Cholvy, L. and Cuppens, F. 1999. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken (eds), Norms, Logics and Information Systems: New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 247--262. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington DC.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....itself, and not simply a normative structure that gives rise to obligations. 8 It may also be useful to think of merging multiple normative structures, and the priority of one over another may play a significant role in that process, especially in cases of conflicting regulations. Laurence Cholvy and Frederic Cuppens develop such a system in their 1999. 125 multiplex semantics for deontic logic 5. Summary and Further Research The results presented here are very basic. They establish the completeness of the logic P with respect to the simple preference based semantics for deontic logic and with respect to the two forms of multiplex semantics. ....

Cholvy, L. and Cuppens, F. 1999. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken (eds), Norms, Logics and Information Systems: New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 247--262. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington DC.

....discuss the problems like deception of agent. For example, O] i # and [i] j # may mean agent i deceives to agent j by telling j the negation of what he believes. In a recent paper, it is shown that the multi sources reasoning of [2] can be applied to deontic logic under conflicting regulations[3]. Essentially, this is to merge conflicting regulations according to the priorities of them analogously to the fusion of information. However, inherited from the restriction of FUn , it is also required that each regulation to be merged must be a set of deontic literals. Now, by the systems ....

L. Cholvy and F. Cuppens. "Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations ". In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems, pages 247--262. IOS Press, 1999.

....# (Nec2) If p is a theorem then S r p is also a theorem. # (MP) If p and p q are theorems then q is a theorem. # (Gen) If p is a theorem then 8x; p is also a theorem. 5 In SDL, obligation is defined by a modality O which corresponds to a KD logic (see the following of this section) 6 See [10] for a more detailed presentation of this logic. See also [13] for a more complex language which explicitly includes the possibility to represent events and actions. The language of logic # is simpler but sufficient for the purpose of this paper. 7 Notice that the axiomatics of modalities O and ....

L. Cholvy and F. Cuppens. Reasoning about Norms Provided by Conflicting Regulations. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, 4th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Bologna, Italy, 1998.

....solution are faced. Notice that this paper addresses neither the problem of eliminating contradictions or dilemmas, nor the problem of reasoning about contradictory legal rules. These two problems come after it has been proved that a regulation is not consistent [7] 18] 12] 4] 16] [2]. 2 Expressing regulations Let us note L, a first order language in which there is an unary function symbol denoted not, an unary predicate symbol denoted obligatory and there are two kinds of predicate symbols: the A predicate symbols and the P predicate symbols. The first ones aim to represent ....

L. Cholvy and F. Cuppens. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In H. Prakken and P. Mcnamara (eds), editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. IOS Press, 1998.

....une discussion. Avant toute chose, il faut remarquer que cet article ne traite ni le probl eme de l elimination des contradictions ou des dilemnes, ni le probl eme de raisonner avec des r eglementations incoh erentes. Ces deux probl emes viennent apr es celui de la d etection de l incoh erence. [10, 20, 15, 8, 6, 18, 5]. 2 Expression des r eglementa tions Notons L un langage du premier ordre qui a, entre autres, un symbole de pr edicat unaire not e obligatoire, un symbole de fonction unaire not e not et qui distingue, comme dans [1] deux types de pr edicats : les A pr edicats qui sont des pr edicats ....

L. Cholvy and F. Cuppens. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In Proceedings of DEON, Bologna, january 1998.

....2 av Ed Belin, 31055, Toulouse, FRANCE. Email: cholvy cert.fr 2 This work was partially supported by the European Community Working Group FUSION and by the DRET while another says it is permitted to do the same action. In order to illustrate this, let us recall the introductory example of [7]: Consider an organization whose activity includes dealing with some secret information. One can easily imagine that this activity is controlled by a first regulation (a so called security policy) R1. Assume that R1 states that: It is obligatory that any document containing some secret ....

....that it did not rain at date 2. 3 One can notice that even complicated, a 2 is equivalent to f[2] raing. 4 L. Cholvy 4.3 Conflicting regulations This section finally examines the case when the agents are regulations. The adaptation of logic FUSION to the case of norms, has been presented in [7]. The language L is here, a modal language whose modalities are O (obligation) P (permission) and F (prohibition) It is defined by: Definition. If f is a formula without modality then Of is a normative formula of L. It is read: f is obligatory . If f is a formula without modality, then Pf and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

L. Cholvy and F. Cuppens. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In Proceedings of DEON, Bologna, january 1998.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC