Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alan Ross Anderson and Omar K. Moore. The formal analysis of normative concepts. The American Sociological Review, 22:9–17, 1957. Reprinted in: I.M. Copi and J.A. Gould (eds) Contemporary Readings in Logical Theory MacMillan, New York 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennart Åqvist. Introduction to Deontic Logic and the Theory of Normative Systems. Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1987 [1988].

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Biagioli, P. Mariani, and D. Tiscomia. ESPLEX: A rule and conceptual based model for representing statutes. In The First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 240–251. ACM, May 1987.

  • Hector-Neri Castañeda. Obligation and modal logic. Logique et Analyse, 3:40–48, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hector-Neri Castañeda. On the semantics of the ought-to do. Synthese, 21:449–468, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hector-Neri Castañeda. The paradoxes of deontic logic: the simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop. In Risto Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic, pages 37–85. D. Reidel, Dordrecht-Boston-London, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brian F. Chellas. Modal Logic. An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Coenen. Top-down development of layered fault-tolerant systems and its problems — a deontic perspective. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 9:133–150, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • F.P.M. Dignum and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Negations of transactions and their use in the specification of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In M.Z. Kwiatkowska, M.W. Shields, and R.M. Thomas, editors, Semantics for Concurrency, pages 61–80. Springer, 1990.

  • H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals ofAlgebraic Specification 1. Equations and Initial Semantics. Springer, 1985. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 6.

  • J.L.A. García. The tunsollen, the seinsollen, and the soseinsollen. American Philosophical Quarterly, 23:267–276, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Geach. Whatever happened to deontic logic? Philosophia, 11:1–12, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Glasgow, G. MacEwen, and P. Panangaden. Security by permission in databases. In C.E. Landwehr, editor, Database Security II: Status and Prospects, pages 197–205. North-Holland, 1989. Results of the IFIP WG 11.3 Workshop on Database Security (October 1988), Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

  • D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, pages 497–604. D. Reidel, 1984.

  • I.L. Humberstone. Zero place operations and functional completeness, and the definition of new connectives. History and Philosophy of Logic, 14:39–66, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • S.O. Kimbrough and R.M. Lee. Logic modeling: A tool for management science. Decision Support Systems, 4:3–16, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Khosla and T.S.E. Maibaum. The prescription and description of state based systems. In B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer, and A. Pnueli, editors, Temporal Logic in Specification, pages 243–294. Springer, 1987. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 398.

  • R.M. Lee. Bureaucracies as deontic systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6:87–108, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • R.M. Lee. A logic model for electronic contracting. Decision Support Systems, 4:27–44, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • R.P. McArthur. Anderson's deontic logic and relevant implication. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 22:145–154, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29:109–136, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Using programming concepts in deontic reasoning. In R. Bartsch, J.F.A.K. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, editors, Semantics and Contextual Expression, pages 117–145. FORIS Publications, Dordrecht/Riverton, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • N.H. Minsky and A.D. Lockman. Ensuring integrity by adding obligations to priviliges. In 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 92–102, 1985.

  • J.-J.Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa. Deontic logic: A concise overview. In J.-J.Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pages 3–16. Wiley, 1993.

  • K. Segerberg. A deontic logic of action. Studia Logica, 41:269–282, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krister Segerberg. Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 18:327–347, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Stamper. LEGOL: Modelling legal rules by computer. In B. Niblett, editor, Computer Science and Law, pages 45–71. Cambridge University Press, 1980.

  • R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 7:289–346, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. In J.-J.Ch. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pages 17–40. Wiley, 1993.

  • R.J. Wieringa, J.-J. Ch. Meyer, and H. Weigand. Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 4:157–189, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • R.J. Wieringa, H. Weigand, J.-J. Ch. Meyer, and F. Dignum. The inheritance of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 3:393–428, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Filosofia, Università di Milano, via F. del Perdono 7, 20122, Milano, Italy

    P. D'Altan

  2. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80089, 3508, Utrecht, TB, The Netherlands

    J-J.Ch. Meyer

  3. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081, Amsterdam, HV, The Netherlands

    R. J. Wieringa

Authors
  1. P. D'Altan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J-J.Ch. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. J. Wieringa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Partial support is acknowledged from the Esprit Basic Research Action 8319 ModelAge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D'Altan, P., Meyer, JJ. & Wieringa, R.J. An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints. Artif Intell Law 4, 77–111 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116787

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116787

Keywords

Search

Navigation