Visualizing Normative Systems: An Abstract Approach

  • Silvano Colombo Tosatto
  • Guido Boella
  • Leendert van der Torre
  • Serena Villata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7393)

Abstract

Abstract normative systems allow to reason with norms even when their content is not detailed. In this paper, we propose a our preliminary results to visualize abstract normative systems, in such a way that we are able to reason with institutional facts, obligations and permissions. Moreover, we detect meaningful patterns emerging from the proposed visualization, and we show how these patterns can be used to define commonly used reusable solutions.

Keywords

Abstract normative systems graph patterns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analyse 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forrester, J.W.: Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. Journal of Philosophy 81, 193–196 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gabbay, Horty, van der Meyden, van der Torre, L.(eds.): Handbook of Normative systems, vol. 1. College Publications, London (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansson, B.: An analysis of some deontic logics. Nôus 3, 373–398 (1969)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Normative systems and their revision: An algebraic approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2-3), 81–104 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29(4), 383–408 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Permissions from an input-output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4), 391–416 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moody, D.L.: The physics of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moody, D.L., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57(1), 91–115 (1996)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rumbaugh, J.E.: Notation notes: Principles for choosing notation. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 8(10), 11–14 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tosatto, S.C., Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Abstract normative systems: Semantics and proof theory. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Argumentation patterns. In: Proc. of ArgMAS 2011, pp. 133–150 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvano Colombo Tosatto
    • 1
  • Guido Boella
    • 2
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 3
  • Serena Villata
    • 4
  1. 1.SnT LuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.University of TorinoItaly
  3. 3.University of LuxembourgLuxembourg
  4. 4.INRIA Sophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations