Maintaining Obligations on Stative Expressions in a Deontic Action Logic

We consider the logical representation of obligations on stative expressions such as The yard must be clean in the context of legal contract formation, execution, and monitoring (cf. Wyner ([28])). In a contract, the expression may understood as an obligation to maintain a property. We use a Deontic Action Logic to represent obligations over the course of time (Khosla and Maibaum ([13]) and Meyer ([17])). Our analysis is in contrast to d’Altan, Meyer, and Wieringa ([6]), who reduce deontic operators to an Alethic Logic plus a violation proposition (Anderson and Moore ([1]), which has no temporal component. In addition, they use a Deontic Action Logic to represent obligations on actions. We claim the Alethic component of the logic is redundant for the purposes of representing obligations on stative expressions in a contract. In the course of the analysis, we introduce polynormativity, which contrasts with the binormativity of standard DAL or alethic logic plus a violation proposition. We discuss the advantages of polynormativity in reasoning from violations and fulfillments.

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

[2]  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..

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

[4]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[5]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[6]  O. K. Moore,et al.  The Formal Analysis of Normative Concepts , 1957 .

[7]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Dynamic logic , 2001, SIGA.

[8]  C. Walter.  Computer Power and Legal Language: The Use of Computational Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Expert Systems in the Law , 1988 .

[9]  Andrew J. I. Jones,et al.  Deontic database constraints, violation and recovery , 1996, Stud Logica.

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Knowledge-based systems and legal applications , 1991 .

[11]  Leendert van der Torre,et al.  Review of Agency and deontic logic by John Horty Oxford university press 2001 , 2003 .

[12]  Sten Lindström,et al.  Logic, Action, and Cognition: Essays in Philosophical Logic , 1997 .

[13]  Lou Goble,et al.  Being Good and Being Logical: Philosophical Groundwork for a New Deontic Logic , 1996 .

[14]  Adams Zachary Wyner,et al.  Boolean event lattices and thematic roles in the syntax and semantics of adaverbial modification , 1994 .

[15]  Christen Krogh,et al.  Getting Personal: Some Notes on the Relationship Between Personal and Impersonal Obligation , 1996, DEON.

[16]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  On the Representation of Action and Agency in the Theory of Normative Positions , 2001, Fundam. Informaticae.

[17]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[18]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Review of Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, John-Jules Ch. Meyer and Roel J. Wieringa (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 1993 , 1994, Bull. IGPL.

[19]  Andrew J. I. Jones,et al.  Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duties , 2002 .

[20]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  Temporal Logic in Specification , 1987, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  Marek Sergot,et al.  A computational theory of normative positions , 2001, ACM Trans. Comput. Log..

[22]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Events as grammatical objects , 2000 .

[23]  J. Horty.  Agency and Deontic Logic , 2001 .

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

[25]  Marek Sergot.  CHAPTER 1 – THE REPRESENTATION OF LAW IN COMPUTER PROGRAMS , 1991 .

[26]  Jan M. Broersen.  Action negation and alternative reductions for dynamic deontic logics , 2004, J. Appl. Log..

[27]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification , 1993, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[28]  Jan Broersen,et al.  John Horty, Agency and Deontic Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[29]  Risto Hilpinen,et al.  On Action and Agency , 1997 .

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