zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Agent strands in the action language \(n\mathcal C +\). (English) Zbl 1149.68419
Summary: The action language \(\mathcal C +\) of Giunchiglia, Lee, Lifschitz, McCain and Turner is a formalism for specifying and reasoning about the effects of actions and the persistence (‘inertia’) of facts over time. An ‘action description’ in \(\mathcal C +\) defines a labelled transition system of a certain kind. \(n\mathcal C +\) is an extended form of \(\mathcal C +\) designed for representing normative and institutional aspects of (human or computer) societies. The deontic component of \(n\mathcal C +\) provides a means of specifying the permitted (acceptable, legal) states of a transition system and its permitted (acceptable, legal) transitions. We present this component of \(n\mathcal C +\), motivating its details with reference to some small illustrative examples, and elaborate the formalism by allowing scope for norms governing individual agents. We describe the various kinds of investigation possible on the semantic structures which \(n\mathcal C +\) defines.

68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
Full Text: DOI
[1] Giunchiglia, E.; Lee, J.; Lifschitz, V.; McCain, N.; Turner, H., Nonmonotonic causal theories, Artificial intelligence, 153, 49-104, (2004) · Zbl 1085.68161
[2] \scCCalc: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cc
[3] Akman, V.; Erdoğan, S.T.; Lee, J.; Lifschitz, V.; Turner, H., Representing the zoo world and the traffic world in the language of the causal calculator, Artificial intelligence, 153, 105-140, (2004) · Zbl 1085.68679
[4] Artikis, A.; Sergot, M.J.; Pitt, J., Specifying electronic societies with the causal calculator, (), 1-15 · Zbl 1018.68529
[5] Artikis, A.; Sergot, M.J.; Pitt, J., An executable specification of an argumentation protocol, (), 1-11
[6] M.J. Sergot, \((\mathcal{C} +)^{+ +}\): An action language for modelling norms and institutions, Technical Report 2004/8, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College London (2004)
[7] Sergot, M.J., Modelling unreliable and untrustworthy agent behaviour, (), 161-178 · Zbl 1090.68091
[8] M.J. Sergot, R. Craven, The deontic component of action language \(n \mathcal{C} +\), in: Proc. Deon’06, in: LNAI, vol. 4048, pp. 222-237 · Zbl 1148.68489
[9] Lomuscio, A.; Sergot, M.J., Deontic interpreted systems, Studia logica, 75, 1, 63-92, (2003) · Zbl 1033.03012
[10] Lomuscio, A.; Sergot, M.J., A formalisation of violation, error recovery, and enforcement in the bit transmission problem, Journal of applied logic, 2, 93-116, (2004) · Zbl 1076.68074
[11] Meyer, J.J.C., A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic, Notre dame journal of formal logic, 29, 1, 109-136, (1988) · Zbl 0695.03009
[12] Maibaum, T., Temporal reasoning over deontic specifications, (), 141-202 · Zbl 0731.03022
[13] J. Broersen, Modal action logics for reasoning about reactive systems, PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2003
[14] Moses, Y.; Tennenholtz, M., Artificial social systems, Computers and AI, 14, 6, 533-562, (1995)
[15] Artikis, A.; Pitt, J.; Sergot, M.J., Animated specification of computational societies, (), 1053-1062
[16] L. van der Torre, Causal deontic logic, in: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (Deon2000), 2000, pp. 351-367
[17] Carmo, J.; Jones, A.J.I., Deontic database constraints, violation and recovery, Studia logica, 57, 1, 139-165, (1996) · Zbl 0864.03023
[18] van der Meyden, R., The dynamic logic of permission, Journal of logic and computation, 6, 3, 465-479, (1996) · Zbl 0855.03008
[19] T. Agotnes, W. van der Hoek, J. Rodríguez-Aguilar, C. Sierra, M. Wooldridge, On the logic of normative systems, in: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2007, pp. 1175-1180
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.