CÒIR: Verifying Normative Specifications of Complex Systems

  • Luca Gasparini
  • Timothy J. Norman
  • Martin J. Kollingbaum
  • Liang Chen
  • John-Jules C. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9628)


Existing approaches for the verification of normative systems consider limited representations of norms, often neglecting collective imperatives, deadlines and contrary-to-duty obligations. In order to capture the requirements of real-world scenarios, these structures are important. In this paper we propose methods for the specification and formal verification of complex normative systems that include contrary-to-duty, collective and event-driven imperatives with deadlines. We propose an operational syntax and semantics for the specification of such systems. Using Maude and its linear temporal logic model checker, we show how important properties can be verified for such systems, and provide some experimental results for both bounded and unbounded verification.


Model checking Normative systems Collective imperatives 



This research was sponsored by Selex ES.


  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T., Van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Robust normative systems and a logic of norm compliance. Logic J. IGPL 18(1), 4–30 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarez-Napagao, S., Aldewereld, H., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F.: Normative monitoring: semantics and implementation. In: De Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds.) COIN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6541, pp. 321–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., et al.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: Modelling normative frameworks using answer set programing. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 548–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dennis, L., Tinnemeier, N., Meyer, J.-J.: Model checking normative agent organisations. In: Dix, J., Fisher, M., Novák, P. (eds.) CLIMA X. LNCS, vol. 6214, pp. 64–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F.P.M., Broersen, J., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.: Meeting the deadline: why, when and how. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3228, pp. 30–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gasparini, L., Norman, T.J., Kollingbaum, M.J., Chen, L.: Severity-sensitive robustness analysis in normative systems. In: Ghose, A., et al. (eds.) COIN 2014. LNCS, vol. 9372, pp. 72–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25420-3_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F.P.M., Royakkers, L.M.M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Collective obligations and agents: who gets the blame? In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindriks, K.V., Van Riemsdijk, M.B.: A real-time semantics for norms with deadlines. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS 2013, pp. 507–514. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H.: A normative organisation programming language for organisation management infrastructures. In: Padget, J., Artikis, A., Vasconcelos, W., Stathis, K., da Silva, V.T., Matson, E., Polleres, A. (eds.) COIN@AAMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6069, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L.: Real-time model checking is really simple. In: Borrione, D., Paul, W. (eds.) CHARME 2005. LNCS, vol. 3725, pp. 162–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lepri, D., Ábrahám, E., Ölveczky, P.C.: Timed CTL model checking in real-time maude. In: Durán, F. (ed.) WRLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7571, pp. 182–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norman, T.J., Reed, C.: A logic of delegation. Artif. Intell. 174(1), 51–71 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical report, DAIMI FN-19, University of Århus (1981)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Şensoy, M., Norman, T.J., Vasconcelos, W.W., Sycara, K.: OWL-POLAR: a framework for semantic policy representation and reasoning. Web Semant.: Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 12–13, 148–160 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tinnemeier, N., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.C., van der Torre, L.: Programming normative artifacts with declarative obligations and prohibitions. In: International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, pp. 145–152 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Torre, L.: Contextual deontic logic: normative agents, violations and independence. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 37(1–2), 33–63 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vasconcelos, W.W., Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 19(2), 124–152 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Gasparini
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 1
  • Martin J. Kollingbaum
    • 1
  • Liang Chen
    • 1
  • John-Jules C. Meyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations