Advertisement

Reasoning about the safety of information: from logical formalization to operational definition

  • Laurence Cholvy
  • Robert Demolombe
  • Andrew Jones
Communications Logic for Artificial Intelligence
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 869)

Abstract

We assume that safety of information stored in a database depends on the reliability of the agents who have performed the insertions in the database. We present a logic S to represent information safety, and to derive answers to standard queries and to safety queries. The design of this logic is based on signaling act theory. Two strong simplifications lead to a logic S” with two modalities to represent explicit beliefs and implicit beliefs. Then, we present an operational view of S” in terms of First Order Logic, with meta predicates, which is implemented by a Prolog meta program. It is proved that answers derived in S” and computed by the meta program are identical. This property gives a clear meaning to computed answers.

keywords

Logic for Artificial Intelligence Modal Logic Reliability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Bauval and L. Cholvy. Automated reasoning in case of inconsistency. In Proceedings of WOCFAI, Paris, France, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. F. Chellas. Modal Logic: An introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Demolombe and A. Jones. Integrity Constraints Revisited. In A. Olive, editor, 4th International Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases. Universitat Politecnica de Barcelona, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Demolombe and A. Jones. Deriving answers to safety queries. In R. Demolombe and T. Imielinski, editor, Non Standard Queries and Answers, Oxford, To appear. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Elgesem. Action Theory and Modal Logic. PhD thesis, University of Oslo, Department of Philosophy, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Gardenfors. Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Jones. Toward a Formal Theory of Communication and Speech Acts. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communications. The MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.M. Kupper, J.D. Ullman, and M. Vardi. On the equivalence of logical databases. In Proc of ACM-PODS, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Porn. Action Theory and Social Science. Some Formal Models. Synthese Library, 120, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Reiter. What Should a Database Know? Journal of Logic Programming, To appear.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurence Cholvy
    • 1
  • Robert Demolombe
    • 1
  • Andrew Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.ONERA/CERTToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Norwegian Research Centre for Computers and LawUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations