Abstract
The present paper proposes a structural operational semantics and the related semantics for normative systems. The proposed approach focuses on explicitly representing in force obligations and violations as events in a temporal framework, determining the state of a normative system. In the paper we use a set of core principles, defining some of the properties required when reasoning about norms, to motivate the semantics of the approach. Finally, we show that the proposed approach is capable of reasoning about more complex legal scenarios.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The issue arising from the co-existence of obligations, which, while logically consistent is semantically odd.
- 2.
A structural operational semantics focuses on describing the computational steps, opposed to natural semantics which focus on describing the outcomes.
- 3.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume these states to be represented as propositional formulae.
- 4.
Given a state \(\varphi _i\) associated to a temporal instant and trigger condition of an obligation represented by the propositional formula \(\alpha \), the state triggers the obligation, also referred to as setting the obligation in force, if and only if \(\varphi _i \models \alpha \).
- 5.
Notice that Definition 6 introduces an exception to the in force instance termination, rather than defining additional ways of terminating an instance.
- 6.
An obligation is yielding if its in force instances do not persist when violated. The difference between yielding and perdurant is discussed in Sect. 3.1.
- 7.
Yet Another Workflow Language.
- 8.
http://www.yawlfoundation.org/files/YAWLDeedOfAssignmentTemplate.pdf, retrieved on March 28, 2013.
- 9.
The removal of obligations from a normative system without influencing eventual past violations, and scenarios where the obligation applies.
- 10.
The removal of obligations from a normative system, while removing also its past effects.
References
Ågotnes, T., van der Hoek, W., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: A temporal logic of normative systems. In: Makinson, D., Malinowski, J., Wansing, H. (eds.) Towards Mathematical Philosophy. TL, vol. 28, pp. 69–106. Springer, Dordrecht (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9084-4_5
Alrawagfeh, W.: Norm representation and reasoning: a formalization in event calculus. In: Boella, G., Elkind, E., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Dignum, F., Purvis, M.K. (eds.) PRIMA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8291, pp. 5–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44927-7_2
Calardo, E., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: A preference-based semantics for CTD reasoning. In: Cariani, F., Grossi, D., Meheus, J., Parent, X. (eds.) DEON 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8554, pp. 49–64. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_5
Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 27(1), 85–130 (2013)
Gabbay, D., Horty, J., van der Meyden, R., Parent, X., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, 1 edn. College Publications (2013)
Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(02n03), 181–216 (2005)
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: A conceptually rich model of business process compliance. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling - Volume 110, APCCM 2010, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, pp. 3–12. Australian Computer Society Inc. (2010)
Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Modeling obligations with event-calculus. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2014. LNCS, vol. 8620, pp. 296–310. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_22
Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Normative requirements for regulatory compliance: an abstract formal framework. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(3), 429–455 (2016)
Lorini, E.: Temporal logic and its application to normative reasoning. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 23(4), 372–399 (2013)
Marín, R.H., Sartor, G.: Time and norms: a formalisation in the event-calculus. In: ICAIL, pp. 90–99 (1999)
Parent, X., van der Torre, L.: The pragmatic oddity in a norm-based semantics. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-2017) (2017)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica Int. J. Symb. Log. 57(1), 91–115 (1996)
Telang, P., Singh, M.P., Yorke-Smith, N.: A coupled operational semantics for goals and commitments. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 65, 31–85 (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Colombo Tosatto, S., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. (2021). Principles and Semantics: Modelling Violations for Normative Reasoning. In: Rodríguez-Doncel, V., Palmirani, M., Araszkiewicz, M., Casanovas, P., Pagallo, U., Sartor, G. (eds) AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems XI-XII. AICOL AICOL XAILA 2020 2018 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13048. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89811-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89811-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89810-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89811-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)