From Abstract to Concrete Norms in Agent Institutions

Norms specifying constraints over institutions are stated in such a form that allows them to regulate a wide range of situations over time without need for modification. To guarantee this stability, the formulation of norms need to abstract from a variety of concrete aspects, which are instead relevant for the actual operationalization of institutions. If agent institutions are to be built, which comply with a set of abstract requirements, how can those requirements be translated in more concrete constraints the impact of which can be described directly in the institution? In this work we make use of logical methods in order to provide a formal characterization of the translation rules that operate the connection between abstract and concrete norms. On the basis of this characterization, a comprehensive formalization of the notion of institution is also provided.

[1]  Henry Prakken.  Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning , 1996, Stud Logica.

[2]  Yde Venema,et al.  Many-dimensional Modal Logic , 1991 .

[3]  Ian A. Mason,et al.  The Semantics of Propositional Contexts , 1994, ISMIS.

[4]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  On the Representation of Context , 1996, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[5]  F. Dignum.  Abstract Norms and Electronic Institutions , 2002 .

[6]  Ian A. Mason,et al.  Propositional Logic of Context , 1993, AAAI.

[7]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Defeasible Reasoning with Legal Rules. , 1996 .

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

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A logical framework for modelling legal argument , 1993, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[10]  Mark Reynolds.  D. M. Gabbay, A. Kurucz, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. Many-dimensional modal logics: theory and applications . Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 148. Elsevier, Amsterdam, xiv + 747 pp. , 2005 .

[11]  A. Goldman.  Theory of Human Action , 1970 .

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

[13]  Patrick Brézillon,et al.  Modeling and Using Context , 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 1997 .

[15]  Marek Sergot,et al.  On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective , 1994 .

[16]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[17]  Luciano Serafini,et al.  Two Formalizations of Context: A Comparison , 2001, CONTEXT.

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

[19]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1997 .

[20]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[21]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[22]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Agents, Markets, Institutions, and Protocols , 2001, AgentLink.

[23]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[24]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[25]  J. Kemp,et al.  The Concept of Law , 1962 .

[26]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Actions, institutions, powers: Preliminary notes , 2002 .

[27]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Models of Legal Argumentation , 1997 .

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

[29]  Aleksander Peczenik,et al.  On law and reason , 1989 .

[30]  F. Dignum,et al.  Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce: The European AgentLink Perspective , 2001 .

[31]  Javier Vázquez-Salceda,et al.  Modelling Electronic Organizations , 2003, CEEMAS.