Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Accountable objects:
Modeling Liability in Open
  Distributed Systems

           Antonio Vallecillo
         Universidad ...
The Supply of Olive Oil

      We use a very simple e-commerce example to explore
      these ideas:
               A busi...
Main Characters (Roles)




     Customer                      Supplier




        Producer                     Carrier
A...
The Supply of Olive Oil

      Imagine that at one given moment in time, the supply
      process does not work as specifi...
Use of Deontic Logic in system specs

      Allows us to deal with norms and expectations:
               Obligations to p...
Background


      Activity within the ODP family of
      standards

      Work is centred within ISO as an
      extensi...
Timeline

      Based on ideas published in 2003 (Linington & Neal)
      Project to incorporate into the ODP standards fi...
ODP Framework
      The Reference Model of ODP (ITU-T Rec X.901-904 |
      ISO/IEC 10746) defines a framework for system
...
ODP Viewpoints

      Different abstractions of the same system
               each abstraction focuses on different conce...
An ODP system specification

 - business aspects                                                                          ...
The “Enterprise” Viewpoint

      The enterprise viewpoint focuses on the specification of
      the business constraints ...
The enterprise language
           Specifies the roles played by the system in its
           organizational environment

...
Communities

      Configuration of objects with a stated purpose
      Objects participate by filling typed roles
      C...
Roles

      Roles provide an essential way of expressing the way in
      which fragments of specification are composed t...
Interactions

 •    Interactions involve a number of participants
 •    Model as the filling of action-roles by objects
 •...
How to deal with Obligations,
Permissions and Prohibitions?
Dynamics of Obligations

 •    The main idea is that systems evolve by interactions
      resulting in the creation, trans...
The Enterprise specification

      The e-commerce system will be specified by one single
      community

      Its goal ...
Enterprise specification (ct’d)
      Assignment policies (e.g., the requirements of a person or
      a company to become...
The Basic “Purchase” Process

      Community Roles in an
      individual purchase
      transaction:
               Cust...
Tokens Involved

      At each stage in a transaction tokens may be:
               Needed from some roles as input
      ...
The “Order” Interaction

      Permit supplied by customer, burdens created




     Place
     order
                    ...
The “InstructProducer” Interaction

      Subcontracting moves tokens, creates others


                                  ...
The “InstructSupplier” Interaction
 [Note: payment extends behaviour given]



                                           ...
The “Report” Interaction

      Finalizes both subcontracts; some permits remain



                     Deliver oil


 su...
The “Charge” Interaction
 [Note: The charge interaction is seen here as binary; there is probably
 a hidden involvement of...
Patterns of Token Use
      Unique tokens for individual actions/artefacts vs.
      Universal tokens for types of actions...
Simple Tokens

      Consider one active object and the tokens it carries:




                                           ...
More Complex Situations

      There may be many tactics:




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Op...
Community Burdens

 •    Need to have a                                                          community has burden
    ...
Inheritance of Tokens

      One of the open issues is whether it is more powerful to
      talk of assigning tokens to ro...
Notations and tools

      How to express these concepts and mechanisms in the
      specification of systems?

      The ...
UML Mapping

      ISO 19793 – UML4ODP provides a concrete
      representation for ODP models

      Each viewpoint langu...
Changing The Enterprise Language Metamodel


      Placing the specification in context.




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Ob...
Core Community Definitions




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienn...
Behavioural Definitions




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, ...
Deontic Framework




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, 2013  ...
Token Lifecycle

      Most behaviour is enterprise-specific
      Provide minimal lifecycle behaviour as root




A.Valle...
The Olive Oil Community




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, ...
The “Purchase” Process




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, 2...
The “Order” interaction




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, ...
The complete community




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, 2...
The “Order” interaction




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, ...
The “InstructProducer” interaction




A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"...
Issues of Style
      Flexible and Expressive approach
               Still many open ways to model liability in UML4ODP

...
A BPMN Mapping?

      UML is not the only show in town

      Interest in mapping the same conceptual structure onto
    ...
Rule-based DSLs

      DSLs can provide more effective solutions

               Such as eMotions…




A.Vallecillo: "Acco...
Simulations




                                      [Spanshot after 50 simulation steps]
A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Obje...
The Importance of Tools
      There is a symbiotic relationship between users,
      standardizers and tool vendors

     ...
Further Questions


A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems"   Vienna, 2013   50
What is an Obligation?

      So far, we have assumed it is obvious what a deontic
      constraint, such as an obligation...
Providing a Broader View

      Deontic concepts need to be defined in terms of
      properties of possible successor tra...
Next Steps

      ISO 15414 – The Enterprise Language
               CD Ballot complete, comments resolved at November
   ...
References
      P. F. Linington, H. Miyazaki and A. Vallecillo. “Obligations and
      Delegation in the ODP Enterprise L...
Accountable objects:
Modeling Liability in Open
  Distributed Systems
           Antonio Vallecillo
         Universidad d...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

sur

Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 1 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 2 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 3 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 4 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 5 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 6 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 7 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 8 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 9 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 10 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 11 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 12 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 13 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 14 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 15 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 16 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 17 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 18 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 19 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 20 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 21 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 22 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 23 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 24 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 25 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 26 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 27 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 28 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 29 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 30 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 31 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 32 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 33 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 34 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 35 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 36 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 37 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 38 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 39 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 40 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 41 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 42 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 43 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 44 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 45 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 46 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 47 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 48 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 49 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 50 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 51 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 52 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 53 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 54 Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Slide 55
Prochain SlideShare
El papel de los MOOCs en la Formación de Posgrado. El reto de la Universidad actual
Suivant
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne et voir en mode plein écran

1 j’aime

Partager

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

As an increasing amount of commercial activity becomes automated, the importance of techniques for providing complete system specifications, checking the correctness of interactions and flagging incorrect behaviour increases. The aim throughout is to generate more complete information about the system and so to produce IT solutions that reflect the business requirements accurately. So far, most efforts have been placed on the appropriate specification of the system behaviour and then on the non-functional requirements that constitute the contract between a system and its users. But in fully-automated commercial systems, such as Cloud Computing or SOA systems, we should also consider the liability of the different parties, since we should be able that assign responsibility to objects and, more importantly, to know in case of problems or contact violations, which one should be blamed.
The consequence of these considerations is that we need the ability to express more directly the necessary obligations and other deontic concepts, such as permissions and prohibitions, giving the designer the tools for extending the behavioural information to make it clear where obligations apply and with what detailed properties. In this talk we describe current activities within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to extend the ODP family of standards for the expression of policies using deontic logic, and on how to improve support for deontic concepts based on their reification.

Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems

  1. 1. Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Antonio Vallecillo Universidad de Málaga Vienna, January 28, 2013 [Joint work with Peter F. Linington and Hiroshi Miyazaki at ISO/IEC]
  2. 2. The Supply of Olive Oil We use a very simple e-commerce example to explore these ideas: A business (The Modern Oil Store) acts as a supply channel from producers to customers It uses external contractors to perform deliveries The buyer pays on receipt of the oil A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 2
  3. 3. Main Characters (Roles) Customer Supplier Producer Carrier A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 3
  4. 4. The Supply of Olive Oil Imagine that at one given moment in time, the supply process does not work as specified by the contract, e.g., the olive is not delivered to the customer Maybe the supplier forgot to instruct the producer; Maybe the producer did not produce the goods; Maybe the carrier could not pickup from the producer; … Who is accountable for what? Who is to be sued in case of losses? A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 4
  5. 5. Use of Deontic Logic in system specs Allows us to deal with norms and expectations: Obligations to perform specified behaviour Permissions to perform such behaviour Prohibitions of certain behaviours We shift to a style of specification where the focus is not only on the concrete steps and processes, but on a set of obligations that must be discharged; who is responsible for discharging them; who is allowed to do that, and when; Delegation of obligations and permissions is possible Liability can be traced in case of problems, and parties become accountable for their [in]actions A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 5
  6. 6. Background Activity within the ODP family of standards Work is centred within ISO as an extension to the ODP Enterprise Language and UML4ODP standards Improve support for deontic concepts A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 6
  7. 7. Timeline Based on ideas published in 2003 (Linington & Neal) Project to incorporate into the ODP standards first mooted in 2007 Initial study phase to scope and set direction Full project approval 2011 1st full draft for revised Enterprise Language balloted June 2012 ISO Standards take upward compatibility very seriously Changes must be made in such a way that other standards in the family are not invalidated Revisions of particular standards may motivate alignment changes in dependent or supporting standards A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 7
  8. 8. ODP Framework The Reference Model of ODP (ITU-T Rec X.901-904 | ISO/IEC 10746) defines a framework for system specification, covering all aspects of ODS: “enterprise”, data, functionality, distribution, technology It comprises A structure for system specifications in terms of a set of viewpoints A set of object-oriented foundation modeling concepts common to all viewpoint languages A viewpoint language (concepts and rules) for expressing each viewpoint specification A set of correspondences between the viewpoints A set of common functions A set of transparencies A set of conformance points A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 8
  9. 9. ODP Viewpoints Different abstractions of the same system each abstraction focuses on different concerns each abstraction is achieved using a set of viewpoint concepts and rules (the viewpoint language) A viewpoint specification is the specification of a system from a specific viewpoint expressed in terms of the viewpoint language to describe the concerns and decisions covered by the viewpoint specification related to, and consistent with, other viewpoint specifications (correspondences) A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 9
  10. 10. An ODP system specification - business aspects Enterprise - What for? Why? Who? When? - information - changes to information Information - constraints - object configuration - Interactions between Computational objects at interfaces - mechanisms and services for distribution trans- parencies and QoS constraints. Engineering - hardware and software components Technology implementing the system - and correspondences between specifications A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 10
  11. 11. The “Enterprise” Viewpoint The enterprise viewpoint focuses on the specification of the business constraints and the environment within which an ODP system is to operate It describes the business entities and the processes to be considered. It provides a place to express general organizational policies that constraint the other viewpoints and stakeholders One “enterprise”… …may be a single organization …may be describing an ad hoc grouping …may be a loose social group …may be a legal jurisdiction …may be a federation A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 11
  12. 12. The enterprise language Specifies the roles played by the system in its organizational environment An object model of, for example, part of some social/commercial organization in terms of: Communities (of enterprise objects) with objectives Enterprise objects Behaviour Roles (fulfilled by enterprise objects in a community) Processes (leading to objectives) Policies Accountability The IT system is just another object A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 12
  13. 13. Communities Configuration of objects with a stated purpose Objects participate by filling typed roles Community behaviour is expressed as recursive composition of interactions between roles Constraints on role filling can be used to express e.g. dynamic separation of duties Community type seen as the community “contract” Examples The Olive Oil community A University A Library A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 13
  14. 14. Roles Roles provide an essential way of expressing the way in which fragments of specification are composed to form a whole Particularly as an aid to the reuse of a fragment in a number of situations within the specification Underlying metaphor is the filling of roles defined in a script to describe a performance… …or filling formal parameters with actual terms in a language – e.g. in a procedure Active roles (actors), passive roles (artefacts) Examples Customer, Supplier, Carrier, Goods,… Teacher, Student, Classroom, … Librarian, Library member, Book… A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 14
  15. 15. Interactions • Interactions involve a number of participants • Model as the filling of action-roles by objects • Express action types using action roles as their formal parameters A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 15
  16. 16. How to deal with Obligations, Permissions and Prohibitions?
  17. 17. Dynamics of Obligations • The main idea is that systems evolve by interactions resulting in the creation, transfer or destruction of obligations • Reify obligations as deontic tokens, which are first-class objects held by actors in the system • Tokens can be used in expressing Obligations (Burdens) Permissions (Permits) Prohibitions (Embargos) A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 17
  18. 18. The Enterprise specification The e-commerce system will be specified by one single community Its goal is to “act as supply channel from producers customers” Its objects model the community entities: people (“Joe Smith”, “Lucy Brown”), companies (“LaEspañola”), items (olive oil bottle#123), purchase order#999, etc. Its basic roles are: Customer, who wants the oil and will pay for it Supplier, the Modern Oil Company Producer, one of a group of participating farmers Carrier, who take the oil from supplier to customer Its processes include Purchase, Return defective lot, etc. A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 18
  19. 19. Enterprise specification (ct’d) Assignment policies (e.g., the requirements of a person or a company to become a customer) Policies: Permissions: what can be done, e.g. the customer can buy from the supplier Prohibition: what must not be done, e.g. individual customers must not buy directly from the producer Obligations: what must be done, e.g. the supplier must deliver the goods to the customer; the customer must pay 30 days after delivery of goods. Authorizations: regular customers are entitled to have discounts and to pay up to 60 days after delivery Delegations: suppliers can use external carrier companies to deliver the goods to the customers A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 19
  20. 20. The Basic “Purchase” Process Community Roles in an individual purchase transaction: Customer, who wants the oil and will pay for it Supplier, the Modern Oil Company Producer, one of a group of participating farmers Carrier, who take the oil from supplier to customer A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 20
  21. 21. Tokens Involved At each stage in a transaction tokens may be: Needed from some roles as input Created by an interaction Passed to roles in the interaction Discharged or cancelled Maintained These changes can capture the details we want to specify in a concise way Authorization to proceed Delegations of responsibility Discharge of obligations Release of duties A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 21
  22. 22. The “Order” Interaction Permit supplied by customer, burdens created Place order pay on supply delivery oil order() customer supplier customer supplier A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 22
  23. 23. The “InstructProducer” Interaction Subcontracting moves tokens, creates others pay producer produce oil goods supply oil supply oil produce oil goods monitor produce delivery oil instruct() supplier producer supplier producer A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 23
  24. 24. The “InstructSupplier” Interaction [Note: payment extends behaviour given] pay Deliver oil carrier collect oil monitor deliver delivery oil monitor delivery pickup oil instruct() supplier carrier supplier carrier A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 24
  25. 25. The “Report” Interaction Finalizes both subcontracts; some permits remain Deliver oil supply charge Deliver oil oil deliver oil customer report() supplier carrier supplier carrier A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 25
  26. 26. The “Charge” Interaction [Note: The charge interaction is seen here as binary; there is probably a hidden involvement of a bank] pay on charge transaction delivery customer complete! charge() customer supplier customer supplier A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 26
  27. 27. Patterns of Token Use Unique tokens for individual actions/artefacts vs. Universal tokens for types of actions/artefacts Permit to deliver one box of olive oil Permit to carry goods (in general) Implicit tokens vs. Explicit tokens Permits by default and explicit prohibitions vs. Explicit permits and prohibitions by default Economy of the language/”By default” policy Full delegation vs. No delegation vs. Monitoring We can model different strategies depending on the system we want to represent/specify Delegation may require permissions, too A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 27
  28. 28. Simple Tokens Consider one active object and the tokens it carries: object burden permit A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 28
  29. 29. More Complex Situations There may be many tactics: A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 29
  30. 30. Community Burdens • Need to have a community has burden compact way of showing how tokens community pass to objects filling community community assigns roles burden to role • Need to show role recovery from exceptions object fills role, inherits burden object’s enterprise object other burdens A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 30
  31. 31. Inheritance of Tokens One of the open issues is whether it is more powerful to talk of assigning tokens to roles rather than objects Token automatically reverts to community, associated with empty role, if role-filling object fails But is this too abrupt? Is it too complex? A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 31
  32. 32. Notations and tools How to express these concepts and mechanisms in the specification of systems? The real issue is what the tools available in practice will support! Different options still being studied to see what practitioners find acceptable A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 32
  33. 33. UML Mapping ISO 19793 – UML4ODP provides a concrete representation for ODP models Each viewpoint language has a profile defined in terms of a set of UML stereotypes We extend this to add the new concepts, e.g. Deontic Tokens Active Objects Conditional Actions A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 33
  34. 34. Changing The Enterprise Language Metamodel Placing the specification in context. A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 34
  35. 35. Core Community Definitions A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 35
  36. 36. Behavioural Definitions A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 36
  37. 37. Deontic Framework A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 37
  38. 38. Token Lifecycle Most behaviour is enterprise-specific Provide minimal lifecycle behaviour as root A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 38
  39. 39. The Olive Oil Community A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 39
  40. 40. The “Purchase” Process A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 40
  41. 41. The “Order” interaction A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 41
  42. 42. The complete community A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 42
  43. 43. The “Order” interaction A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 43
  44. 44. The “InstructProducer” interaction A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 44
  45. 45. Issues of Style Flexible and Expressive approach Still many open ways to model liability in UML4ODP No approach fits all purposes Different ways to model obligations, depending on the particular system Delegations and monitoring of responsibilities depends on the kinds of analysis to be conducted Usability and Readability of diagrams and specifications essential for proper specification and maintainability UML tool support for analysis and simulation still insufficient A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 45
  46. 46. A BPMN Mapping? UML is not the only show in town Interest in mapping the same conceptual structure onto other languages and notations Primary candidate for a second mapping is BPMN Progression depends on the level of support and contribution Likely to need a new project in ISO A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 46
  47. 47. Rule-based DSLs DSLs can provide more effective solutions Such as eMotions… A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 47
  48. 48. Simulations [Spanshot after 50 simulation steps] A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 48
  49. 49. The Importance of Tools There is a symbiotic relationship between users, standardizers and tool vendors Often the tool vendors lag behind current modelling ideas But without tools, ideas cannot be used in practice Validation of additional semantic constraints can be added via plug-ins, but this is a single tool solution Tool support for Behavioural Specifications still in its infancy A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 49
  50. 50. Further Questions A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 50
  51. 51. What is an Obligation? So far, we have assumed it is obvious what a deontic constraint, such as an obligation means Need to establish a formal semantic basis Other views, e.g. Computational, have used correspondences to a labelled transition system This focuses on correctness of a move to the direct successor state A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 51
  52. 52. Providing a Broader View Deontic concepts need to be defined in terms of properties of possible successor traces Need to evaluate across properties of sequence of successor worlds (trace) One approach is to base interpretation on correspondences to a set of Kripke frames But can this be normative? Currently included as an informative discussion A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 52
  53. 53. Next Steps ISO 15414 – The Enterprise Language CD Ballot complete, comments resolved at November meeting FCD in preparation No obvious show-stoppers 19793 – UML4ODP Start November 2012, offset by 12 months from 15414 Preliminary planning and directions document produced WD in preparation Currently internal ISO drafts Contact peter@linington.eu or av@lcc.uma.es for copies A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 53
  54. 54. References P. F. Linington, H. Miyazaki and A. Vallecillo. “Obligations and Delegation in the ODP Enterprise Language.” In Proc. of VORTE 2012 (EDOC Workshops), IEEE Computer Society, Sept 2012, pp. 146-155. http://www.lcc.uma.es/~av/Publicaciones/12/edoc- tokens.pdf P. F. Linington and S. Neal, “Using policies in the checking of business to business contracts.” In Proc. of the 4th IEEE Int. Work. on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY’03). Lake Como, Italy: IEEE Computer Society, Jun. 2003, pp. 207–218. http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/pubs/2003/1636/content.pdf P. F. Linington, Z. Milosevic, A. Tanaka and A. Vallecillo “Building Enterprise Systems with ODP — An Introduction to Open Distributed Processing.” Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2012. http://theodpbook.lcc.uma.es/ A.Vallecillo: "Accountable Objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems" Vienna, 2013 54
  55. 55. Accountable objects: Modeling Liability in Open Distributed Systems Antonio Vallecillo Universidad de Málaga Vienna, January 28, 2013 [Joint work with Peter F. Linington and Hiroshi Miyazaki at ISO/IEC]
  • ZoranMilosevic1

    Feb. 18, 2019

As an increasing amount of commercial activity becomes automated, the importance of techniques for providing complete system specifications, checking the correctness of interactions and flagging incorrect behaviour increases. The aim throughout is to generate more complete information about the system and so to produce IT solutions that reflect the business requirements accurately. So far, most efforts have been placed on the appropriate specification of the system behaviour and then on the non-functional requirements that constitute the contract between a system and its users. But in fully-automated commercial systems, such as Cloud Computing or SOA systems, we should also consider the liability of the different parties, since we should be able that assign responsibility to objects and, more importantly, to know in case of problems or contact violations, which one should be blamed. The consequence of these considerations is that we need the ability to express more directly the necessary obligations and other deontic concepts, such as permissions and prohibitions, giving the designer the tools for extending the behavioural information to make it clear where obligations apply and with what detailed properties. In this talk we describe current activities within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to extend the ODP family of standards for the expression of policies using deontic logic, and on how to improve support for deontic concepts based on their reification.

Vues

Nombre de vues

811

Sur Slideshare

0

À partir des intégrations

0

Nombre d'intégrations

5

Actions

Téléchargements

10

Partages

0

Commentaires

0

Mentions J'aime

1

×