Ensuring compliance with various laws and regulations is of utmost priority for financial institutions. Traditional methods in this area have been shown to be inefficient. Manual processing does not scale well. Automated efforts are hindered due to the lack of formalization of domain knowledge and problems of integrating such knowledge into software systems. In this work we propose an approach to tackle these issues by encoding them into software contracts using a Controlled Natural Language. In particular, we encode a portion of the Money Market Statistical Reporting (MMSR) regulations into contracts specified by the clojure.spec framework. We show how various features of a contract framework, in particular clojure.spec, can help to tackle issues that occur when dealing with compliance: validation with explanations and test data generation. We benchmark our proposed solution and show that this approach can effectively solve compliance issues in this particular use case.

Competency Questions (CQs) for an ontology and similar artefacts aim to provide insights into the contents of an ontology and to demarcate its scope. The absence of a controlled natural language, tooling and automation to support the authoring of CQs has hampered their effective use in ontology development and evaluation. The few question templates that exists are based on informal analyses of a small number of CQs and have limited coverage of question types and sentence constructions. We aim to fill this gap by proposing a template-based CNL to author CQs, called CLaRO. For its design, we exploited a new dataset of 234 CQs that had been processed automatically into 106 patterns, which we analysed and used to design a template-based CNL, with an additional CNL model and XML serialisation. The CNL was evaluated with a subset of questions from the original dataset and with two sets of newly sourced CQs. The coverage of CLaRO, with its 93 main templates and 41 linguistic variants, is about 90% for unseen questions. CLaRO has the potential to facilitate streamlining formalising ontology content requirements and, given that about one third of the competency questions in the test sets turned out to be invalid questions, assist in writing good questions.

Properties like logical closure and consistency are important properties in any logical reasoning system. Caminada and Amgoud showed that not every logic-based argument system satisfies these relevant properties. But under conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition of the monotonic part of the underlying logic, ASPIC-like systems satisfy these properties. In contrast, the logical closure and consistency properties are not well-understood for other well-known and widely applied systems like logic programming or assumption based argumentation. Though conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition seem intuitive in ASPIC-like systems, they rule out many sensible ASPIC-like systems that satisfy both properties of closure and consistency. We present a new condition referred to as the self-contradiction axiom that guarantees the consistency property in both ASPIC-like and assumption-based systems and is implied by both properties of closure under contraposition or transposition. We develop a logic-associated abstract argumentation framework, by associating abstract argumentation with abstract logics to represent the conclusions of arguments. We show that logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks capture ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) and assumption-based argumentation. We present two simple and natural properties of compactness and cohesion in logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks and show that they capture the logical closure and consistency properties. We demonstrate that in both assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC-like systems, cohesion follows naturally from the self-contradiction axiom. We further give a translation from ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) into equivalent assumption-based systems that keeps the self-contradiction axiom invariant.