Handling Change in Normative Specifications

  • Duangtida Athakravi
  • Domenico Corapi
  • Alessandra Russo
  • Marina De Vos
  • Julian Padget
  • Ken Satoh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7784)


Normative frameworks provide a means to address the governance of open systems, offering a mechanism to express responsibilities and permissions of the individual participants with respect to the entire system without compromising their autonomy. In order to meet requirements careful design is crucial. Tools that support the design process can be of great benefit. In this paper, we describe and illustrate a methodology for elaborating normative specifications. We utilise use-cases to capture desirable and undesirable system behaviours, employ inductive logic programming to construct elaborations, in terms of revisions and extensions, of an existing (partial) normative specification and provide justifications as to why certain changes are better than others. The latter can be seen as a form of impact analysis of the possible elaborations, in terms of critical consequences that would be preserved or rejected by the changes. The main contributions of this paper is a (semi) automated process for controlling the elaboration of normative specifications and a demonstration of its effectiveness through a proof-of-concept case study.


Inductive Logic Programming Normative Framework Special Predicate Exogenous Event Revise Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.: Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena: Designing Norm Enforcement in E-Institutions. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006 Workshops. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 101–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: Answer Set Programming for Representing and Reasoning About Virtual Institutions. In: Inoue, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F. (eds.) CLIMA VII. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4371, pp. 60–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of an argumentation protocol. In: Proceedings of Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL, pp. 1–11. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corapi, D., Russo, A., Vos, M.D., Padget, J.A., Satoh, K.: Normative design using inductive learning. TPLP 11(4-5), 783–799 (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Searle, J.R.: A Construction of Social Reality. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press (1955)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones, A.J., Sergot, M.: A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power. ACM Computing Surveys 28(4es), 121 (1996) (read November 28, 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9(3-4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gen. Comput. 4(1), 67–95 (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 193–210 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Thiele, S.: Engineering an Incremental ASP Solver. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wrobel, S.: First order theory refinement (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakama, C.: Induction from answer sets in nonmonotonic logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 6(2), 203–231 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Corapi, D.: Nonmonotonic Inductive Logic Programming as Abductive Search. PhD thesis, Imperial College London (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corapi, D., Russo, A., Lupu, E.: Inductive Logic Programming in Answer Set Programming. In: Muggleton, S.H., Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., Lisi, F.A. (eds.) ILP 2011. LNCS, vol. 7207, pp. 91–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mcilraith, S.: Generating tests using abduction. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 1994, pp. 449–460. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(6), 719–770 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alchourrón, C.E.: Conflicts of norms and the revision of normative systems. Law and Philosophy 10, 413–425 (1991), doi:10.1007/BF00127412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ullmann-Margalit, E.: Revision of norms. Ethics 100(4), 756–767 (1990) Article Stable, (retrieved March 20, 2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C.A., Williams, M.A. (eds.) KR, pp. 255–266. AAAI Press (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(1), 157–194 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Artikis, A.: Dynamic protocols for open agent systems. In: Sierra, C., Castelfranchi, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) AAMAS (1), pp. 97–104. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campos, J., López-Sánchez, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Esteva, M.: Formalising Situatedness and Adaptation in Electronic Institutions. In: Hübner, J.F., Matson, E., Boissier, O., Dignum, V. (eds.) COIN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5428, pp. 126–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tinnemeier, N.A.M., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.C.: Programming norm change. In: van der Hoek, W., Kaminka, G.A., Lespérance, Y., Luck, M., Sen, S. (eds.) AAMAS, pp. 957–964. IFAAMAS (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gabbay, D.M., Rodrigues, O., Russo, A.: Revision, Acceptability and Context - Theoretical and Algorithmic Aspects. Cognitive Technologies. Springer (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duangtida Athakravi
    • 1
  • Domenico Corapi
    • 1
  • Alessandra Russo
    • 1
  • Marina De Vos
    • 2
  • Julian Padget
    • 2
  • Ken Satoh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonUK
  2. 2.Department of ComputingUniversity of BathUK
  3. 3.Principles of Informatics Research DivisionNational Institute of InformaticsJapan

Personalised recommendations