Action concepts for describing organised interaction

Santos, Filipe; Jones, Andrew; Carmo, José

doi:10.1109/hicss.1997.663195

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is likely that a comprehensive theory of rights and/or organisations would require several different notions of action and agency. In [Santos and Carmo 1996;Santos et al 1997], for instance, it is suggested that distinguishing between direct and indirect action may be important for describing certain organisational structures. Nothing in the present paper depends on such detailed choices.…”

Section: Preliminary Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computational theory of normative positions

Sergot

2001

ACM Trans. Comput. Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Kanger-Lindahl theory of normative positions attempts to use a combination of deontic logic (the logic of obligation and permission) and a logic of action/agency to give a formal account of obligations, duties, rights, and other complex normative concepts. This paper presents a generalisation and further development of this theory, together with methods for its automation and application to practical examples. The resulting theory is intended to be applied in the representation and analysis of laws, regulations, and contracts, in the specification of aspects of computer systems, in multi-agent systems, and as a contribution to the formal theory of organisations. Particular attention is paid to representations at varying levels of detail and the relationships that hold between them. The last part presents Norman-G, an automated support system intended to facilitate application of the theory to the analysis of practical problems, with a small example to illustrate its use.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computational theory of normative positions

Sergot

2001

ACM Trans. Comput. Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the notion of attempting to do an action a that can be interfered by others needs to be modeled, then another action attempt_a should be added and the permission placed onto the latter. Another alternative is to introduce modalities for trying, as in Santos et al [13].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contracts for Interacting Two-Party Systems

Pace

Schapachnik

2012

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article deals with the interrelation of deontic operators in contracts -an aspect often neglected when considering only one of the involved parties. On top of an automata-based semantics we formalise the onuses that obligations, permissions and prohibitions on one party impose on the other. Such formalisation allows for a clean notion of contract strictness and a derived notion of contract conflict that is enriched with issues arising from party interdependence.

show abstract

“…Different axiomatisations have been provided for it but almost all include Brings i A → A, ¬Brings i , (Brings i A ∧ Brings i B) → Brings i (A ∧ B), and are closed under logical equivalence. If these are some general properties for Brings, a specific axiom advanced in [22] for this operator is Brings i Brings j A → ¬Brings i A. It corresponds to the idea that the bring-about operator expresses actions performed directly and personally: It is counterintuitive that the same agent brings it about that A and brings it about that somebody else achieves A.…”

Section: Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic

Governatori

Rotolo

Sartor

2005

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a computationally oriented non-monotonic multi-modal logic arising from the combination of temporalised agency and temporalised normative positions. We argue about the defeasible nature of these notions and then we show how to represent and reason with them in the setting of Defeasible Logic. MOTIVATION AND LAYOUTAn increasing number of works on agents assume that in artificial societies normative concepts may play a decisive role, allowing for the flexible co-ordination of autonomous agents [5,20,15]. In particular, it seems crucial to model organisations of agents in terms of policy-based normative systems; accordingly an organisation should be characterised by specifying the normative positions relevant to design its structure. These positions include duties, permissions, but also powers, as for instance powers of creating further normative positions on the head of other agents. In this paper we will develop a formal machinery to account for several fundamental concepts that are required to model policy-based normative systems. These concepts will be embedded in a nonmonotonic and computationally-oriented framework based on Defeasible Logic (DL).From the conceptual standpoint, it is well known that the basic deontic qualifications (obligatory, forbidden, permitted and facultative) are not sufficient to capture all fundamental normative notions, such as the concepts of rights and power. For this reason, we will first provide an account in DL of the notion of other-directed obligation [14] to express, e.g., the first Hohfeldian set of fundamental concepts: duty, right, noright, and privilege. Second, we shall focus on different kinds of normative conditionals. This will enable us to characterise also the idea of normative power and articulate many potestative concepts such as the second Hohfeldian set of concepts: power, liability (or, subjection, to avoid confusion with the notion of liability, as used in tort law), disability, and immunity. * This work was partially supported by Australia Research Council under Discovery Project No. DP0558854 on "A Formal Approach to Resource Allocation in Web Service Oriented Composition in Open Marketplaces". Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. In general, we shall see how the analysis of normative conditionality and normative positions has to include temporal aspects in order to capture a number of nuances in the perspective of framing a fine-grained classification of such concepts. In fact, normative determinations take place along the axis of time: Normative preconditions hold or happen in certain temporally characterised occasions, and consequently their effects too hold or happen wi...

show abstract

Action concepts for describing organised interaction

Cited by 32 publications

References 13 publications

A computational theory of normative positions

A computational theory of normative positions

Contracts for Interacting Two-Party Systems

Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About