Permissions and uncontrollable propositions in DSDL3: non-monotonicity and algorithms
Pages 161 - 174
Abstract
In this paper we are interested in non-monotonic extensions of Bengt Hansson's standard dyadic deontic logic 3, known as DSDL3. We study specificity principles for DSDL3 with both controllable and uncontrollable propositions. We introduce an algorithm for minimal specificity which not only covers obligations but also permissions, and we discuss the distinction between weak and strong permissions. Moreover, we introduce ways to combine algorithms for minimal and maximal specificity for DSDL3 with controllable and uncontrollable propositions, based on ‘optimistic' and ‘pessimistic' reasoning respectively.
References
[1]
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Possibilistic and standard probabilistic semantics of conditional knowledge bases. Logic and Computation, 9:6:873-895, 1999.
[2]
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Towards a possibilistic logic handling of preferences. Applied Intelligence, 14(3):303-317, 2001.
[3]
R. Booth and J. B. Paris. A note on the rational closure of knowledge bases with both positive and negative knowledge. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7(2), 1998.
[4]
C. Boutilier. Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach. Artificial Intelligence, 68:87-154, 1994.
[5]
C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation, (KR'94), pages 75-86, 1994.
[6]
E. Bulygin. Permissive norms and normative systems. In A. Martino and F. S. Natali, editors, Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, pages 211-218. Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1986.
[7]
L. Cholvy and C. Garion. Deriving individual obligations from collective obligations. In Procs of AAMAS 2003, pages 962-963, 2003.
[8]
L. Cholvy and C. Garion. Desires, norms and constraints. In Procs of AAMAS 2004, pages 724-731, 2004.
[9]
Bengt Hansson. An analysis of some deontic logics. Nos, 3:373-398, 1969. Reprinted in Hilpinen (1971), pages 121-147.
[10]
S. Kaci and L. van der Torre. Algorithms for a nonmonotonic logic of preferences. In Procs of 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, LNCS 3571, pages 281-292. Springer, 2005.
[11]
S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44 (1):167-207, 1990.
[12]
J. Lang, L. Van Der Torre, and E. Weydert. Utilitarian desires. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5:329-363, 2002.
[13]
D. Lehmann and M. Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55(1):1-60, 1992.
[14]
D. Lewis. Counterfactuals. Blackwell, 1973.
[15]
J. Pearl. System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning. In R. Parikh. Eds, editor, Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK'90), pages 121-135. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.
[16]
H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, volume 263 of Synthese Library, pages 223-262. Kluwer, 1997.
[17]
Y. Shoham. Nonmonotonic logics: Meaning and utility. In Procs of IJCAI 1987, pages 388-393, 1987.
[18]
Wolfgang Spohn. An analysis of Hanssons dyadic deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4:237-252, 1975.
[19]
W. van der Hoek and M. Wooldridge. On the logic of cooperation and propositional control. Artif. Intell., 164(1-2):81-119, 2005.
[20]
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 27:49-78, 1999.
Index Terms
- Permissions and uncontrollable propositions in DSDL3: non-monotonicity and algorithms
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Propositions as [Types]
Image factorizations in regular categories are stable under pullbacks, so they model a natural modal operator in dependent type theory. This unary type constructor [A] has turned up previously in a syntactic form as a way of erasing computational ...
Propositions as sessions
ICFP '12Continuing a line of work by Abramsky (1994), by Bellin and Scott (1994), and by Caires and Pfenning (2010), among others, this paper presents CP, a calculus in which propositions of classical linear logic correspond to session types. Continuing a line ...
Propositions as sessions
ICFP '12: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programmingContinuing a line of work by Abramsky (1994), by Bellin and Scott (1994), and by Caires and Pfenning (2010), among others, this paper presents CP, a calculus in which propositions of classical linear logic correspond to session types. Continuing a line ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
- BNVKI
- JURIX: Dutch Foundation for Legal Knowledge and Information Systems
- NWO: Dutch Orgartisation for Scientific Research
- SIKS: Dutch Research School of Information and Knowledge Systems
- KNAW: Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 12 July 2006
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024