Handling Change in Normative Specifications

Normative frameworks provide a means to address the governance of open systems, by offering a mechanism to express responsibilities and permissions of the individual participants with respect to the entire system without compromising their autonomy. Careful design is crucial if it is to meet its requirements. Tools that support the design process can be of great benefit. In this paper, we describe a method for choosing the appropriate change in the normative specification, using impact analysis of the critical consequences being preserved or rejected by the change.

[1]  Alexander Artikis.  Dynamic protocols for open agent systems , 2009, AAMAS.

[2]  Carlos E. Alchourrón,et al.  Conflicts of norms and the revision of normative systems , 1991 .

[3]  Chiaki Sakama,et al.  Induction from answer sets in nonmonotonic logic programs , 2005, TOCL.

[4]  Domenico Corapi.  Nonmonotonic inductive logic programming as abductive search , 2012 .

[5]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX: COIN 2013 International Workshops, COIN@AAMAS, St. Paul, MN, USA, May 6, 2013, COIN@PRIMA, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 3, 2013, Revised Selected Papers , 2014, COIN@AAMAS/PRIMA.

[6]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases , 1991, New Generation Computing.

[7]  Cliff B. Jones,et al.  Formal methods light , 1996, CSUR.

[8]  Edna Ullmann-Margalit.  Revision of Norms , 1990, Ethics.

[9]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Revision, Acceptability and Context - Theoretical and Algorithmic Aspects , 2010, Cognitive Technologies.

[10]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A logic-based calculus of events , 1989, New Generation Computing.

[11]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  An executable specification of an argumentation protocol , 2003, ICAIL.

[12]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Logic Programming , 1990, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[13]  J. Searle.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1997 .

[14]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Action Languages , 1998, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[15]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Programming norm change , 2012, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[16]  S. Wrobel.  First Order Theory Reenement , 1996 .

[17]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena : Designing Norm Enforcement in E-Institutions , 2006, COIN@AAMAS/ECAI.

[18]  Marina De Vos,et al.  Answer Set Programming for Representing and Reasoning About Virtual Institutions , 2006, CLIMA.

[19]  Marina De Vos,et al.  Normative design using inductive learning , 2011, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[20]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Abductive Logic Programming , 1992, LPNMR.

[21]  Alessandra Russo,et al.  Inductive Logic Programming in Answer Set Programming , 2011, ILP.

[22]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power , 1996, Log. J. IGPL.

[23]  Michael Luck,et al.  Towards a Formalisation of Electronic Contracting Environments , 2009, COIN@AAMAS&AAAI.

[24]  Jordi Campos Miralles,et al.  Formalising Situatedness and Adaptation in Electronic Institutions , 2009, COIN@AAMAS&AAAI.

[25]  Guido Boella,et al.  Regulative and Constitutive Norms in Normative Multiagent Systems , 2004, KR.

[26]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Engineering an Incremental ASP Solver , 2008, ICLP.

[27]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in Defeasible Logic , 2010, Log. J. IGPL.

[28]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[29]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  On the Instantiation of Knowledge Bases in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2013, CLIMA.

[30]  Sheila A. McIlraith.  Generating Tests Using Abduction , 1994, KR.