Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification

The logic of norms, called deontic logic, has been used to specify normative constraints for information systems. For example, one can specify in deontic logic the constraints that a book borrowed from a library should be returned within three weeks, and that if it is not returned, the library should send a reminder. Thus, the notion of obligation to perform an action arises naturally in system specification. Intuitively, deontic logic presupposes the concept of anactor who undertakes actions and is responsible for fulfilling obligations. However, the concept of an actor has not been formalized until now in deontic logic. We present a formalization in dynamic logic, which allows us to express the actor who initiates actions or choices. This is then combined with a formalization, presented earlier, of deontic logic in dynamic logic, which allows us to specify obligations, permissions, and prohibitions to perform an action. The addition of actors allows us to expresswho has the responsibility to perform an action. In addition to the application of the concept of an actor in deontic logic, we discuss two other applications of actors. First, we show how to generalize an approach taken up by De Nicola and Hennessy, who eliminate τ from CCS in favor of internal and external choice. We show that our generalization allows a more accurate specification of system behavior than is possible without it. Second, we show that actors can be used to resolve a long-standing paradox of deontic logic, called the paradox of free-choice permission. Towards the end of the paper, we discuss whether the concept of an actor can be combined with that of an object to formalize the concept of active objects.

[1]  Hans Kamp,et al.  IV—Free Choice Permission , 1974 .

[2]  Donald Sannella,et al.  Completeness of Proof Systems for Equational Specifications , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[3]  Erik P. de Vink,et al.  Step semantics for “true” concurrency with recursion , 1989, Distributed Computing.

[4]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication , 1984, Inf. Control..

[5]  Risto Hilpinen,et al.  Deontic Logic: An Introduction , 1970 .

[6]  Setrag Khoshafian,et al.  Object identity , 1986, OOPSLA 1986.

[7]  Samit Khosla System specification: a deontic approach , 1989 .

[8]  J. Goguen,et al.  Order-Sorted Equational Computation , 1989 .

[9]  Hans Weigand,et al.  Specifying Dynamic and Deontic Integrity Constraints , 1989, Data Knowl. Eng..

[10]  Frits W. Vaandrager,et al.  Modular Specifications in Process Algebra with Curious Queues , 1987, Algebraic Methods.

[11]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Algebraic Specification of Object Dynamics in Knowledge Base Domains , 1990, DS-3.

[12]  Robin Milner,et al.  A Calculus of Communicating Systems , 1980, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Actor-Oriented Specification of Deontic Integrity Constraints , 1991, MFDBS.

[14]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics , 1985 .

[15]  Max J. Cresswell,et al.  A companion to modal logic , 1984 .

[16]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Algebraische Spezifikation abstrakter Datentypen , 1989 .

[17]  David J. DeWitt,et al.  The Object-Oriented Database System Manifesto , 1994, Building an Object-Oriented Database System, The Story of O2.

[18]  José Meseguer,et al.  Order-Sorted Algebra I: Equational Deduction for Multiple Inheritance, Overloading, Exceptions and Partial Operations , 1992, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  Equality and Domain Closure in First-Order Databases , 1980, JACM.

[20]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Relational Database Theory , 1982, On Conceptual Modelling.

[21]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1 , 1985, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[22]  Setrag Khoshafian,et al.  Object identity , 1986, OOPLSA '86.

[23]  Roel Wieringa Equational Specification of Dynamic Objects , 1990, DS-4.

[24]  J.-J.Ch. Meyer Using Programming Concepts in Deontic Reasoning , 1989 .

[25]  Hector-Neri Castañeda,et al.  The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to all of them in one Fell Swoop , 1981 .

[26]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Negations of Transactions and Their Use in the Specification of Dynamic and Deontic Integrity Constraints , 1990 .

[27]  Maurice Nivat,et al.  Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures , 1989 .

[28]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Logic, language and meaning: Vol. II: Intensional logic and logical grammar , 1991 .

[29]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic , 1987, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[30]  P. Dangerfield Logic , 1996, Aristotle and the Stoics.

[31]  R. Hilpinen Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings , 1981 .

[32]  Ronald M. Lee,et al.  Bureaucracies as deontic systems , 1988, TOIS.

[33]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Actor-Oriented System Specification with Dynamic Logic , 1991, TAPSOFT, Vol.2.

[34]  José Luiz Fiadeiro,et al.  The Basic Building Blocks of Information Systems , 1989, ISCO.

[35]  Hans Weigand,et al.  The inheritance of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints or: Does the boss have more rights? , 1991, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[36]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  Dynamic Logic , 2007, The KeY Approach.

[37]  R. J. van Glabbeek,et al.  Comparative Concurrency Semantics and Refinement of Actions , 1996 .

[38]  Ron van der Meyden,et al.  The Dynamic Logic of Permission , 1990, J. Log. Comput..

[39]  Ron van der Meyden The Dynamic Logic of Permission , 1990, LICS.

[40]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  Algebra of Communicating Processes , 1995, Workshops in Computing.

[41]  José Luiz Fiadeiro,et al.  Temporal reasoning over deontic specifications , 1991, J. Log. Comput..

[42]  T. S. E. Maibaum,et al.  The Prescription and Description of State Based Systems , 1987, Temporal Logic in Specification.

[43]  Paul McNamara,et al.  Deontic logic , 2006, Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century.

[44]  Robert Meersman,et al.  Object-Oriented Databases: Analysis, Design & Construction (DS-4), Proceedings of the IFIP TC2/WG 2.6 Working Conference on Object-Oriented Databases: Analysis, Design & Construction, Windermere, UK, 2-6 July, 1990 , 1991 .

[45]  Amílcar Sernadas,et al.  What is an Object, After All? , 1990, DS-4.

[46]  Jos C. M. Baeten,et al.  Process Algebra , 2007, Handbook of Dynamic System Modeling.

[47]  Risto Hilpinen,et al.  Conditionals and possible worlds , 1981 .

[48]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  Communicating sequential processes , 1978, CACM.

[49]  Jan A. Bergstra,et al.  Algebra of Communicating Processes with Abstraction , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[50]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  A Formalization of Objects Using Equational Dynamic Logic , 1991, DOOD.

[51]  Roelf J. Wieringa,et al.  Algebraic Foundations for Dynamic Conceptual Models , 1990 .

[52]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Logics of Programs , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.