Advertisement

A Functional Program for Agents, Actions, and Deontic Specifications

  • Adam Zachary Wyner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4327)

Abstract

We outline the Abstract Contract Calculator, a prototype language implemented in Haskell (a declarative programming language) in which we model agents executing abstract actions relative to deontic concepts derived from Standard Deontic Logic and Dynamic Deontic Logic. The concepts of abstract actions are derived from Dynamic Logic. The logics are declarative, while the implementation is operational. Actions have explicit action preconditions and postconditions. We have deontic specification of complex actions. We implement a Contrary-to-Duty Obligations case. We distinguish Contrary-to-Duty Obligations from obligations on sequences, which has not previously been accounted for in the literature. The central innovation is the expression of complex violation and fulfillment markers. The language can be used to express a range of alternative notions of actions and deontic specification.

Keywords

Complex Action Normative System Input Action Functional Program 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldewereld, H., Grossi, D., Vazquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F.: Designing normative behaviour by the use of landmarks. In: Lindeman, G., Ossowski, S., Padget, J., Vazquez-Salceda, J. (eds.) Proceedings of AAMAS 2005, Fourth International Workshop on Agents, Norms and Institution for Regulated Multi Agent Systems, Utrecht, pp. 5–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A., Moore, O.: The formal analysis of normative concepts. The American Sociological Review, 22(1), 9–17 (1957); Reprinted in: Copi, I.M., Gould, J.A. (eds.) Contemporary Readings in Logical Theory. MacMillan, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  3. Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: An architecture of a normative system. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. Carmo, J., Jones, A.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., pp. 265–343. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  5. d’Altan, P., Meyer, J.-J., Wieringa, R.: An integrated framework for ought–to–be and ought–to–do constraints. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(4), 77–111 (1996); Revised version, dated 1998 at website; page references to downloadCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doets, K., van Eijck, J.: The Haskell Road to Logic, Maths and Programming. King’s College Publications (2004)Google Scholar
  7. García-Camino, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J., Sierra, C., Vasconcelos, W.W.: A distributed architecture for norm-aware agent societies. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U., Omicini, A., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3904, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Meyer, J.-J.Ch., Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science – Normative System Specification, pp. 275–307. Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  10. Kent, S., Maibaum, T., Quirk, W.: Formally specifying temporal contraints and error recovery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 208–215. IEEE C.S. Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  11. Khosla, S., Maibaum, T.: The prescription and description of state-based systems. In: Banieqbal, B., Barringer, H., Pneuli, A. (eds.) Temporal Logic in Specification, pp. 243–294. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  12. Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Springer, London (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer, J.-J.: A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29(1), 109–136 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Royakkers, L.: Representing Legal Rules in Deontic Logic. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg (1996)Google Scholar
  15. Sergot, M.: (c+) + + : An action language for modelling norms and institutions, http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/research/technicalreports/2004/DTR04-8.pdf
  16. Sergot, M.: The representation of law in computer programs. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (ed.) Knowledge-Based Systems and Legal Applications, pp. 3–67. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  17. van der Meyden., R.: The dynamic logic of permission. Journal of Logic and Computation 6(3), 465–479 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eijck, J.: Computational semantics and type theory. Website download (2004)Google Scholar
  19. Wieringa, R., Meyer, J.-J.: Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 289–346 (1993)Google Scholar
  20. Wieringa, R., Meyer, J.-J. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Wyner, A.Z.: Violations and Fulfillments in the Formal Representation of Contracts. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, King’s College London (in preparation, 2006)Google Scholar
  22. Wyner, A.Z.: Sequences, obligations, and the contrary-to-duty paradox. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J. (eds.) Deontic Logic and Artificial Normative Systems: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pp. 255–271. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Zachary Wyner
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations