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

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 77-111

  D'Altan, P ^a   Meyer, J J Ch ^b   Wieringa, R J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DATABASE SYSTEMS; EQUIVALENCE CLASSES; FINANCE; FORMAL LOGIC; HUMAN ENGINEERING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

ALETHIC MODAL LOGIC; ANDERSONS REDUCTION; DEONTIC INTEGRITY CONSTRAINT; FIRST ORDER DYNAMIC LOGIC; MEYERS REDUCTION; OUGHT TO BE CONSTRAINT; OUGHT TO DO CONSTRAINT;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0030171654     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00116787     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alan Ross Anderson and Omar K. Moore. The formal analysis of normative concepts. The American Sociological Review, 22:9-17, 1957.
2. Reprinted in: I.M. Copi and J.A. Gould (eds) Contemporary Readings in Logical Theory MacMillan, New York 1967.
3. Lennart Åqvist. Introduction to Deontic Logic and the Theory of Normative Systems. Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1987 [1988].
4. C. Biagioli, P. Mariani, and D. Tiscornia. 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.
5. Hector-Neri Castañeda. Obligation and modal logic. Logique et Analyse, 3:40-48, 1960.
6. Hector-Neri Castañeda. On the semantics of the ought-to do. Synthese, 21:449-468, 1970.
7. 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.
8. Brian F. Chellas. Modal Logic. An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1. Equations and Initial Semantics. Springer, 1985. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 6.
12. J.L.A. García. The tunsollen, the seinsollen, and the soseinsollen. American Philosophical Quarterly, 23:267-276, 1986.
13. Peter Geach. Whatever happened to deontic logic? Philosophia, 11:1-12, 1981.
14. 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.
15. D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, pages 497-604. D. Reidel, 1984.
16. I.L. Humberstone. Zero place operations and functional completeness, and the definition of new connectives. History and Philosophy of Logic, 14:39-66, 1993.
17. S.O. Kimbrough and R.M. Lee. Logic modeling: A tool for management science. Decision Support Systems, 4:3-16, 1988.
18. 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.
19. R.M. Lee. Bureaucracies as deontic systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6:87-108, 1988.
20. R.M. Lee. A logic model for electronic contracting. Decision Support Systems, 4:27-44, 1988.
21. R.P. McArthur. Anderson's deontic logic and relevant implication. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 22:145-154, 1981.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. K. Segerberg. A deontic logic of action. Studia Logica, 41:269-282, 1982.
27. Krister Segerberg. Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 18:327-347, 1989.
28. R. Stamper. LEGOL: Modelling legal rules by computer. In B. Niblett, editor, Computer Science and Law, pages 45-71. Cambridge University Press, 1980.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. R.J. Wieringa, J.-J. Ch. Meyer, and H. Weigand. Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 4:157-189, 1989.
32. 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.