‘What I Fail to Do Today, I Have to Do Tomorrow’: A Logical Study of the Propagation of Obligations

  • Jan Broersen
  • Julien Brunel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5056)


We study a logical property that concerns the preservation of future directed obligations that have not been fulfilled yet. We call this property ’propagation property’. The goal is to define a combination of temporal and deontic logics which satisfies this property. Our starting point is the product of temporal and deontic logics. We investigate some modifications of the semantics of the product in order to satisfy the propagation property, without losing too much of the basic properties of the product. We arrive at a semantics in which we only consider ideal histories that share the same past as the current one, and that enables an interesting characterization of the states in which obligations propagate: these are the states where there are no violations of present directed obligations.


Propagation Property Product Model Linear Temporal Logic Atomic Proposition Deontic Logic 
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.
    Åqvist, L.: Combinations of tense and deontic logic. Journal of Applied Logic 3, 421–460 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailhache, P.: Canonical models for temporal deontic logic. Logique et Analyse, 3–21 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M.: Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.: Planning and the stability of intentions. Minds and Machines 2, 1–16 (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broersen, J.: Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunel, J., Bodeveix, J.-P., Filali, M.: A state/event temporal deontic logic. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuppens, F., Cuppens-Boulahia, N., Sans, T.: Nomad: a security model with non atomic actions and deadlines. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (June 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, B., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.: A programming language for cognitive agents: Goal directed 3APL. In: PROMAS 2003. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demolombe, R., Bretier, P., Louis, V.: Formalisation de l’obligation de faire avec délais. In: Proc. Journées Francophones sur la Modélisation Formelle de l’Interaction, Caen (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay, D., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., Zakharyachev, M.: Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilpinen, R.: New studies in deontic logic. Reidel (1981)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent programming in 3apl. International Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4), 357–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theoretical Computer Science 13, 45–60 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen, J., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: van Hoe, R. (ed.) Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross, A.: Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7, 53–71 (1941)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright, G.v.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Broersen
    • 1
  • Julien Brunel
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de ToulouseUniversity of ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations