Meeting the deadline: On the formal specification of temporal deontic constraints

  • F. Dignum
  • H. Weigand
  • E. Verharen
Communications Session 2B Logic for AI
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1079)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a temporal deontic logic that facilitates reasoning about obligations and deadlines. The logic is an extension of deontic dynamic logic, in which only immediate obligations can be specified. In our extension, we can also specify that an obligation starts at a certain time or event, that it must be done immediately, as soon as possible, before a deadline, or periodically. A practical application area are intelligent agents that must be able to reason about their agendas.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Åqvist. Deontic logic. In D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, pages 605–714. Reidel, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.C.M. Baeten and W.P. Weijland. Process Algebra. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.W. de Bakker, J.N Kok, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, E.-R. Olderog, and J.I. Zucker. Contrasting themes in the semantics of imperative concurrency. In J.W. de Bakker, W.P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Current Trends in Concurrency: Overviews and Tutorials, pages 51–121. LNCS 224 Springer, Berlin, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Boutilier Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory. In JonDoyle, Erik Sandewall and Fietrotorasso (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, proceedings of the fourth international conference, pages 75–86, 1994, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Broy. A theory for nondeterminism, parallelism, communication and concurrency. In Theoretical Computer Science, vol.45, pages 1–62, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Dignum and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Negations of transactions and their use in the specification of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In M. Kwiatkowska, M.W. Shields, and R.M. Thomas, editors, Semantics for Concurrency, Leicester 1990, pages 61–80, Springer, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Contextual permission. a solution to the free choice paradox. In A. Jones and M. Sergot, editors, Second International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pages 107–135, Oslo, 1994. Tano A.S.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.A. Emerson. Temporal and Modal Logic. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pages 995–1072, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Temporal Reasoning over Deontic Specification. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 1 (3), 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Harel. First Order Dynamic Logic. LNCS 68 Springer, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.F. Horty. Combining Agency and Obligation. In M. Brown and J. Carmo (eds.), Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems, pages 98–122, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. In Notre Dame, vol.29, pages 109–136, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Thomason. Deontic Logic as founded on tense logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic, pages 165–176, D.Reidel Publishing Company, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G.H. von Wright. Deontic logic. In Mind, vol.60, pages 1–15, 1951.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Dignum
    • 1
  • H. Weigand
  • E. Verharen
    • 2
  1. 1.Fac. of Maths. & Comp. Sc.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.InfolabTilburg UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations