Picking Up the Best Goal

An Analytical Study in Defeasible Logic
  • Guido Governatori
  • Francesco Olivieri
  • Antonino Rotolo
  • Simone Scannapieco
  • Matteo Cristani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8035)

Abstract

In this paper we analyse different notions of the concept of goal starting from the idea of sequences of “alternative acceptable outcomes”. We study the relationships between goals and concepts like agent’s beliefs, norms, and desires, and we propose a formalisation using Defeasible Logic that will be able to provide a computationally feasible approach. The resulting system captures various nuances of the notion of goal against different normative domains, for which the right decision is not only context-dependent, but it must be chosen from a pool of alternatives as wide as possible.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bratman, M.E., Israel, D.J., Pollack, M.E.: Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4, 349–355 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen, J.F., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) KR, pp. 473–484. Kaufmann, M. (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Decision procedures for bdi logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 293–342 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dastani, M., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., van der Torre, L.: Programming cognitive agents in defeasible logic. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 621–636. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1), 36–69 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V., Rotolo, A., Sattar, A.: A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes. Logic Journal of the IGPL 17(3), 227–265 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Cohn, A.G., Giunchiglia, F., Selman, B. (eds.) KR 2000. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 428–447 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Logic of violations: A Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic 4, 193–215 (2006)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kravari, K., Papatheodorou, C., Antoniou, G., Bassiliades, N.: Reasoning and proofing services for semantic web agents. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI 2011, pp. 2662–2667 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Governatori, G., Sadiq, S.: The journey to business process compliance. In: Handbook of Research on BPM, pp. 426–454. IGI Global (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G.: The making of SPINdle. In: Governatori, G., Hall, J., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5858, pp. 315–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic web. Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst. 2(1), 1–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tachmazidis, I., Antoniou, G., Flouris, G., Kotoulas, S., McCluskey, L.: Large-scale parallel stratified defeasible reasoning. In: De Raedt, L., Bessière, C., Dubois, D., Doherty, P., Frasconi, P., Heintz, F., Lucas, P.J.F. (eds.) ECAI 2012, pp. 738–743. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: ECAI 2000, pp. 459–463 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 691–711 (2001)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G.: What Are the Necessity Rules in Defeasible Reasoning? In: Delgrande, J., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 187–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Rotolo, A., Scannapieco, S.: Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible logic. CoRR abs/1212.0079 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intentions, Plans and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2), 265–290 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shapiro, S., Sardina, S., Thangarajah, J., Cavedon, L., Padgham, L.: Revising conflicting intention sets in BDI agents. In: AAMAS 2012, pp. 1081–1088. IFAAMS (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D.L., Williams, M. (eds.) KR 2002, pp. 470–481. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.J.C.: Goal types in agent programming. In: Nakashima, H., Wellman, M.P., Weiss, G., Stone, P. (eds.) AAMAS, pp. 1285–1287. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.C.: Goals in conflict: Semantic foundations of goals in agent programming. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 18(3), 471–500 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Governatori
    • 1
    • 4
  • Francesco Olivieri
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Antonino Rotolo
    • 3
  • Simone Scannapieco
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Matteo Cristani
    • 2
  1. 1.Queensland Research LaboratoryNICTAAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of VeronaItaly
  3. 3.CIRSFID and DSGUniversity of BolognaItaly
  4. 4.Institute for Integrated and Intelligent SystemsGriffith UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations