Advertisement

Abstract

This paper puts forward a normative framework which enables the specification of incomplete theories and their management through incomplete normative states. In particular, attempts to perform a social action are evaluated either as permitted, prohibited (i.e. not permitted) or pending for execution (i.e. neither permitted nor prohibited). The framework lets designated agents resolve this latter category of attempts through the speech acts allow and forbid. We build upon action language K and its support for incompleteness in the formalisation of the framework. The proposal is illustrated with some scenarios drawn from the management of university courses.

Keywords

Social Action Multiagent System Action Language Normative Framework Planning Query 
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. 1.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.J.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 427–443 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10(1), 1–1 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cliffe, O., Vos, M.D., Padget, J.: Answer set programming for representing and reasoning about virtual institutions. In: Inoue, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F. (eds.) CLIMA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4371, pp. 60–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Specifying artificial institutions in the event calculus. In: Dignum, V. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, pp. 335–366. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serrano, J.M., Saugar, S.: Run-time semantics of a language for programming social processes. In: Fisher, M., Sadri, F., Thielscher, M. (eds.) CLIMA IX. LNCS, vol. 5405, pp. 37–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grossi, D.: Designing Invisible Handcuffs. SIKS Dissertation Series No. 2007-16 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.L.: AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 236–243 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. Technical Report 1843-01-11, INFSYS Research Report (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T.: Answer set programming: A primer. In: Tessaris, S., Franconi, E., Eiter, T., Gutierrez, C., Handschuh, S., Rousset, M.-C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Information Systems. LNCS, vol. 5689, pp. 40–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, II: The DLVK system. Artif. Intell. 144(1-2), 157–211 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7, 499–562 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serrano, J.M., Saugar, S.: Operational semantics of multiagent interactions. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) AAMAS’07, pp. 889–896. IFAAMAS (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saugar, S., Serrano, J.M.: A web-based virtual machine for developing computational societies. In: Klusch, M., Pěchouček, M., Polleres, A. (eds.) CIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5180, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serrano, J.M., Saugar, S.: Programming social middlewares through social interaction types. In: Dastani, M., Seghrouchni, A.E.F., Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the workshop on Languages, methodologies and Development tools for multi-agent systems (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelfond, M., Lobo, J.: Authorization and obligation policies in dynamic systems. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 22–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Artikis, A.: Dynamic protocols for open agent systems. In: Sierra, C., Castelfranchi, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) AAMAS (1), IFAAMAS, pp. 97–104 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wierzbicka, A.: English speech act verbs. A semantic dictionary. Academic Press, Australia (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems. In: ICAIL, pp. 109–118 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Manuel Serrano
    • 1
  • Sergio Saugar
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing DepartmentUniversity Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations