Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Formalizing and Reasoning About Supply Chain Contracts Between Agents

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13880))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 455 Accesses

Abstract

Inspired by the recent problems in supply chains, we propose an approach to declarative modeling of contracts between agents that will eventually support reasoning about resilience of and about ways to improve supply chains. Specifically, we present a high-level language for specifying and reasoning about contracts over action domains of agents. We assume that the behavior of the agents can be formally expressed through action theories and view a contract as a collection of constraints. Each constraint specifies the responsibility of an agent to achieve a certain result by a deadline. Each agent also has a mapping between constraints and the agent’s concerns, i.e. issues that the agent is concerned about, which are modeled in accordance with the CPS Framework proposed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We discuss how common questions related to the fulfillment of a contract or the concerns of the agents can be answered and computed via Answer Set Programming.

Portions of this publication and research effort are made possible through the help and support of NIST via cooperative agreement 70NANB21H167. Son Tran was also partially supported by the NSF grants 1812628 and 1914635.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout the paper, we only discuss contracts between two agents but the formalization is easily adapted for contracts among multiple agents.

  2. 2.

    Observe that we have simplified the contract slightly as there is no mention about the tractor trailers. This can be easily encoded if we extend the action domains of H and L to consider the shipping company.

  3. 3.

    A thorough discussion on requirements is beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, for compactness, we use short requirement names, although in practice a requirement would be spelled out in more details, e.g. the requirement that here we call match-customer-expected-grade would likely be expressed by a statement “lumber shall be produced in a grade matching the customer’s expectations.”.

  4. 4.

    For convenience, we often use first order logic literals under the assumption that they represent all suitable ground instantiations.

  5. 5.

    We note that given an action domain D, the ontology CPS, and a contract \(\mathcal {C}\), these three programs can be automatically generated by a Prolog program similar to that provided in https://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~tson/ASPlan/Knowledge/.

  6. 6.

    In each rule with T as variable, we omit step(T) from the right hand side.

References

  1. Balduccini, M., Griffor, E., Huth, M., Vishik, C., Burns, M., Wollman, D.A.: Ontology-based reasoning about the trustworthiness of cyber-physical systems. ArXiv abs/1803.07438 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Czajkowski, K., Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Sander, V., Tuecke, S.: SNAP: a protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coordinating resource management in distributed systems. In: Feitelson, D.G., Rudolph, L., Schwiegelshohn, U. (eds.) JSSPP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2537, pp. 153–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36180-4_9

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Dube, N., Li, Q., Selviaridis, K., Jahre, M.: One crisis, different paths to supply resilience: the case of ventilator procurement for the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 28(5) (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Edward, Greer, C., Wollman, D.A., Burns, M.J.: Framework for cyber-physical systems: vol. 1, overview (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Warren, D., Szeredi, P. (eds.) Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, pp. 579–597 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing actions and change by logic programs. J. Log. Program. 17(2,3,4), 301–323 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 3(6), 193–210 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(2–3), 181–216 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: declarative power, representation, and mandate. AI and Law 12(1–2), 53–81 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt, K.R., Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm, pp. 375–398. Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60085-2_17

  11. Nguyen, T.H., Bundas, M., Son, T.C., Balduccini, M., Garwood, K.C., Griffor, E.R.: Specifying and reasoning about CPS through the lens of the NIST CPS framework. TPLP (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25(3,4), 241–273 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nogueira, M., Greis, N.P.: Supply chain tracing of multiple products under uncertainty and incomplete information–an application of answer set programming. In: KEOD 2013, pp. 399–406 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: CL: An action-based logic for reasoning about contracts. In: WoLLIC, pp. 335–349 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Singh, A., Parizi, R.M., Zhang, Q., Choo, K.K.R., Dehghantanha, A.: Blockchain smart contracts formalization: approaches and challenges to address vulnerabilities. Comput. Secur. 88 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Son, T.C., Pontelli, E., Nguyen, N.-H.: Planning for multiagent using ASP-Prolog. In: Dix, J., Fisher, M., Novák, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6214, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16867-3_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Son, T.C., Pontelli, E., Nguyen, N., Sakama, C.: Formalizing negotiations using logic programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 15(2), 12 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Wan, F., Singh, M.P.: Formalizing and achieving multiparty agreements via commitments. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 770–777 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dylan Flynn, Chasity Nadeau, Jeannine Shantz & Marcello Balduccini

  2. Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

    Tran Cao Son

  3. National Institute of Standards and Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

    Edward R. Griffor

Authors
  1. Dylan Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chasity Nadeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeannine Shantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcello Balduccini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tran Cao Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edward R. Griffor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tran Cao Son .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Michael Hanus

  2. Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

    Daniela Inclezan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Flynn, D., Nadeau, C., Shantz, J., Balduccini, M., Son, T.C., Griffor, E.R. (2023). Formalizing and Reasoning About Supply Chain Contracts Between Agents. In: Hanus, M., Inclezan, D. (eds) Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. PADL 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13880. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24841-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24841-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24840-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24841-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

This website sets only cookies which are necessary for it to function. They are used to enable core functionality such as security, network management and accessibility. These cookies cannot be switched off in our systems. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions. Please view our privacy policy for further details on how we process your information.