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

Checking the compliance of software against laws, regulations and contracts is increasingly important and costly as the embedding of software into societal practices is getting 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 software language eFLINT developed to experiment with novel solutions. The language combines declarative and procedural elements to reason about situations and scenarios respectively, explicates and formalises connections between legal concepts and computational concepts, and is designed to automate compliance checks both before, during and after a software system runs. The various goals and applications areas for the language give rise to (conflicting) requirements. This paper reflects on the current design of the language by recalling various applications, the requirements they imposed, and subsequent design decisions. As such, this paper reports on results and insights of an investigation that can benefit language developers within the field of automated compliance.

• Publication year

  2025

• Venue

  arXiv.org

• Publication date

  2025-11-15

• Fields of study

  Law, Computer Science

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2511.12276arXiv 2511.12276
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Privacy by design: Aligning GDPR and software engineering specifications with a requirements engineering approach

  2025cited by this paper
• Managing Administrative Law Cases using an Adaptable Model-driven Norm-enforcing Tool

  2025cited by this paper
• A Stable Model Semantics for eFLINT Norm Specifications and Model Checking Scenarios

  2025influential reference
• JustAct: Actions Universally Justified by Partial Dynamic Policies

  2024cited by this paper
• SymboleoPC: checking properties of legal contracts

  2024cited by this paper
• Rules2Lab: from Prolog Knowledge-Base, to Learning Agents, to Norm Engineering

  2024cited by this paper
• Supporting business process variability through declarative process families

  2024cited by this paper
• Automated generation of smart contract code from legal contract specifications with Symboleo2SC

  2024cited by this paper
• SymboleoAC: An Access Control Model for Legal Contracts

  2024cited by this paper
• The EPI framework: A data privacy by design framework to support healthcare use cases

  2024cited by this paper
• Building a Digital Health Twin for Personalized Intervention: The EPI Project

  2024cited by this paper
• Cooperative Specification via Composition Control

  2024cited by this paper
• Toward Automated Compliance Checking of Fund Activities Using Runtime Verification Techniques

  2024cited by this paper
• Pushing the Limits of Clingo's Incremental Grounding and Solving Capabilities in Practical Applications

  2023cited by this paper
• Efficient Sequential and Parallel Prime Sieve Algorithms

  2022cited by this paper
• A Modular Architecture for Integrating Normative Advisors in MAS

  2022cited by this paper
• Exploring the Enforcement of Private, Dynamic Policies on Medical Workflow Execution

  2022cited by this paper
• On the Use of the Conformance and Compliance Keywords During Verification of Business Processes

  2022cited by this paper
• Blockchain Technology and International Data Spaces

  2022cited by this paper
• Benchmarking Answer Set Programming systems for resource allocation in business processes

  2022cited by this paper
• BOID*: Autonomous Goal Deliberation through Abduction

  2022cited by this paper
• Ethereum

  2021cited by this paper
• A Generic Back-End for Exploratory Programming

  2021cited by this paper
• Seamless Integration and Testing for MAS Engineering

  2021cited by this paper
• Do Judge a Test by its Cover

  2021cited by this paper
• Implementing Ethical Governors in BDI

  2021cited by this paper
• Dynamic generation of access control policies from social policies

  2021influential reference
• Symboleo: Towards a Specification Language for Legal Contracts

  2020cited by this paper
• Marlowe: Implementing and Analysing Financial Contracts on Blockchain

  2020cited by this paper
• Purely functional GLL parsing

  2020cited by this paper
• A Critical Reflection on ODRL

  2020cited by this paper
• Run, agent, run! architecture and benchmarking of actor-based agents

  2020cited by this paper
• eFLINT: a domain-specific language for executable norm specifications

  2020influential reference
• A principled approach to REPL interpreters

  2020cited by this paper
• Domain Specific Language for Smart Contract Development

  2020cited by this paper
• Methods and Tools for Policy Analysis

  2019cited by this paper
• Conformance Checking

  2019cited by this paper
• Modeling and Matching Digital Data Marketplace Policies

  2019cited by this paper
• Flint for Safer Smart Contracts

  2019cited by this paper
• ODRL Policy Modelling and Compliance Checking

  2019cited by this paper
• The False, the Former, and the Parish Priest

  2019cited by this paper
• GLL parsing with flexible combinators

  2018cited by this paper
• Model Checking

  2018cited by this paper
• Introduction to Runtime Verification

  2018cited by this paper
• On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems

  2018cited by this paper
• Are we done with business process compliance: state of the art and challenges ahead

  2018cited by this paper
• ETHEREUM: A SECURE DECENTRALISED GENERALISED TRANSACTION LEDGER

  2018cited by this paper
• Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo

  2017cited by this paper
• Attribute-Based Access Control

  2017cited by this paper
• Design and results of the Fifth Answer Set Programming Competition

  2016cited by this paper
• CALCULEMUS : Towards a Formal Language for the Interpretation of Normative Systems

  2016cited by this paper
• Grafting Norms onto the BDI Agent Model

  2015cited by this paper
• LegalRuleML: Design Principles and Foundations

  2015cited by this paper
• Design-Time Compliance of Service Compositions in Dynamic Service Environments

  2015cited by this paper
• Compliance Checking of Data-Aware and Resource-Aware Compliance Requirements

  2014cited by this paper
• The nuXmv Symbolic Model Checker

  2014cited by this paper
• A dataset of RDF licenses

  2014cited by this paper
• Norms in MAS: Definitions and Related Concepts

  2013cited by this paper
• On XACML's Adequacy to Specify and to Enforce HIPAA

  2012cited by this paper
• Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes

  2012cited by this paper
• What Is Negation as Failure?

  2012cited by this paper
• Where Did I Misbehave? Diagnostic Information in Compliance Checking

  2012cited by this paper
• Towards a Normative BDI Architecture for Norm Compliance

  2010cited by this paper
• Multi-domain lightpath authorization, using tokens

  2009cited by this paper
• A Temporal Logic of Normative Systems

  2009cited by this paper
• On the Semantics and Verification of Normative Multi-Agent Systems

  2009cited by this paper
• Engineering Self-Adaptive Systems through Feedback Loops

  2009cited by this paper
• SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL CONCEPTIONS AS APPLIED IN JUDICIAL REASONING

  2008cited by this paper
• Software Abstractions - Logic, Language, and Analysis

  2006cited by this paper
• Policy conflict analysis for quality of service management

  2005cited by this paper
• Verification and change-impact analysis of access-control policies

  2005cited by this paper
• Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic

  2004cited by this paper
• Modeling and Management of Firewall Policies

  2004cited by this paper
• Bounded model checking

  2003cited by this paper
• The Vision of Autonomic Computing

  2003cited by this paper
• The SPIN Model Checker - primer and reference manual

  2003cited by this paper
• An Abductive Approach for Analysing Event-Based Requirements Specifications

  2002cited by this paper
• Towards usage control models: beyond traditional access control

  2002cited by this paper
• The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires

  2001cited by this paper
• Motivational Attitudes of Agents: On Desires, Obligations, and Norms

  2001cited by this paper
• The Construction of Social Reality

  1999cited by this paper
• How to do discretionary access control using roles

  1998cited by this paper
• Mandatory access control and role-based access control revisited

  1997cited by this paper
• Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks

  1997cited by this paper
• Variants of the Event Calculus

  1995cited by this paper
• Defeasible Logic

  1994cited by this paper
• The well-founded semantics for general logic programs

  1991cited by this paper
• Norms and formalization

  1991cited by this paper
• Modular stratification and magic sets for DATALOG programs with negation

  1990cited by this paper
• A logic-based calculus of events

  1989cited by this paper
• The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming

  1988cited by this paper
• Verification

  1917cited by this paper
• Privacy Protection

  year unknowncited by this paper
• UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) A Normative Agent-based Model for Sharing Data in Secure Trustworthy Digital Market Places A Normative Agent-based Model for Sharing Data in Secure Trustworthy Digital Market Places

  year unknowncited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.