Need to Know: Questions and the Paradox of Epistemic Obligation

Aqvist's paradox of epistemic obligation can be solved, if we use knowledge-wh instead of knowledge-that in specifications of the `need to know': the knowledge which an agent in a certain organisational role is required to have. Knowledge-wh is knowledge of an answer to a question, which depends on the context. We show how knowledge-wh can be formalised in a logic of questions, which is combined with standard deontic logic to represent epistemic obligations. We demonstrate that under the new interpretation, the paradox can no longer be derived. The resulting logic is useful for representation of access control policies.

[1]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Decentralized trust management , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

[2]  J. Hintikka.  Knowledge and belief , 1962 .

[3]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  The Logic of Knowledge Based Obligation , 2006, Synthese.

[4]  Wiebe van der Hoek,et al.  Systems for Knowledge and Belief , 1993, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Jelle Gerbrandy,et al.  Reasoning about Information Change , 1997, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

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

[7]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  The Logic of Interrogation (classical version) , 1999 .

[8]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  Deontic Interpreted Systems , 2003, Stud Logica.

[9]  L. T. F. Gamut.  Logic, language, and meaning , 1991 .

[10]  David I. Beaver,et al.  The Handbook of Logic and Language , 1997 .

[11]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  Resolving questions, I , 1995 .

[12]  Martín Abadi,et al.  A logic of authentication , 1990, TOCS.

[13]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Handbook of Logic and Language , 1996 .

[14]  James E. Tomberlin.  Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Conditional Obligation , 1981 .

[15]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[16]  B. D. ten Cate,et al.  Axiomatizing Groenendijk's logic of interrogation , 2007 .

[17]  Christopher Beedham,et al.  Language and Meaning: The structural creation of reality , 2005 .

[18]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[19]  William Stallings.  Practical cryptography for data internetworks , 1996 .

[20]  Frank Veltman,et al.  Defaults in update semantics , 1996, J. Philos. Log..

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

[22]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers , 1984 .

[23]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Contrary‐to‐duty reasoning with preference‐based dyadic obligations , 1999, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[24]  C. Francisco.  Good Samaritans. , 2000, Texas medicine.

[25]  L. Åqvist.  Good Samaritans, Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives, and Epistemic Obligations , 1967 .

[26]  T. Gonen,et al.  Questions , 1927, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care.

[27]  J. D. Uiiman,et al.  Principles of Database Systems , 2004, PODS 2004.

[28]  P. Dekker,et al.  Questions in dynamic semantics , 2007 .

[29]  L. Åqvist,et al.  A new approach to the logical theory of interrogatives : analysis and formalization , 1975 .

[30]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification , 1994 .

[31]  Dov Samet,et al.  'Knowing Whether', 'Knowing That' and the Cardinality of State Spaces , 1996 .