Skip to main content

Reasoning about System-Degradation and Fault-Recovery with Deontic Logic

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5454))

Abstract

In this paper we outline the main characteristics of a deontic logic, which we claim is useful for the modeling of and reasoning about fault-tolerance and related concepts. Towards this goal, we describe a temporal extension of this formalism together with some of its properties. We use two different examples to show how some fault-tolerance concepts (like fault-recovery and system degradation) can be expressed using deontic constructs. The second example demonstrates how contrary-to-duty reasoning (when a secondary obligation arises from the violation of a primary obligation) is applied in fault-tolerant scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Castro, P., Maibaum, T.: An ought-to-do deontic logic for reasoning about fault-tolerance: The diarrheic philosophers. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Method. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Castro, P., Maibaum, T.: A complete and compact deontic action logic. In: Jones, C.B., Liu, Z., Woodcock, J. (eds.) ICTAC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4711, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Maibaum, T.: Temporal reasoning over deontic specifications. In: Sons, J.W. (ed.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Magee, J., Maibaum, T.: Towards specification, modelling and analysis of fault tolerance in self managed systems. In: Proceeding of the 2006 international workshop on self-adaptation and self-managing systems (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kent, S., Maibaum, T., Quirk, W.: Formally specifying temporal constraints and error recovery. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 208–215 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic database contraints, violation and recovery. Studia Logica 57(1), 139–165 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Meyer, J.: A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Broersen, J.: Modal Action Logics for Reasoning about Reactive Systems. PhD thesis, Vrije University (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Khosla, S., Maibaum, T.: The prescription and description of state-based systems. In: Banieqnal, B., Pnueli, H.A. (eds.) Temporal Logic in Computation. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dignum, F., Kuiper, R.: Combining dynamic deontic logic and temporal logic for the specification of deadlines. In: Proceedings of the thirtieth HICSS (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Meyer, J., Wieringa, R., Dignum, F.: The paradoxes of deontic logic revisited: A computer science perspective. Technical Report UU-CS-1994-38, Utrecht University (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sergot, M.J., Prakken, H.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. In: DEON 1994. Proc. Second International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Meyer, J., Wieringa, R.: Deontic logic: A concise overview. In: First International Workshop on Deontic Logic (DEON 1991) (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Belzer, M.: Legal reasoning in 3-d. In: ICAIL, pp. 155–163 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Emerson, E., Halpern, J.: Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. In: 14th Annual Symposiun on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fitting, M.: First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Sergot, M.J., Craven, R.: The deontic component of action language \(n{\mathcal{C}}+\). In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS, vol. 4048, pp. 222–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Castro, P.F., Maibaum, T.S.E. (2009). Reasoning about System-Degradation and Fault-Recovery with Deontic Logic. In: Butler, M., Jones, C., Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E. (eds) Methods, Models and Tools for Fault Tolerance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5454. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00867-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00867-2_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00866-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00867-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics