A State/Event Temporal Deontic Logic

  • Julien Brunel
  • Jean-Paul Bodeveix
  • Mamoun Filali
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4048)


This paper studies a logic that combines deontic and temporal aspects. We first present a state/event temporal formalism and define a deontic extension of it. Then, we study the interaction between the temporal dimension and the deontic dimension. We present some logical properties, concerning formulas where deontic and temporal operators are nested, and discuss their intuitive meaning. We focus more particularly on the properties of obligation with deadline and define a specific operator to express this notion.


Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Atomic Proposition Kripke Model Access Control Policy 
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.
    Anderson, A.R.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind, 100–103 (1958)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aqvist, L.: Combinations of tense and deontic logic. Journal of Applied Logic 3, 421–460 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F.P.M., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS, vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaki, S., Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Ouaknine, J., Sharygina, N., Touili, T., Veith, H.: State/event software verification for branching-time specifications. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 53–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaki, S., Clarke, E.M., Ouaknine, J., Sharygina, N., Sinha, N.: State/Event-based software model checking. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G.P. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, pp. 128–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)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.
    Cuppens, F., Saurel, C.: Towards a formalization of availability and denial of service. In: Information Systems Technology Panel Symposium on Protecting Nato Information Systems in the 21st Century, Washington (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    d’Altan, P., Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.: An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints. Artif. Intell. Law 4(2), 77–111 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum, F., Kuiper, R.: Obligations and dense time for specifying deadlines. In: Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), vol. 5 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbay, D.M., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., Zakharyachev, M.: Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volume II — Extensions of Classical Logic, pp. 497–604. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henriksen, J.G., Thiagarajan, P.S.: Dynamic linear time temporal logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 96(1-3), 187–207 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalam, A.A.E., Baida, R.E., Balbiani, P., Benferhat, S., Cuppens, F., Deswarte, Y., Miège, A., Saurel, C., Trouessin, G.: Organization based access control. In: IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (Policy 2003), Lake Come, Italy (June 2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.J.: On multi-agent systems specification via deontic logic. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2333, p. 86. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer, J.-J.C.: A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R., Dignum, F.: The role of deontic logic in the specification of information systems. In: Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pp. 71–115 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theoretical Computer Science 13, 45–60 (1981)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Queille, J.-P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in cesar. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Hulstijn, J., Dastani, M., Broersen, J.: Specifying multiagent organizations. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS, vol. 3065, pp. 243–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wieringa, R.J., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Applications of Deontic Logic in Computer Science: A Concise Overview, pp. 17–40. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woz̀na, B., Lomuscio, A., Penczek, W.: Bounded model checking for deontic interpreted systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 126, 93–114 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright, G.H.V.: Deontic logic. Mind (1951)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Brunel
    • 1
  • Jean-Paul Bodeveix
    • 1
  • Mamoun Filali
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de ToulouseUniversité Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations