Advertisement

Practical Normative Reasoning with Defeasible Deontic Logic

  • Guido GovernatoriEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11078)

Abstract

We discuss some essential issues for the formal representation of norms to implement normative reasoning, and we show how to capture those requirements in a computationally oriented formalism, Defeasible Deontic Logic, and we provide the description of this logic, and we illustrate its use to model and reasoning with norms with the help of legal examples.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Bulygin, E.: Permission and permissive norms. In: Krawietz, W., et al. (ed.) Theorie der Normen. Duncker & Humblot (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2000, Amsterdam, pp. 459–463. IOS Press (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: An inclusion theorem for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 12(1), 6 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 265–343. Springer, Dordrecht (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0387-2_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon, T.F., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Rules and norms: requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 282–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04985-9_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–11), 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(2–3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G.: On the relationship between Carneades and defeasible logic, pp. 31–40. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G.: Burden of compliance and burden of violations. In: Rotolo, A. (ed.) 28th Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Frontieres in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Amsterdam, pp. 31–40. IOS Press (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Governatori, G.: The Regorous approach to process compliance. In: 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, pp. 33–40. IEEE Press (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Governatori, G.: Thou shalt is not you will. In: Atkinson, K. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 63–68. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Governatori, G., Hashmi, M.: No time for compliance. In: Hallé, S., Mayer, W. (ed.) 2015 IEEE 19th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 9–18. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Governatori, G., Idelberg, F., Milosevic, Z., Riveret, R., Sartor, G., Xu, X.: On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smartcontracts, and blockchain systems. Artif. Intell. Law 1–33 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Annotated defeasible logic. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 17(5–6), 819–836 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. J. Log. Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Rotolo, A., Scannapieco, S.: Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible logic. J. Philos. Log. 42(6), 799–829 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V., Rotolo, A., Sattar, A.: A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes. Log. J. IGPL 17(3), 227–265 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Logic of violations: a Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australas. J. Log. 4, 193–215 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Log. J. IGPL 18(1), 157–194 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In: Gardner, A. (ed.) 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 25–34. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Governatori, G., Sartor, G.: Burdens of proof in monological argumentation. In: Winkels, R. (ed.) The Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Volume 223 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Amsterdam, pp. 57–66. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grossi, D., Jones, A.: Constitutive norms and counts-as conditionals. Handb. Deontic Log. Norm. Syst. 1, 407–441 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Idelberger, F., Governatori, G., Riveret, R., Sartor, G.: Evaluation of logic-based smart contracts for blockchain systems. In: Alferes, J.J., Bertossi, L., Governatori, G., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2016. LNCS, vol. 9718, pp. 167–183. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42019-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G.: The making of SPINdle. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 315–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04985-9_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 1(6), 691–711 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Palmirani, M., Governatori, G., Athan, T., Boley, H., Paschke, A., Wyner, A. (eds.) LegalRuleML Core Specification Version 1.0. OASIS (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prakken, H., Sergot, M.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57(1), 91–115 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Soeteman, A.: Logic in Law. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action: A Logical Inquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Abingdon (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Data61, CSIRODutton ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations