and use cases as an ongoing experiment. The central contribution is self-contained descriptive reporting rather than any formal result that could exhibit circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or postulated entities; it is a qualitative report on language design choices and experiences.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5794 in / 975 out tokens · 33494 ms · 2026-05-25T07:48:50.261169+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 119 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management1(1), 2–10 (2004)

    Al-Shaer, E.S., Hamed, H.H.: Modeling and man- agement of firewall policies. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management1(1), 2–10 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2004.4623689

    work page doi:10.1109/tnsm.2004.4623689 2004

  2. [3]

    In: Paja, E., Zdravkovic, J., Kavakli, E., Stirna, J

    Alfuhaid, S., Anda, A.A., Amyot, D., Roveri, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Symboleoac: An access con- trol model for legal contracts. In: Paja, E., Zdravkovic, J., Kavakli, E., Stirna, J. (eds.) The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. pp. 227–

    work page

  3. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77908-4_14

    Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77908-4_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77908-4_14 2025

  4. [5]

    In: Haverkort, B.R., de Jongste, A., van Kuilenburg, P., Vromans, R.D.(eds.) Commit2Data

    Alsayed Kassem, J., Allaart, C., Amiri, S., Kebede, M., Müller, T., Turner, R., Belloum, A., van Binsbergen, L.T., Grunwald, P., van Halteren, A., Grosso, P., de Laat, C., Klous, S.: Building a Digital Health Twin for Personalized Intervention: The EPI Project. In: Haverkort, B.R., de Jongste, A., van Kuilenburg, P., Vromans, R.D.(eds.) Commit2Data. Open ...

    work page doi:10.4230/oasics.commit2data.2 2024

  5. [6]

    Future Gen- eration Computer Systems165, 107550 (2025)

    Alsayed Kassem, J., Müller, T., Esterhuyse, C.A., Kebede, M.G., Osseyran, A., Grosso, P.: The epi framework: A data privacy by design framework to support healthcare use cases. Future Gen- eration Computer Systems165, 107550 (2025). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.107550, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0167739X24005144

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.107550 2025

  6. [7]

    Athan, T., Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Paschke, A., Wyner, A.: LegalRuleML: De- sign Principles and Foundations, pp. 151–188. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_6 2015

  7. [8]

    https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-015-13-2629

    Aştefănoaei, L., de Boer, F., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.: On the Semantics and Verification of Nor- mative Multi-Agent Systems15(13), 2629–2652. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-015-13-2629

    work page doi:10.3217/jucs-015-13-2629

  8. [9]

    Symmetry14(12), 2527 (2022)

    Bahig, H.M., Hazber, M.A.G., Al-Utaibi, K.A., Nassr, D.I., Bahig, H.M.: Efficient sequential and parallel prime sieve algo- rithms. Symmetry14(12), 2527 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM14122527,https: //doi.org/10.3390/sym14122527

    work page doi:10.3390/sym14122527 2022

  9. [10]

    Algorithms16(3), 169 (2023)

    Balduccini, M., Barborak, M., Ferrucci, D.A.: Pushing the limits of clingo’s incremental grounding and solving capabilities in prac- tical applications. Algorithms16(3), 169 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/A16030169, https://doi.org/10.3390/a16030169

    work page doi:10.3390/a16030169 2023

  10. [11]

    In: Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., van der Torre, L.W.N

    Balke, T., da Costa Pereira, C., Dignum, F., Lorini, E., Rotolo, A., Vasconcelos, W., Vil- lata, S.: Norms in MAS: Definitions and Related Concepts. In: Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., van der Torre, L.W.N. (eds.) Nor- mative Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 4, pp. 1–31. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. https://doi.org/10.4230/D...

    work page doi:10.4230/dfu.vol4.12111.1

  11. [12]

    In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y

    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y., Francalanza, A., Reger, G.: Introduction to Runtime Verifica- tion. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lec- tures on Runtime Verification, vol. 10457, pp. 1–33. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632- 5_1,http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-3-319-75632-5_1, series Title: Lectu...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75632- 2018

  12. [13]

    In: Handbook of Satisfiability, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol

    Biere, A.: Bounded Model Checking. In: Handbook of Satisfiability, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 336, pp. 739–764. IOS Press, 2 edn. https://doi.org/10.3233/faia201002

    work page doi:10.3233/faia201002

  13. [14]

    van Binsbergen, L.T.: Haskell prototype implemen- tation of the eflint language.https://gitlab.com/ eflint/haskell-implementation(2020), [Online, accessed 23 October 2025]

    work page 2020

  14. [15]

    van Binsbergen, L.T.: The eFLINT project on Git- Lab.https://gitlab.com/eflint(2020), [Online, accessed 23 October 2025]

    work page 2020

  15. [16]

    Proce- dia Computer Science198, 140–147 (January 2022)

    van Binsbergen, L.T., Kebede, M.G., Baugh, J., van Engers, T., van Vuurden, D.G.: Dynamic generation of access control policies from social policies. Proce- dia Computer Science198, 140–147 (January 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.221

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.221 2022

  16. [17]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences

    van Binsbergen, L.T., Liu, L., van Doesburg, R., van Engers, T.: eFLINT: A Domain-Specific Lan- guage for Executable Norm Specifications. In: Pro- ceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences. pp. 124––136. GPCE 2020, ACM (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3425898.3426958

    work page doi:10.1145/3425898.3426958 2020

  17. [18]

    Zenodo (2 2024)

    van Binsbergen, L.T., Oost-Rosengren, M., Schrei- jer, H., Dijkstra, F., van Dijk, T.: AMdEX Refer- ence Architecture – version 1.0.0. Zenodo (2 2024). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10565915 21

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10565915 2024

  18. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering

    van Binsbergen, L.T., Scott, E., Johnstone, A.: GLL parsing with flexible combinators. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering. SLE 2018, ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3276604.3276618

    work page doi:10.1145/3276604.3276618 2018

  19. [20]

    Journal of Computer Languages (2020)

    van Binsbergen, L.T., Scott, E., John- stone, A.: Purely functional gll parsing. Journal of Computer Languages (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cola.2020.100945

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cola.2020.100945 2020

  20. [21]

    van Binsbergen, L.T., Verano Merino, M., Jean- jean, P., van der Storm, T., Combemale, B., Barais, O.: A Principled Approach to REPL Interpreters, pp. 84–100. ACM (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3426428.3426917

    work page doi:10.1145/3426428.3426917 2020

  21. [22]

    Breebaart, M.: Juriconnect standaard BWB versie 1.3.1 (Oct 2014)

    work page 2014

  22. [23]

    In: In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Au- tonomous Agents

    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID Architec- ture - Conflicts Between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desires. In: In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Au- tonomous Agents. pp. 9–16. ACM Press (2001). https://doi.org/10.1145/375735.375766

    work page doi:10.1145/375735.375766 2001

  23. [25]

    Buterin, V.: Ethereum white paper (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies

    Byun, J.W., Bertino, E., Li, N.: Purpose based ac- cess control of complex data for privacy protection. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies. pp. 102–110 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1063979.1063998, https://doi.org/10.1145/1063979.1063998

    work page doi:10.1145/1063979.1063998 2005

  25. [27]

    Calimeri, F., Gebser, M., Maratea, M., Ricca, F.: Design and results of the fifth answer set program- ming competition. Artif. Intell.231, 151–181 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [28]

    In: Alechina, N., Baldoni, M., Logan, B

    Cardoso, R.C., Ferrando, A., Dennis, L.A., Fisher, M.: Implementing Ethical Governors in BDI. In: Alechina, N., Baldoni, M., Logan, B. (eds.) Engineering Multi-Agent Systems. pp. 22–

    work page

  27. [29]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97457-2_2

    Springer International Publishing, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97457-2_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-97457-2_2 2022

  28. [30]

    In: Biere, A., Bloem, R

    Cavada, R., Cimatti, A., Dorigatti, M., Griggio, A., Mariotti, A., Micheli, A., Mover, S., Roveri, M., Tonetta, S.: The nuXmv Symbolic Model Checker. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification. pp. 334–342. Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_22

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08867-9_22

  29. [31]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 1st IEEE/ACM Workshop on Soft- ware Engineering Challenges in Financial Firms

    Ceci, M., Sannier, N., Abualhaija, S., Shin, D., Bianculli, D., Halling, M.: Toward Auto- mated Compliance Checking of Fund Activities Us- ing Runtime Verification Techniques. In: Proceed- ings of the 1st IEEE/ACM Workshop on Soft- ware Engineering Challenges in Financial Firms. pp. 19–20. ACM, Lisbon Portugal (Apr 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3643665.3...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643665.3648045 2024

  30. [32]

    In: 6th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2005), 6-8 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden

    Charalambides, M., Flegkas, P., Pavlou, G., Ban- dara, A.K., Lupu, E., Russo, A., Dulay, N., Slo- man, M., Rubio-Loyola, J.: Policy conflict analy- sis for quality of service management. In: 6th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2005), 6-8 June 2005, Stockholm, Sweden. pp. 99–108. IEEE (2005). https://doi...

    work page doi:10.1109/policy.2005.23 2005

  31. [33]

    In: Gunter, C.A., Peterson, Z.N.J

    Chowdhury, O., Chen, H., Niu, J., Li, N., Bertino, E.: On XACML’s Adequacy to Specify and to En- force HIPAA. In: Gunter, C.A., Peterson, Z.N.J. (eds.) 3rd USENIX Workshop on Health Security and Privacy. HealthSec ’12, USENIX Association (2012)

    work page 2012

  32. [34]

    In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J

    Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, Sympo- sium on Logic and Data Bases, Centre d’études et de recherches de Toulouse, France, 1977. pp. 293–

    work page 1977

  33. [35]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4684-3384-5_11

    Advances in Data Base Theory, Plemum Press, New York (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4684-3384-5_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1- 1977

  34. [36]

    MIT Press, 2 edn

    Clarke, E.M.: Model Checking. MIT Press, 2 edn

    work page

  35. [37]

    Colmerauer, A., Roussel, P.: The Birth of Prolog, p. 331–367. Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (1996). https://doi.org/10.1145/234286.1057820

    work page doi:10.1145/234286.1057820 1996

  36. [38]

    CEUR Workshop Proceedings627, 65–81 (2010)

    Criado, N., Argente, E., Noriega, P., Botti, V.: To- wards a normative BDI architecture for norm com- pliance. CEUR Workshop Proceedings627, 65–81 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [39]

    De Geus, F.W.: Model Checking Normative Systems (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [40]

    Proceedings of the 10th Inter- national Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelli- gence (April), 290–296 (2018) 22

    Deljoo, A., van Engers, T., van Doesburg, R., Gom- mans, L., de Laat, C.: A Normative Agent-based Model for Sharing Data in Secure Trustworthy Dig- ital Market Places. Proceedings of the 10th Inter- national Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelli- gence (April), 290–296 (2018) 22

    work page 2018

  39. [41]

    Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science2296(Section 2), 83 (2002)

    Dignum, F., Kinny, D., Sonenberg, L.: Moti- vational attitudes of agents: On desires, obli- gations, and norms. Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science2296(Section 2), 83 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45941-3_9

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-45941-3_9 2002

  40. [42]

    Eidelman, B

    van Doesburg, R., van Engers, T.: The false, the former, and the parish priest. In: Pro- ceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp. 194–198. ICAIL 2019, ACM (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3322640.3326718

    work page doi:10.1145/3322640.3326718 2019

  41. [43]

    In: AI4J Work- shop at ECAI 2016

    vanDoesburg, R., vanderStorm, T., vanEngers, T.: CALCULEMUS: Towards a formal language for the interpretation of normative systems. In: AI4J Work- shop at ECAI 2016. pp. 73–77. AI4J 2016 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [44]

    Esterhuyse, C.A.: Specification-centric Multi Agent Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN Inter- national Conference on Software Language Engi- neering

    Esterhuyse, C.A., van Binsbergen, L.T.: Coop- erative specification via composition control. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN Inter- national Conference on Software Language Engi- neering. p. 2–15. SLE ’24, Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3687997.3695635,https: //doi.org/10.1145/3687997.3695635

    work page doi:10.1145/3687997.3695635 2024

  44. [46]

    In: Castiglioni, V., Fran- calanza, A

    Esterhuyse, C.A., Müller, T., van Binsbergen, L.T.: JustAct: Actions Universally Justified by Par- tial Dynamic Policies. In: Castiglioni, V., Fran- calanza, A. (eds.) Formal Techniques for Dis- tributed Objects, Components, and Systems. pp. 60–81. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62645-6_4,

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62645-6_4 2024

  45. [47]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN International Con- ference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences

    Esterhuyse, C.A., Müller, T., van Binsbergen, L.T.: A stable model semantics for eflint norm specifica- tions and model checking scenarios. In: Proceed- ings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN International Con- ference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences. p. 80–93. GPCE ’25, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2025). https://doi....

    work page doi:10.1145/3742876.3742882 2025

  46. [48]

    In: 2022 IEEE 18th International Confer- ence on e-Science (e-Science)

    Esterhuyse, C.A., Müller, T., Van Binsbergen, L.T., Belloum, A.S.Z.: Exploring the enforcement of pri- vate, dynamic policies on medical workflow exe- cution. In: 2022 IEEE 18th International Confer- ence on e-Science (e-Science). pp. 481–486 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/eScience55777.2022.00086

    work page doi:10.1109/escience55777.2022.00086 2022

  47. [49]

    Ethereum: Solidity documentation online.https: //solidity.readthedocs.io(2016), [Online, ac- cessed 23 October 2025]

    work page 2016

  48. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software En- gineering

    Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., Meyerovich, L., Tschantz, M.: VerificationandChange-ImpactAnal- ysis of Access-Control Policies. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software En- gineering. pp. 196–205. ICSE 2005, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1062455.1062502

    work page doi:10.1145/1062455.1062502 2005

  49. [51]

    In: Col- lier, R., Ricci, A., Nallur, V., Burattini, S., Omicini, A

    Fratrič, P., Holzenberger, N., Amariles, D.R.: Rules2lab: from prolog knowledge-base, to learn- ing agents, to norm engineering. In: Col- lier, R., Ricci, A., Nallur, V., Burattini, S., Omicini, A. (eds.) Multi-Agent Systems. pp. 274–

    work page

  50. [52]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93930-3_16

    Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93930-3_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93930-3_16 2025

  51. [54]

    Theory Pract

    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo. Theory Pract. Log. Program.19(1), 27–82 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [55]

    In: Kowalski, R.A., Bowen, K.A

    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model se- mantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R.A., Bowen, K.A. (eds.) Logic Programming, Proceed- ings of the Fifth International Conference and Sym- posium, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 15-19, 1988 (2 Volumes). pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)

    work page 1988

  53. [56]

    In: Yoshida, N

    Goldstein, H., Hughes, J., Lampropoulos, L., Pierce, B.C.: Do Judge a Test by its Cover. In: Yoshida, N. (ed.) Programming Languages and Systems. pp. 264–291. Springer International Publishing (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72019-3_10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72019-3_10 2021

  54. [57]

    Future Gen- eration Computer Systems25(2), 153–160 (2009)

    Gommans, L., Xu, L., Demchenko, Y., Wan, A., Cristea, M., Meijer, R., de Laat, C.: Multi-domain lightpath authorization, using tokens. Future Gen- eration Computer Systems25(2), 153–160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2008.07.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2008.07.013 2009

  55. [58]

    Artificial Intelligence and Law26(4), 377–409 (2018)

    Governatori, G., Idelberger, F., Milosevic, Z., Riveret, R., Sartor, G., Xu, X.: On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law26(4), 377–409 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9223-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10506-018-9223-3 2018

  56. [59]

    Journal of Logic and Computation14(5), 675–702 (10 2004)

    Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation Seman- tics for Defeasible Logic. Journal of Logic and Computation14(5), 675–702 (10 2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/14.5.675 23

    work page doi:10.1093/logcom/14.5.675 2004

  57. [60]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzp075

    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing le- gal systems: Legal abrogations and annul- ments in Defeasible Logic18(1), 157–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzp075

    work page doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzp075

  58. [61]

    Computers in Industry159-160, 104107 (2024)

    Groefsema, H., van Beest, N.: Supporting business process variability through declarative process fami- lies. Computers in Industry159-160, 104107 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2024.104107

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compind.2024.104107 2024

  59. [62]

    In: 2015 IEEE 8th Interna- tional Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA)

    Groefsema, H., van Beest, N.: Design-time com- pliance of service compositions in dynamic ser- vice environments. In: 2015 IEEE 8th Interna- tional Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA). pp. 108–115 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/SOCA.2015.14

    work page doi:10.1109/soca.2015.14 2015

  60. [64]

    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Lam, H., Wynn, M.T.: Are we done with business process compliance: state of the art and challenges ahead. Knowl. Inf. Syst.57(1), 79–133 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1 2018

  61. [65]

    Expert Syst

    Havur, G., Cabanillas, C., Polleres, A.: Benchmarking answer set programming sys- tems for resource allocation in business pro- cesses. Expert Syst. Appl.205, 117599 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2022.117599, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117599

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117599 2022

  62. [66]

    In: Proceedings of the 3th International Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

    Herrestad, H.: Norms and formalization. In: Proceedings of the 3th International Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp. 175–184. ICAIL 1993, ACM (1993). https://doi.org/10.1145/112646.112667

    work page doi:10.1145/112646.112667 1993

  63. [67]

    The Yale Law Journal26(8), 710–770 (1917)

    Hohfeld, W.N.: Fundamental legal concep- tions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal26(8), 710–770 (1917). https://doi.org/10.2307/786270

    work page doi:10.2307/786270 1917

  64. [68]

    Yale Law Journal 23(1), 59–64 (1913)

    Hohfeld, W.: Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23(1), 59–64 (1913)

    work page 1913

  65. [69]

    Addison-Wesley (2004)

    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker - primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley (2004)

    work page 2004

  66. [70]

    Computer48(2), 85–88 (2015)

    Hu, V.C., Kuhn, D.R., Ferraiolo, D.F.: Attribute- based access control. Computer48(2), 85–88 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.33

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2015.33 2015

  67. [71]

    W3C Recommendation (2018)

    Iannella, R., Villata, S.: ODRL information model 2.2. W3C Recommendation (2018)

    work page 2018

  68. [72]

    ACM Computing Sur- veys51(6)(2019).https://doi.org/10.1145/3295749, https://doi.org/10.1145/3295749

    Jabal, A., Davari, M., Bertino, E., Makaya, C., Calo, S., Verma, D., Russo, A., Williams, C.: Methods and tools for policy analysis. ACM Computing Sur- veys51(6)(2019).https://doi.org/10.1145/3295749, https://doi.org/10.1145/3295749

    work page doi:10.1145/3295749 2019

  69. [73]

    The MIT Press (2006)

    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Lan- guage, and Analysis. The MIT Press (2006)

    work page 2006

  70. [74]

    Logic Jour- nal of the IGPL4(3), 427–443 (06 1996)

    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A Formal Character- isation of Institutionalised Power. Logic Jour- nal of the IGPL4(3), 427–443 (06 1996). https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/4.3.427

    work page doi:10.1093/jigpal/4.3.427 1996

  71. [75]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2016.89

    Kafalý, O., Ajmeri, N., Singh, M.P.: Re- vani: Revising and Verifying Normative Specifications for Privacy31(5), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2016.89

    work page doi:10.1109/mis.2016.89 2016

  72. [76]

    In: Rodríguez-Doncel, V., Palmirani, M., Araszkiewicz, M., Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Sartor, G

    Kebede, M.G., Sileno, G., Van Engers, T.: A Crit- ical Reflection on ODRL. In: Rodríguez-Doncel, V., Palmirani, M., Araszkiewicz, M., Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Sartor, G. (eds.) AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems XI-XII. pp. 48–

    work page

  73. [77]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89811-3_4

    Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89811-3_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89811-3_4 2021

  74. [78]

    Computer36(1), 41–50 (2003)

    Kephart, J., Chess, D.: The vision of auto- nomic computing. Computer36(1), 41–50 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1160055

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2003.1160055 2003

  75. [79]

    W3C Recommendation (2004),http://www

    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syn- tax. W3C Recommendation (2004),http://www. w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/

    work page 2004

  76. [80]

    Informa- tion and Software Technology190, 107946 (2026)

    Kosenkov, O., Zabardast, E., Fucci, D., Mendez, D., Unterkalmsteiner, M.: Privacy by design: Aligning gdpr and software engineering specifications with a requirements engineering approach. Informa- tion and Software Technology190, 107946 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107946, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pi...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107946 2026

  77. [81]

    New Generation Computing4(1), 67–95 (1986)

    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calcu- lus of events. New Generation Computing4(1), 67–95 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037383, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037383

    work page doi:10.1007/bf03037383 1986

  78. [82]

    In: Proceedings of AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Sys- tems (AICOL) 2023

    Liu, L.C., Parizi, M.M., van Binsbergen, L.T., van Engers, T.: Regulatory services to automate com- pliance with ex-post enforcement. In: Proceedings of AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Sys- tems (AICOL) 2023. Springer (2024) 24

    work page 2023

  79. [83]

    https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200872, https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200872

    Liu, L., Sileno, G., van Engers, T.M.: Digital enforceable contracts (DEC): mak- ing smart contracts smarter334, 235–238 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200872, https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200872

    work page doi:10.3233/faia200872 2020

  80. [84]

    In: Alechina, N., Baldoni, M., Logan, B

    Mohajeri Parizi, M., Sileno, G., van Engers, T.: Seamless integration and testing for mas engineer- ing. In: Alechina, N., Baldoni, M., Logan, B. (eds.) Engineering Multi-Agent Systems. pp. 254–272. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97457-2_15

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-97457-2_15 2022

Showing first 80 references.