Privacy, Deontic Epistemic Action Logic and Software Agents
- 165 Downloads
In this paper we present an executable approach to model interactions between agents that involve sensitive, privacy-related information. The approach is formal and based on deontic, epistemic and action logic. It is conceptually related to the Belief-Desire-Intention model of Bratman. Our approach uses the concept of sphere as developed by Waltzer to capture the notion that information is provided mostly with restrictions regarding its application. We use software agent technology to create an executable approach. Our agents hold beliefs about the world, have goals and commitment to the goals. They have the capacity to reason about different courses of action, and communicate with one another. The main new ingredient of our approach is the idea to model information itself as an intentional agent whose main goal it is to preserve the integrity of the information and regulate its dissemination. We demonstrate our approach by applying it to an important process in the insurance industry: applying for a life insurance.
In this paper we will: (1) describe the challenge organizational complexity poses in moral reasoning about informational relationships; (2) propose an executable approach, using software agents with reasoning capacities grounded in modal logic, in which moral constraints on informational relatio nships can be modeled and investigated; (3) describe the details of our approach, in which information itself is modeled as an intentional agent in its own right; (4) test and validate it by applying it to a concrete ‘hard case’ from the insurance industry; and (5) conclude that our approach upholds and offers potential for both research and practical application.
Keywordsaction logic deontic epistemic insurance privacy software agents
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Agent Oriented Software-AOS, Pty. Ltd. (2004) JACK, url=http://www.agent-software.com.au
- Bratman, M.E. 1987Intention, Plans and Practical ReasoningHarvard University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
- J. Broersen, M. Dastani, Z. Huang, J. Hulstijn and L. van der Torre. The BOID architecture. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2001). Montreal, 2001.Google Scholar
- Bynum, T.W., Moor, J.H. 1998The Digital PhoenixBlackwell PublishingOxfordGoogle Scholar
- Bynum, T.W., Moor, J.H. 2002CyberphilosophyBlackwell PublishingOxfordGoogle Scholar
- C. Castelfranchi and R. Conte. Understanding the Functions of Norms in Social Groups through Simulation, In N. Gilbert and R. Conte, editors, Artificial Societies, UCL Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- Danielson, P. 1992Artificial MoralityRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
- Danielson, P. eds. 1998Modeling Rationality, Morality and EvolutionOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
- M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn and L. van der Torre. The BOID Architecture: Conflicts between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desires, In Proceedings International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001a.Google Scholar
- M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn and L. van der Torre. BDI and QDT: A Comparison based on Classical Decision Theory, In Proceedings of GTDT2001, Stanford, 2001b.Google Scholar
- G. A. Governatori, Formal Approach to Negotiating Agents Development, In Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1 no. 2, 2002.Google Scholar
- S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 2003.Google Scholar
- Pollock, J.L. 1995Cognitive CarpentryMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Thagard, P. 1992Conceptual RevolutionsPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
- J. Van den Hoven and G.-J. Lokhorst. Deontic Logic and Computer Supported Computer Ethics, In Bynum et al. editors, Cyberphilosophy, 2002.Google Scholar
- Walzer, M. 1983Spheres of JusticeBasic BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wooldridge, M. 2000Reasoning about Rational AgentsMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Wooldridge, M. 2002MulitAgents SystemsJohn Wiley & SonsChichesterGoogle Scholar