Process modelling: The deontic way

Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series

Volumn 53, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Padmanabhan, Vineet ^a   Governatori, Guido ^a   Sadiq, Shazia ^a   Colomb, Robert ^a   Rotolo, Antonino ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Business; Enterprise and process modelling

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS PROCESS; BUSINESS RULES; CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS; DEONTIC; ENTERPRISE SYSTEM; ORGANISATIONAL MODELLING; PROCESS MODELLING; SOCIAL INTERACTIONS;

INDUSTRY;

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE;

EID: 78649922093     PISSN: 14451336     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G. & Maher, M. J. (2000), A flexible framework for defeasible logics, in 'Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000)', AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 401-405.
2. Barbuceanu, M., Gray, T. & Mankovski, S. (1999), 'Role of obligations in multiagent coordination', Applied Artificial Intelligence 13(1-2), 11-38.
3. Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Catholijn, M. & Treur, J. (2000), Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture, in 'Proceedings of ATAL 1999', Springer, Berlin, pp. 364-378.
4. Colombetti, M. (2000), A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations, in M. Greaves, F. Dignum, J. Bradshaw & B. Chaibdraa, eds, 'Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies', Barcelona, pp. 21-29.
5. Conte, R. & Dellarocas, C. (2001), Social Order in Multiagent Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
6. Dignum, V., Vazquez-Salceda, J. & Dignum, F. (2004), Omni: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organisations., in 'PROMAS', Vol. 3346, Springer, pp. 181-198. (Pubitemid 41421876)
7. Elgesem, D. (1997), 'The modal logic of agency', Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 1-48.
8. Gelati, J., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G. & Governatori, G. (2004), 'Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: Declarative power, representation and mandate', Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 53-81. (Pubitemid 40454056)
9. Goldkuhl, G. (1996), Generic business frameworks and action modelling, in 'Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Communication Modelling', Electronic workshops In Computing.
10. Governatori, G. & Rotolo, A. (2003), A defeasible logic of institutional agency, in 'Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action, and Change (NRAC'03)', pp. 97-104.
11. Governatori, G. & Rotolo, A. (2004), Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation, in '7th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, DEON 2004', Springer, pp. 114-128.
12. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. & Sadiq, S. (2004), A model of dynamic resource allocation in workflow systems, in 'Fifteenth Australasian Database Conference (ADC2004)', Australian Computer Science Association, pp. 197-206.
13. Jones, A. (1990), Towards a formal theory of communication and speech acts, in P. Cohen & M. Pollack, eds, 'Intentions in Communication', MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
14. Jones, A. & Sergot, M. (1996), 'A formal characterisation of institutionalised power', Journal of IGPL 3, 427-443.
15. Kanger, S. (1972), 'Law and logic', Theoria 38, 105-32.
16. Lindahl, L. (1977), Position of change: A Study in law and logic, Reidel, Dordrecht.
17. Maher, M. (2001), 'Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity', Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 601-711.
18. Maher, M. J. & Governatori, G. (1999), A semantic decomposition of defeasible logic, in 'Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99', AAAI Press, pp. 299-305.
19. Maher, M. J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billignton, D. & Miller, T. (2001), 'Efficient defeasible reasoning systems', International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 10(4), 483-501.
20. Nute, D. (1987), Defeasible logic, in 'Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming', Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, pp. 353-395.
21. Pitt, J. (2005), Normative Specifications in Multi-Agent Systems, John Wiley & Sons.
22. Pörn, I. (1977), Action Theory and Social Science: Some Formal Models, Reidel, Dordrecht.
23. Royakkers, L. (2000), Combining deontic and action logics for collective agency, in J. Breuker et al., ed., 'Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix)', IOS Press, Amsterdam.
24. Russel, N., van der Aalst,W. M. P., ter Hofstede, A. H. M. & Edmond, D. (2005), Workflow resource patterns: Identification, representation and tool support., in 'CAiSE', Vol. 3520, Springer, pp. 216-232. (Pubitemid 41336105)
25. Santos, F., Jones, A. & Carmo, J. (1997), Action concepts for describing organised interaction, in 'Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences', IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos.
26. Singh, M. P. (1999), 'An ontology for commitments in multi-agent systems: Towards a unification of normative concepts', Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97-113.
27. Singh, M. P. (2004), Business process management: A killer app for agents, in 'Proc. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2004)', IEEE.
28. Singh, M. P., Chopra, A. K., Desai, N. & Mallya, A. U. (2004), Protocols for processes: Programming in the large for open systems (extended abstract), in 'OOPSLA Companion', Vol. 39, pp. 120-123.
29. Tan, Y.-H. & Thoen, W. (1998), Modelling directed obligations and permissions in trade contracts, in 'HICSS (5)', pp. 166-175.
30. Taveter, K. & Wagner, G. (2001a), Agent-oriented enterprise modelling based on business rules., in 'ER', Vol. 2224 of Lecture Notes in computer Science, Springer, pp. 527-540. (Pubitemid 33370428)
31. Taveter, K. & Wagner, G. (2001b), A multi-perspective methodology for modelling inter-enterprise business processes., in 'ER (Workshops))', Vol. 2465 of Lecture Notes in computer Science, Springer, pp. 403-416.
32. Wagner, G. (2003), 'The agent-object-relationship metamodel: towards a unified view of state and behavior.', Inf. Syst. 28(5), 475-504.
33. Yolum, P. & Singh, M. P. (2004), 'Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols', Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. Special issue on computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. 42(4), 227-253. (Pubitemid 39046783)
34. Yu, E. S. K. & Mylopoulos, J. (1993), An actor dependency model of organizational work: with application to business process reengineering., in 'COOCS', ACM, pp. 258-268.
35. Yu, E. S. K. & Mylopoulos, J. (1994), From E-R to A-R - modelling strategic actor relationships for business process reengineering., in 'ER', Vol. 881 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 548-565.