Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 53–81 | Cite as

Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: Declarative power, representation, and mandate

  • Jonathan Gelati
  • Antonino Rotolo
  • Giovanni Sartor
  • Guido Governatori
Article

Abstract

In this paper we provide a formal analysis of the idea of normative co-ordination. We argue that this idea is based on the assumption that agents can achieve flexible co-ordination by conferring normative positions to other agents. These positions include duties, permissions, and powers. In particular, we explain the idea of declarative power, which consists in the capacity of the power-holder of creating normative positions, involving other agents, simply by „proclaiming“ such positions. In addition, we account also for the concepts of representation, namely the representative’s capacity of acting in the name of his principal, and of mandate, which is the mandatee’s duty to act as the mandator has requested. Finally, we show how the framework can be applied to represent the contract-net protocol. Some brief remarks on future research and applications conclude this contribution.

Keywords

institutionalized power multi-agent systems normative co-ordination 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, L. and Saxon, C. (1991). A-Hohfeld: A Language for Robust Structural Representation of Knowledge in the Legal Domain to Build Interpretation-Assistance Expert Systems. In Meyer, J.-J. and Wieringa, R. (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, 52–71. Vrjie Universiteit: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Antoniou, G., Billington, D, Governatori, G., Maher, M. J. 2000A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics.MIT PressMenlo Park, CAIn AAAI-2000, 401–405. AAAI/Google Scholar
  3. Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M. 2002Animated Specifications of Computational Societies.ACM PressNew YorkAAMAS’02, 1053–1061.Google Scholar
  4. Artosi, A., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. 2002led Tableaux for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Cumulative Consequence RelationsJournal of Logic and Computation1210271060MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Artosi, A., Rotolo, A. and Vida, S. (2004). On The Logical Nature of Count-as Conditionals. In Cevenini, C. (ed.) Proceedings of LEA 2004. Gedit: Bologna.Google Scholar
  6. Bellifemine, F., Caire, G., Trucco, T. and Rimassa, G. (2003a). Jade Administrator’s guide. JADE 3.1.Google Scholar
  7. Bellifemine, F., Caire, G., Trucco, T. and Rimassa, G. (2003b). Jade programmer’s guide. JADE 3.1.Google Scholar
  8. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J. Huang, Z. and van der Torre, L. (2001). The BOID Architecture. In Proceedings of Agents-01. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  9. Boutilier, C. (1994). Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’94), 75–86. Morgan Kauffmann: San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Carmo, J., Pacheco, O. 2001Deontic and Action Logics for Organized Collective Agency Modeled Through Institutionalized Agents and RolesFundamenta Informaticae4812963MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Catholijn, M., Treur, J. 2000Deliberative Normative Agents: Principles and Architecture.BerlinSpringer-VerlagIn Proceedings of ATAL 1999, 364–378.Google Scholar
  12. Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R. 1998Towards a Theory of Delegation for Agent-Based SystemsRobotics and Autonomous Systems24141157Google Scholar
  13. Chellas, B. 1980Modal Logic An Introduction.CambridgeCambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Colombetti, M. (2000). A Commitment-Based Approach to Agent Speech Acts and Conversations. In Greaves, M., Dignum, F., Bradshaw, J. and Chaibdraa, B. (eds.). Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies, 21–29. Barcelona.Google Scholar
  15. Conte, R.Dellarocas, C. eds. 2001Social Order in Multiagent SystemsDordrechtKluwerMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C. 1995Cognitive and Social ActionLondonUCL PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Contentguard (2001). The XrML 2.0 Specifications.Google Scholar
  18. Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R. 1996Collective commitmentsSan Francisco AAAI PressIn Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agents Systems, 56–63.Google Scholar
  19. Elgesem, D. 1997The Modal Logic of AgencyNordic Journal of Philosophical Logic2146MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Mayfield, J. 1997

    KQML as an agent communication language.

    J., Bradshaw eds. Software Agents.MIT PressCambridge, Mass
    Google Scholar
  21. FIPA (2001). FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification. FIPA.Google Scholar
  22. Gelati, J., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. and Sartor, G. (2002a). Actions, Institutions, Powers: Preliminary Notes. In Lindemann, G., Moldt, D., Paolucci, M., and Yu, B. (eds.). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems: Theories and Applications 2002 Workshop, 131–147. Bologna: University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  23. Gelati, J., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G. 2002b

    Declarative Power, Representation, and Mandate: A Formal Analysis.

    Bench-Capon, T.Deskalopulu, A.Winkels, R. eds. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2002)IOS PressAmsterdam4152
    Google Scholar
  24. Gelati, J. and Riveret, R. (2004). DRM in a Multi-Agent System Marketplace. In Cevenini, C. (ed). Proceedings of LEA 2004. Gedit: Bologna.Google Scholar
  25. Gelati, J., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G. 2002cNormative Autonomy and Normative Co-ordination: Declarative Power, Representation, and MandateUniversity of BolognaBolognaIn Proceedings of LEA 2002Google Scholar
  26. Gelati, J., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G. 2003A Logic-based Analysis of XrML.OsloIn Oskamp, A. and Weitzenboeck, E. (eds.). Proceedings of LEA 2003. Norwegian Research Center for Computers and LawGoogle Scholar
  27. Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. (2003). A Defeasible Logic of Institutional Agency. In Brewka, G. and Peppas, P. (eds.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action, and Change (NRAC, 03), 97–104. Acapulco.Google Scholar
  28. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. 2004

    Defeasible Logic: Agency, Intention and Obligation.

    Nute, D.Lomuscio, A. eds. DEONSpringer-VerlagBerlin1141287th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, 2004
    Google Scholar
  29. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sadiq, S. 2004

    A Model of Dynamic Resource Allocation in Workflow Systems.

    Schewe, K.-D.Williams, H.E. eds. Fifteenth Australasian Database Conference (ADC2004)Australian Computer Science AssociationDunedin197206
    Google Scholar
  30. Grice, P. 1989Studies in the Way of WordsHarvardHarvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrestad, H., Krogh, C. 1995Obligations Directed from Bearers to Counterparties.ACM PressNew York 210218In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, A. 1990

    Towards a Formal Theory of Communication and Speech Acts.

    Cohen, P.Pollack, M. eds. Intentions in Communication MIT PressCambridge, Mass
    Google Scholar
  33. Jones, A., Sergot, M. 1996A formal Characterisation of Institutionalised PowerJournal of the IGPL442945MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, A. J. 2003

    A Logical Framework.

    Pitt, J. eds. Open Agent Societies:Normative Specifications in Multi-Agent SystemsJohn Wiley and SonsChichesterChapt. 3.
    Google Scholar
  35. Kamyab, K., Guerin, F. Goulev, P. and Mamdani, E. (2001). Designing Agents for a Virtual Marketplace. In AISB Convention. New York, UK.Google Scholar
  36. Kanger, S. 1972Law and logicTheoria3810532MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelsen, H. 1967The Pure Theory of LawUniversity of California PressBerkeley, CalGoogle Scholar
  38. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M. 1990Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative LogicsArtificial Intelligence44167207MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Krogh, C., Herrestad, H. 1996

    Getting personal.Some notes on the relationship Between Personal and Impersonal Obligation.

    Brown, M.Carmo, J. eds. Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative SystemsSpringer-VerlagBerlin134153
    Google Scholar
  40. Lindhal, L. 1977Position of change: A Study in law and logicReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Lomuscio, A.Nute, D. eds. 2004Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2004).Springer-VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. MacCormick, N., Weinberger, O. 1986An Institutional Theory of Law .New Approaches to Legal Positivism.ReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  43. Maher, M. J. 2001Propositional Defeasible Logic has Linear ComplexityTheory and Practice of Logic Programming1601711CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Maher, M. J., Governatori, G. 1999A Semantic Decomposition of Defeasible Logic.AAAI PressMenlo Park, CAIn AAAI-99, 299–305.Google Scholar
  45. Maher, M. J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billignton, D., Miller, T. 2001Efficient Defeasible Reasoning SystemsInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools10483501Google Scholar
  46. Nute, D. 1987Defeasible LogicOxford University Press OxfordIn Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume. 3.Google Scholar
  47. Pitt, J. eds. 2004Open Agent Societies: Normative Specifications in Multi-Agent Systems.WileyChichesterGoogle Scholar
  48. Pitt, J., Kamara, L., Artikis, A. 2001

    Interaction Patterns and Observable Commitments in a Multi-Agent Trading Scenario.

    Müller, J.Andre, E.Sen, S.Frasson, C. eds. Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents (AA)ACM PressNew York481488
    Google Scholar
  49. Pörn, I. 1977Action Theory and Social Science: Some Formal ModelsDordrechtReidelMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1996A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal ReasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law433168Google Scholar
  51. Rao, A., Georgeff, M. P. 1991

    Modelling Rational agents within a BDI-architecture

    Allen, J.Fikes, R.Sandewall, E. eds. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91)Morgan KaufmannSan Mateo, CA473484
    Google Scholar
  52. Royakkers, L. 1998Extending Deontic Logic for the Formalisation of Legal RulesKluwerDordrechtMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Royakkers, L., Dignum, F. 1998Collective Obligation and Commitment.IDGIDG10081022In Proceedings of The Law in the Information SocietyGoogle Scholar
  54. Royakkers, L. and Dignum, F. (1999). From Collective to Individual Commitments. In Proceedings of The 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 196–198. Oslo.Google Scholar
  55. Salmond, J., Williams, J. 1945The principles of the law of contractsSweet and MaxwellLondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Santos, F., Carmo, J. 1996

    Indirect Action: Influence and Responsibility.

    Brown, M.Carmo, J. eds. Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative SystemsSpringer-VerlagBerlin194215
    Google Scholar
  57. Santos, F., Jones, A., Carmo, J. 1997

    Action Concepts for Describing Organised Interaction.

    Sprague, R. eds. Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesIEEE Computer Society PressLos Alamitos373382
    Google Scholar
  58. Sartor, G. (2003). Cognitive Automata and the Law. In Oskamp, A. and Weitzenboeck, E. (eds.). Proceedings of LEA 2003. Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law: Oslo.Google Scholar
  59. Searle, J. 1995The Construction of Social RealityPenguinHarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  60. Singh, M. 1999An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems: Toward a Unification of Normative ConceptsArtificial Intelligence and Law793113Google Scholar
  61. Tan, Y., Thoen, W. 1999A Logical Model of Directed Obligations and Permissions to Support Electronic ContractingInternational Journal of Electronic Commerce387104Google Scholar
  62. Zweigert, K., Kötz, H. 1992Introduction to Comparative LawClarendonOxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Gelati
    • 1
  • Antonino Rotolo
    • 1
  • Giovanni Sartor
    • 1
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  1. 1.Law Faculty and CIRSFID University of BolognaItaly
  2. 2.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations