Obligation change in dependence logic and situation calculus

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science)

Volumn 3065, Issue , 2004, Pages 57-73

  Demolombe, Robert ^a   Herzig, Andreas ^b  

^a ONERA   (France)

^b IRIT   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTERS; DIFFERENTIATION (CALCULUS); FORMAL LANGUAGES; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; MODAL ANALYSIS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SET THEORY;

DEPENDENCE LOGIC; FRAME PROBLEMS; GENERAL SOLUTIONS; LITERALS; SITUATION CALCULUS;

CALCULATIONS; FORMAL LOGIC;

DEPENDENCE LOGIC; MODAL LOGIC; PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC;

EID: 9444222635     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-25927-5_6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. A.Artosi, G.Governatori, and G.Sartor.Towards a computational treatment of deontic defeasibility.In M.A.Brown and J.Carmo, editors, Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems, pages 27-46.Springer, 1996.
2. M.A.Castilho, O.Gasquet, and A.Herzig.Formalizing action and change in a modal logic I:the frame problem.Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(5), 1999.
3. M.A.Castilho, A.Herzig, and I.J.Varzinczak.It depends on the context! A decidable logic of actions and plans based on a ternary dependence relation.In 9th Int.Workshop on Non Monotonic Reasoning, 2002.
4. R.Demolombe.From belief change to obligation change in the Situation Calculus.A preliminary study.In J.Horty and A.J.I.Jones, editor, Six International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, 2002.
5. R.Demolombe.Belief change: from Situation Calculus to Modal Logic.In G.Brewka and P.Peppas, editor, Proc.of the Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change, 2003.
6. R.Demolombe and M.P.Pozos-Parra.A simple and tractable extension of situation calculus to epistemic logic.In Z.W.Ras and S.Ohsuga, editors, Proc.of 12th International Symposium ISMIS 2000.Springer.LNAI 1932, 2000.
7. F.Lin and R.Reiter.State constraints revisited.Journal of Logic and Computation, 4:655-678, 1994.
8. S.McIllraith.A closed-form solution to the ramification problem (sometimes).In Proc.of the IJCAI'97.Workshop on Non Monotonic Reasoning Action and Change, 1997.
9. D.Nute.Norms, priorities and defeasibility.In P.McNamara and H.Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems, pages 201-218.IOS Press, 1999.
10. H.Prakken.Two approaches of defeasible reasoning.In A.J.I.Jones and M.Sergot, editors, 2d International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pages 281-295.Tano A.S., 1994.
11. R.Reiter.The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression.In V.Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359-380.Academic Press, 1991.
12. L.Royakkers and F.Dignum.Defeasible reasoning with legal rules.In M.A.Brown and J.Carmo, editors, Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems, pages 174-193.Springer, 1996.
13. Sahlqvist, H.Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logics.In Stig Kanger, editor, Proc.3rd Scandinavian Logic Symposium 1973, number 82 in Studies in Logic.North Holland, 1975.
14. R.Scherl and H.J.Levesque.Knowledge, action and the frame problem.Artificial Intelligence, 144:1-39, 2003.
15. S.Shapiro, M.Pagnuco, Y.Lespérance, and H.Levesque.Iterated belief change in the situation calculus.In Proc.of the 7th Conference on Principles on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000).Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2000.
16. W.Snyder and C.Lynch.Goal directed strategies for paramodulation.In Proc.14th Int.Conf.on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (LNCS 488).Springer-Verlag, 1991.
17. L.W.N.van der Torre and Y.H.Tan.An update semantics for deontic reasoning.In P.McNamara and H.Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems, pages 73-92.IOS Press, 1999.