F. Dignum, H. Weigand, and E. Verharen. Meeting the Deadline: On the Formal Specification of Temporal Deontic Constraints. In Ras and Michalewicz, editors, Proc ISMIS96, volume 1079 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 243-- 252. Springer-Verlag, 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....logic [82] Only actions, and not formulas (representing assertions or assessments) can be obliged in Meyer s logic, and this has led to various extensions. These include (roughly in order of sophistication) a coupling to speech acts using illocutionary logic [45] a logic for action and norms [46], and even first steps towards a logic based social agent development language [6] Interestingly enough, the hard work put down to augment Meyer s logic is debatable in view of our somewhat controversial view of plans as normative advice for essentially reactive agents. Our view is in line with ....

F. Dignum, H. Weigand, and E. Verharen. Meeting the Deadline: On the Formal Specification of Temporal Deontic Constraints. In Ras and Michalewicz, editors, Proc ISMIS96, volume 1079 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 243-- 252. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....among agents. The theoretical foundation of the system of Dignum et al. is Meyer s system, which means that it has the same limitations as that system. The limitation from Meyer s system on time aspects has been addressed in a new logic for action and norms introduced by Dignum et al. in 1996 [Dignum96]. This logic, which is an extension of deontic dynamic logic facilitates reasoning about obligation and deadlines. A related approach to deontic reasoning is given in [Cohen90] which introduces a modal logic that combines operators for goals, beliefs, and intentions. The main focus of this paper ....

....explicit and dynamic creation of obligations by agents through illocutionary constructs, such as directives, commissives, and authorisations. This work is characterized by focusing on the communication process between agents, and not on the individuals intentionality as the work presented in [Dignum96]. We have argued that an adequate semantics for obligations requires an explicit representation of time, and we have shown how such a representation can be provided within a first order framework. The use of first order logic makes the paradoxes from some modal logic approaches, as discussed in ....

F. Dignum, H. Weigand, E Verharen, "Meeting the Deadline: On the Formal Specification of Temporal Deontic Constraints", in Fondations of Intelligent Systems, LNAI 1079, pp. 243-252, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1996.

....guarantee the truth of A. The obligations of our agents are influenced by their programs and we do not use decision theory. An agent s obligations is determined using its status set and we provide a language for writing agents program with time. Dignum and his colleagues (Dignum and Kuiper 1997; Dignum, Weigand, and Verharen 1996) combine temporal logic with deontic logic. Their semantics is based on Kripke models with implicit time while ours is based on status sets where time can be explicitly expressed. They focus on modeling deadlines and we focus on programming agents. They admit that automatic reasoning with ....

Dignum, F., H. Weigand, and E. Verharen (1996). Meeting the deadline: on the formal specification of temporal Deontic constraints. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1079, 243--.

....logic [27] Only actions, and not formulas (representing assertions or assessments) can be obliged in Meyer s logic, and this has led to various extensions. These include (roughly in order of sophistication) a coupling to speech acts using illocutionary logic [13] a logic for action and norms [14], a first order action logic [24] currently limited to pairwise obligations, i.e. broadcasting commitments is not possible) and even first steps towards a logic based social agent development language [1] Interestingly enough, the hard work put down to augment Meyer s logic is debatable in view ....

F. Dignum, H. Weigand & E. Verharen: "Meeting the Deadline: On the Formal Specification of Temporal Deontic Constraints", Proc ISMIS96: 243-252, Ras & Michalewicz (eds.), LNAI 1079, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

.... and [Weigand et al. 1996] Communication aspects have been described in [Weigand, 1990] Weigand, 1993] Dignum and Weigand, 1995a] Dignum and Weigand, 1995b] and [Weigand et al. 1995] Semantics and multimodal logics have been described in [Wieringa et al. 1989] Weigand et al. 1995] [Dignum et al. 1996a] and [Dignum et al. 1996b] while modelling methods for modelling ICS s based on linguistics were described in [Verharen et al. 1994] Verharen and Weigand, 1994] and [Burg and vdRiet, 1995] In this paper, we introduce a framework for CIA s that integrates much of our previous work. Our ....

.... Communication aspects have been described in [Weigand, 1990] Weigand, 1993] Dignum and Weigand, 1995a] Dignum and Weigand, 1995b] and [Weigand et al. 1995] Semantics and multimodal logics have been described in [Wieringa et al. 1989] Weigand et al. 1995] Dignum et al. 1996a] and [Dignum et al. 1996b] while modelling methods for modelling ICS s based on linguistics were described in [Verharen et al. 1994] Verharen and Weigand, 1994] and [Burg and vdRiet, 1995] In this paper, we introduce a framework for CIA s that integrates much of our previous work. Our starting point remains the ....

. F. Dignum, H. Weigand and E. Verharen, "Meeting the deadline: on the formal specification of temporal deontic constraints", in: Proc. of the Int.l. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'96), 1996 (to appear).

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