J. J. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....goals, plans, and actions. In other terms, a process model is presented formalizing how norms succeed in influencing the agent s behavior, although being possibly violated. Of course, an important theory that could be used to incorporate norms into the agent theory is that of deontic logic [13, 16, 20]. A first attempt has been made in [9] In this work several types of norms are distinguished and translated into obligations for the agent. All the obligations result into conditional goals for the agent. The decision whether to comply to a norm or not is made by ranking the goals. If the goal ....

Meyer, J.-J., Ch., and Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chicester, UK.

....from taking ff; ffl Off means that the agent is obliged to take action ff; ffl Wff means that obligation to take action ff is waived; and, ffl Doff means that the agent does take action ff. Notice that the operators P; F; O; and W have been extensively studied in the area of deontic logic [70, 3]. Moreover, the operator Do is in the spirit of the praxiological operator E a A [51] which informally means that agent a sees to it that A is the case [70, p.292] We borrow from the field of deontic logic the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of action ....

....A is the case [70, p. 292] We borrow from the field of deontic logic the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of action programs on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD [3, 70]) We discuss the relationship between our approach and deontic logic in detail in Section 6. Another reason for not building upon existing deontic logic systems is that actions in deontic logic typically do not have effects hence, the fact that a set of actions may all be individually ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J.-J. C. Meyer and R. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al, 1993.

....about norm functionalities although the theory of norms was based on explicit mental representations, they used simple reactive agents with a given normative behaviour. Of course, an important theory that could be used to incorporate norms into the agent theory is that of deontic logic [15] [19], 25] A first attempt has been made in [14] In this work several types of norms are distinguished and translated into obligations for the agent. All the obligations result into conditional goals for the agent. The decision whether to comply to a norm or not is made by ranking the goals. If the ....

Meyer, J.-J., Ch., and Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chicester, UK.

....seems to lead to more encouraging results. Many existing approaches for developing agent based systems are based on logics. Temporal Logic has proven useful for specifying agents which, on the basis of the past, do the future. Concurrent METATEM is an example of this approach [7] Deontic Logic [14] fits the needs of representing the actions an agent may, may not, or must perform according to some conditions. This allows a quick and high level description of the agents state and behavior. Linear Logic, as discussed in [5, 4] has connectives to express concurrency and synchronization ....

J. J. C. Meyer and R. Wieringa (Eds.). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Chichester et al. Wiley & Sons, 1993.

....mechanisms, decision support systems, database security rules, fault tolerant software and database integrity constraints; thus, outside the area of legal analysis and legal automation. Deontic logic forms the basis of several legal expert systems. A survey of applications can be found in [16]. 2 For the semantics of the collective obligation we refer to [20] 3 We can regard (1) as a de nition of genuine group obligation or cooperative obligation (cf. 10] In our interpretation of OX (p) we consider the groups to be separate agents as in the theory of relativised deontic ....

Meyer, J.-J.Ch. and R. Wieringa (eds.), Deontic Logic in Computer Science, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1993.

....obligatory) Given a feasible space A of actions, a database state DB, an action policy further specifies a way of determining which actions to actually perform, based on the implied obligations and permissions. We will build our notion of an action policy on top of deontic logic ( Aquist, 1984; Meyer and Wieringa, 1993). It will turn out that the well known ECArules are a special case of our notion of an action policy, thus making our semantics applicable not only to existing ECA rules, but also to the extended set of action policies proposed in this paper. Before proceeding any further, let us consider a ....

....within a gray area they are permitted, but neither obligatory or forbidden. To date, no active database system has provided a formal semantics for obligatory, permitted, and forbidden actions. In this paper, we have done so, building on top of classical deontic logic syntax ( Aquist, 1984; Meyer and Wieringa, 1993). Elements of deontic logic have been repeatedly used in the context of computer security to build a formal system for expressing security and authorization policies. Examples are the approach by (Glasgow et al. 1989) and the security logic proposed in (Bieber and Cuppens, 1993) where further ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Meyer, J.-J. C. and Wieringa, R., editors (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al.

.... ###### ###### ######### ## # # ## ###### ######## # # # # # # ### ##### # # ## # # #### ####### #### ##### ###### # Figure 1: The conceptual model of electronic negotiations Therefore, we propose a structured message exchange based on speech act theory [10] and formal logics [6]. Each message such as Can you supply 100 pairs of shoes (code MM 48 1112) for 20 each can be seen as a speech act in written form that consists of two components: the propositional content describes what the message is about (i.e. supply 100 pairs of shoes of code MM 48 1112 for 20 each) ....

....used for a formalisation of negotiation processes. The formalisation provides the basis for reasoning mechanisms, e.g. about arising obligations. A language ### # (standing for cooperative language) has been developed and is presented in [7] It is based on a combination of dynamic deontic logic [6] and illocutionary logic [11] The language enables statements about speech acts concerning actions or propositions to be made by a author to a recipient; it enables the resulting effects such as beliefs or obligations to be specified; and it allows deadlines for certain types of speech act to be ....

J.J.Ch. Meyer, R.J. Wieringa (eds). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley&Sons, Chichester, 1993.

.... Deontic logic: We borrow from the eld of deontic logic, the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of taps on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993)) We mention that deontic logic has been plagued by paradoxical behavior of the logic ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993) During the last 50 years, numerous systems of deontic logic based on modal logic have been proposed, but still most of these still su er from paradoxical behavior. ....

.... semantics of taps on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993) We mention that deontic logic has been plagued by paradoxical behavior of the logic ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993). During the last 50 years, numerous systems of deontic logic based on modal logic have been proposed, but still most of these still su er from paradoxical behavior. Another reason for not building upon existing deontic logic systems is that actions in deontic logic typically do not have e ects ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Meyer, J.-J. C. and R. Wieringa (Eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

.... Deontic logic: We borrow from the eld of deontic logic, the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of taps on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993)) We mention that deontic logic has been plagued by paradoxical behavior of the logic ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993) During the last 50 years, numerous systems of deontic logic based on modal logic have been proposed, but still most of these still su er from paradoxical behavior. ....

.... semantics of taps on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993) We mention that deontic logic has been plagued by paradoxical behavior of the logic ( Aquist 1984; Meyer and Wieringa 1993). During the last 50 years, numerous systems of deontic logic based on modal logic have been proposed, but still most of these still su er from paradoxical behavior. Another reason for not building upon existing deontic logic systems is that actions in deontic logic typically do not have e ects ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Meyer, J.-J. C. and R. Wieringa (Eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

....expressed. They focus on modeling deadlines and we focus on programming agents. They admit that automatic reasoning with specifications written in their language is not yet possible. J.J. Ch Meyer s group s interesting work on deontic logic (Hindriks, de Boer, van der Hoek, and Meyer 1997; Meyer and Wieringa 1993) for building agents is closely related. However, his work does not build explicitly on top of heterogeneous data structures, and no explicit support is present for modeling actions with intermediate e#ects and with constructing agents that can reason with past future commitments (though his work ....

Meyer, J.-J. C. and R. Wieringa (Eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

....about norm functionalities although the theory of norms was based on explicit mental representations, they used simple reactive agents with a given normative behaviour. Of course, an important theory that could be used to incorporate norms into the agent theory is that of deontic logic [13] [16], 22] A first attempt has been made in [12] In this work several types of norms are distinguished and translated into obligations for the agent. All the obligations result into conditional goals for the agent. The decision whether to comply to a norm or not is made by ranking the goals. If the ....

Meyer, J.-J., Ch., and Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chicester, UK.

....the Library Regulations in deontic logic and applying deontic reasoning such a profound analysis of legislation can be performed. Deontic logic is a modal logic with operators for permission, obligation and prohibition. For a rich collection of papers on deontic logic the reader is referred to [MW93] The book contains tutorials on the history of deontic logic and the applications of deontic logic in computer science, a selection of papers that were presented at the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science 1991 and some invited papers. 3.3 Multi level Approaches ....

J.J.Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley, 1993.

....from taking ff; ffl Off means that the agent is obliged to take action ff; ffl Wff means that obligation to take action ff is waived; and, ffl Doff means that the agent does take action ff. Notice that the operators P; F; O; and W have been extensively studied in the area of deontic logic [70, 3]. Moreover, the operator Do is in the spirit of the praxiological operator E a A [51] which informally means that agent a sees to it that A is the case [70, p.292] We borrow from the field of deontic logic the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of action ....

....A is the case [70, p. 292] We borrow from the field of deontic logic the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of action programs on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD [3, 70]) We discuss the relationship between our approach and deontic logic in detail in Section 6. Another reason for not building upon existing deontic logic systems is that actions in deontic logic typically do not have effects hence, the fact that a set of actions may all be individually ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J.-J. C. Meyer and R. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al, 1993.

....during lifetime of objects. A possible integration of a theory based approach into the Troll2 framework was sketched. As mentioned already in the discussion of possible application areas, the approach can be extended to handle more application specific logics for example based on deontic logics [MW93] An interesting extension is to combine the extended object model with non monotonic logics for revising temporal logic goals. A related approach is reported in [BLR93] A necessary extension to handle problems of schema evolution is to extend the state modification to allow changes of the ....

J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Normative System Specification. Wiley, Chichester, 1993.

....from taking ff; ffl Off means that the agent is obliged to take action ff; ffl Wff means that obligation to take action ff is waived; and, ffl Doff means that the agent does take action ff. Notice that the operators P; F; O; and W have been extensively studied in the area of deontic logic [79, 3]. Moreover, the operator Do is in the spirit of the praxiological operator E a A [62] which informally means that agent a sees to it that A is the case [79, p.292] We borrow from the field of deontic logic the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of action ....

....A is the case [79, p. 292] We borrow from the field of deontic logic the syntax of deontic statements; however we do not lay down the semantics of action programs on the basis of one of the numerous deontic logical systems (e.g. Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) which amounts to the modal logic KD [3, 79]) We discuss the relationship between our approach and deontic logic in detail in Section 11. Another reason for not building upon existing deontic logic systems is that actions in deontic logic typically do not have effects hence, the fact that a set of actions may all be individually ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J.-J. C. Meyer and R. Wieringa. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al, 1993.

....is the dual of O and replaces the previous operator; and F O read It is forbidden that . These operators intend to represent the notions of obligation, permission and interdiction, that constitute the basis of the study in deontic logic. The following quotation, extracted from the preface of [Meyer and Wieringa 1993], presents the purpose of this particular branch of mathematical logic. 8 Deontic logic is a branch of modal logic to reason about normative versus non normative behaviour by means of modal operators such as ought, permitted and forbidden. Originating from philosophy where it used to formalize ....

J.-J.C. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa (Ed.), Deontic Logic in Computer Science, 317pp., ISBN 0-471-93743-6, Jon Wiley & Sons, 1993.

....from taking ff; ffl Off means that the agent is obliged to take action ff; ffl Wff means that obligation to take action ff is waived; and, ffl Doff means that the agent does take action ff. Notice that the operators P; F; O; and W have been extensively studied in the area of deontic logic (Meyer and Wieringa 1993; Aquist 1984) Moreover, the operator Do is in the spirit of the praxiological operator E a A (Kanger 1972) which informally means that agent a sees to it that A is the case (Meyer and Wieringa 1993, p.292) 3.13 Definition (Action Rule) An action rule (rule, for short) is a clause r of ....

.... that the operators P; F; O; and W have been extensively studied in the area of deontic logic (Meyer and Wieringa 1993; Aquist 1984) Moreover, the operator Do is in the spirit of the praxiological operator E a A (Kanger 1972) which informally means that agent a sees to it that A is the case (Meyer and Wieringa 1993, p.292) 3.13 Definition (Action Rule) An action rule (rule, for short) is a clause r of the form A L 1 ; L n (2) where A is an action status atom, and each of L 1 ; L n is either an action status atom, or a code call atom, each of which may be preceded by a negation sign ....

Meyer, J.-J. C. and R. Wieringa (Eds.) (1993). Deontic Logic in Computer Science.

....and Moore [17] point out that in real life, all obligations are defeasible; no matter what your obligations seem to be, there is always the possibility of finding out that they are really something else. Again, computer inference techniques for these extensions to classical logic are available [19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. Full implementations of modal, temporal, and deontic logic will not be needed because LEC is not aiming for the full expressive power of human language, only a minimum level sufficient for business transactions. Accordingly, external limitations can be imposed to make automated reasoning more ....

Meyer, J. J., and Wieringa, R. J., eds. Deontic logic in computer science. New York: Wiley, 1993.

No context found.

J.-J. Ch. Meyer & R.J. Wieringa (eds.), special issue Annals of Mathematics and AI "Deontic Logic in Computer Science" (Vol. 9(I-II)), J.C. Baltzer AG, Basel, 1993.

No context found.

J. J. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.

No context found.

J. J. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.

No context found.

J.-J. Meyer and R. Wieringa, editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Chichester, 1993.

No context found.

J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa (eds.). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al, 1993.

No context found.

Meyer J.J., Wieringa R.J., Deontic logic in computer science, Wiley, 1993.

No context found.

J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa (eds.). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al, 1993.

No context found.

J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa (eds.). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley & Sons, Chichester et al, 1993.

No context found.

J.-J. C. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa (Eds.), Deontic Logic in Computer Science, 317p., Jon Wiley & Sons, 1993.

No context found.

In Meyer, J.-J., and Wieringa, R., eds., Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. 1740. Yu, X. 1995. Deontic Logic with Defeasible Detachment.

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