A computational theory of normative positions

ABSTRACT

The Kanger-Lindahl theory of normative positions attempts to use a combination of deontic logic (the logic of obligation and permission) and a logic of action/agency to give a formal account of obligations, duties, rights, and other complex normative concepts. This paper presents a generalization and further development of this theory, together with methods for its automation and application to practical examples. The resulting theory is intended to be applied in the representation and analysis of laws, regulations, and contracts, in the specification of aspects of computer systems, in multiagent systems, and as a contribution to the formal theory of organizations. Particular attention is paid to representations at varying levels of detail and the relationships that hold between them. The last part presents Norman-G, an automated support system intended to facilitate application of the theory to the analysis of practical problems, with a small example to illustrate its use.

REFERENCES

• 1: ALLEN,L.E.AND SAXON, C. S. 1986. Analysis of the logical structure of legal rules by a modernized and formalized version of Hohfeld fundamental legal conceptions. In Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, A. A. Martino and F. Socci, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 385-451.
• 2: Layman E. Allen , Charles S. Saxon, A-Hohfeld: a language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems, Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, 1994
• 3: AQVIST, L. 1974. A new approach to the logical theory of actions and causality. In Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, S. Stenlund, Ed. Number 63 in Synthese Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 73-91.
• 4: BELNAP,N.AND PERLOFF, M. 1988. Seeing to it that: a canonical form for agentives. Theoria 54, 175-199.
• 5: BELNAP,N.AND PERLOFF, M. 1992. The way of the agent. Studia Logica 51, 463-484.
• 6: BROWN, M. A. 2000. Conditional obligation and positive permission for agents in time. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5, 2 (Dec.), 83-112.
• 7: CHELLAS, B. F. 1969. The Logical Form of Imperatives. Dissertation, Stanford University.
• 8: CHELLAS, B. F. 1980. Modal Logic-An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• 9: COLOMBETTI, M. 1999. Semantic, normative and practical aspects of agent communication. In Preprints of the IJCAI'99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Stockholm. 51- 62.
• 10: COLOMBETTI, M. 2000. A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In Proc. Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies, Autonomous Agents 2000, Barcelona.
• 11: ELGESEM, D. 1992. Action Theory and Modal Logic. Doctoral thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo.
• 12: HERRESTAD, H. 1996. Formal Theories of Rights. Doctoral thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo.
• 13: Henning Herrestad , Christen Krogh, Obligations directed from bearers to counterparts, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.210-218, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222243]
• 14: HILPINEN, R. 1997. On action and agency. In Logic, Action and Cognition-Essays in Philosophical Logic, E. Ejerhed and S. Lindstrom, Eds. Trends in Logic, Studia Logica Library, vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 3-27.
• 15: HOHFELD, W. N. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23. Reprinted with revisions as Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, and Other Legal Essays, W. W. Cook, Ed., Yale University Press, 1919, 1923, 1964, and W. C. Wheeler, Ed., Greenwood Press, 1978.
• 16: HORTY, J. F. 1996a. Agency and obligation. Synthese 108, 269-307.
• 17: HORTY, J. F. 1996b. Combining agency and obligation (Preliminary version). In Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems-Proc. DEON'96: 3rd International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Sesimbra (Portugal ), M. A. Brown and J. Carmo, Eds. Workshops in Com-puting Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 98-122.
• 18: HORTY, J. F. 2000. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press.
• 19: HORTY,J.F.AND BELNAP, N. 1995. The deliberative stit: a study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, 583-644.
• 20: JENNINGS, N. R. 1993. Commitments and conventions: the foundation of coordination in multiagent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 8, 3, 223-250.
• 21: Andrew J. I. Jones , Marek J. Sergot, Formal Specification of Security Requirements using the Theory of Normative Positions, Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, p.103-121, November 23-25, 1992
• 22: Andrew J. I. Jones , Marek Sergot, On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective, Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, 1994
• 23: JONES,A.J.I.AND SERGOT, M. J. 1996. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 4, 3, 429-445. Reprinted in Normative Systems in Legal and Moral Theory. Festschrift for Carlos E. Alchourron and Eugenio Bulygin,E.G.Valdes, W. Krawietz, G. H. von Wright, and R. Zimmerling, Eds. Duncker & Humboldt, Berlin, 1997, 349-367.
• 24: KANGER, S. 1971. New foundations for ethical theory. In Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, R. Hilpinen, Ed. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 36-58. Originally published as Technical Report, Stockholm University, 1957.
• 25: KANGER, S. 1972. Law and Logic. Theoria 38, 105-132.
• 26: KANGER, S. 1985. On Realization of Human Rights. In Action, Logic and Social Theory, G. Holmstrom and A. J. I. Jones, Eds. Acta Philosophica Fennica, Vol. 38.
• 27: KANGER,S.AND KANGER, H. 1966. Rights and Parliamentarism. Theoria 32, 85-115.
• 28: KROGH, C. 1997. Normative Structures in Natural and Artificial Systems. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo.
• 29: Ronald M. Lee, Bureaucracies as deontic systems, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.6 n.2, p.87-108, April 1988 [doi>10.1145/45941.45944]
• 30: LINDAHL, L. 1977. Position and Change-A Study in Law and Logic. Number 112 in Synthese Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
• 31: LINDAHL, L. 1992. Stig Kanger's Theory of Rights. In 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Stig Kanger Memorial Symposium on the Logic of Rights and Choices, Uppsala.
• 32: MAKINSON, D. 1986. On the formal representation of rights relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15, 403-425.
• 33: PERLOFF, M. 1991. 'Stit' and the language of agency. Synthese 86, 379-408.
• 34: PORN, I. 1970. The Logic of Power. Blackwells, Oxford.
• 35: PORN, I. 1974. Some basic concepts of action. In Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, S. Stenlund, Ed. Number 63 in Synthese Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 93-101.
• 36: PORN, I. 1977. Action Theory and Social Science: Some Formal Models. Number 120 in Synthese Library. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
• 37: PORN, I. 1989. On the nature of a social order. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VIII, J. E. Fenstad et al., Eds. Elsevier Science Publishers, 553-567.
• 38: SANTOS,F.AND CARMO, J. 1996. Indirect action, influence and responsibility. In Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems-Proc. DEON'96: 3rd International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Sesimbra (Portugal ), M. A. Brown and J. Carmo, Eds. Workshops in Com-puting Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 194-215.
• 39: SANTOS, F., JONES,A.J.I.,AND CARMO, J. 1997. Action concepts for describing organised interaction. In Proc. 13th Annual Hawaii International Conf. on System Sciences. Vol. V. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California.
• 40: SEGERBERG, K. 1985. Routines. Synthese 65, 185-210.
• 41: SEGERBERG, K. 1989. Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic 18, 327-347.
• 42: SEGERBERG, K. 1992. Getting started: Beginnings in the logic of action. Studia Logica 51, 347- 378.
• 43: SERGOT, M. J. 1996. A Computational Theory of Normative Positions. II Non-regular logics. Tech. rep., Department of Computing, Imperial College. Jan.
• 44: SERGOT,M.J.AND RICHARDS, F. M. 2000. On the representation of action and agency in the theory of normative positions. In Proc. DEON'00: 5th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Toulouse, R. Demolombe and R. Hilpinen, Eds. To appear in Fundamenta Informaticae.
• 45: SHOHAM, Y. 1991. Implementing the intentional stance. In Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface, R. Cummins and J. Pollock, Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 261-277.
• 46: Yoav Shoham, Agent-oriented programming, Artificial Intelligence, v.60 n.1, p.51-92, March 1993 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(93)90034-9]
• 47: Munindar P. Singh, Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles, Computer, v.31 n.12, p.40-47, December 1998 [doi>10.1109/2.735849]
• 48: SINGH, M. P. 1999. A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Preprints of the IJCAI'99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Stockholm. 75-88.
• 49: TALJA, J. 1980. A technical note on Lars Lindahl's Position and Change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 9, 167-183.
• 50: TING, T. C. 1990. Application information security semantics: A case of mental health delivery. In Database Security: Status and Prospects III, D. L. Spooner and C. E. Landwehr, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.4 MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND FORMAL LANGUAGES
      F.4.1 Mathematical Logic
          Subjects: Modal logic

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods
          Subjects: Modal logic

General Terms:
Algorithms, Theory

Keywords:
deontic logic, logic of action, logic of agency, normative systems, theory of duties and rights