Formal Semantics of Acknowledgements, Agreements and Disagreements

  • Norihiro Ogata
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1733)


Acknowledgements, agreements, and disgreements are basic moves in communications among agents, since the moves form and revise shared information among the agents which is basic prerequisite of group-actions. This paper investigates formal semantics of the moves from the point of view of information sharing among agents, exploiting the circular objects assured by Hyperset Theory. Therefore, avoiding definitions of shared information by infinite conjunctions of propositions with nested epistemic modalities, the actions are all interpreted as one-step (not infinite many step) formations of shared information by corecursive definitions. As a result, we can provide a structure of inference between the actions, and define a process equivalence of dialogues with respect to their resulting shared information.


Shared Information Formal Semantic Induction Rule Circular Object Byzantine Agreement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Peter Aczel. Non-well-founded Sets.CSLI, Stanford, 1987. 32, 37Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jon Barwise. Situation in Logic. CS LI, Stanford, 1989. 32, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Barwise and J. Etchemendy. The Liar.Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987. 37, 38, 39, 40zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Barwise and L. Moss. Vicious Circles. CSLI, Stanford, 1996. 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Barwise and J. Perry. Situations and Attitudes.The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1983. 37Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Clark and C.R. Marshall. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, D. Webber, and I. Sag, editors, Elements of Discourse Understanding, pages 10–63.Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981. 33Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque. Teamwork. Nôus, 25(4):487–512, 1991. 32, 38, 40Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.R. Cohen, H.J. Levesque, and I. Smith. On team formation. In Contemporary Action Theory.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997. 32, 40Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. A. Davey and H.A. Priestley. Introduction to Lattices and Order.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. 42zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and V.Y. Vardi. Reasoning about Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995. 35, 36, 41, 45zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Greaves, H. Holmback, and J. Bladshow. What is a conversation policies? In Autonomous Agents’ 99., Seattle, 1999. 45
  12. 12.
    J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof. Question. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 1997. 41Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Komatsu. S emantics of cooperative dialogues. In A. Ishikawa and Y. Nitta, editors, The Proceedings of the 1994 Kyoto Conference: A Festschrift for Professor Akira Ikeya, pages 183–192.Th e Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan, Tokyo, 1995. 37Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Komatsu, N. Ogata, and A. Ishikawa. Towards a dynamic theory of beliefsharing in cooperative dialogues. In Proceedings of COLING 94, pages 1164–1169, 1994. 37Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norihiro Ogata. Information sharing models of dialogue and four classes of circularity problems. In A. Ishikawa and Y. Nitta, editors, The Proceedings of the 1994 Kyoto Conference: A Festschrift for Professor Akira Ikeya, pages 193–202. The Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan, Tokyo, 1995. 32, 40Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norihiro Ogata. Formal semantics of dialogues based on belief sharing and observational equivalence of dialogues. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 6(4):93–115, 1999. 34, 46Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E.A. Schegloff, G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2):361–382, 1977. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norihiro Ogata
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Language and CultureOsaka UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations