Skip to main content

‘What I Fail to Do Today, I Have to Do Tomorrow’: A Logical Study of the Propagation of Obligations

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5056))

Abstract

We study a logical property that concerns the preservation of future directed obligations that have not been fulfilled yet. We call this property ’propagation property’. The goal is to define a combination of temporal and deontic logics which satisfies this property. Our starting point is the product of temporal and deontic logics. We investigate some modifications of the semantics of the product in order to satisfy the propagation property, without losing too much of the basic properties of the product. We arrive at a semantics in which we only consider ideal histories that share the same past as the current one, and that enables an interesting characterization of the states in which obligations propagate: these are the states where there are no violations of present directed obligations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Åqvist, L.: Combinations of tense and deontic logic. Journal of Applied Logic 3, 421–460 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Bailhache, P.: Canonical models for temporal deontic logic. Logique et Analyse, 3–21 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bratman, M.: Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bratman, M.: Planning and the stability of intentions. Minds and Machines 2, 1–16 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Broersen, J.: Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Brunel, J., Bodeveix, J.-P., Filali, M.: A state/event temporal deontic logic. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Cuppens, F., Cuppens-Boulahia, N., Sans, T.: Nomad: a security model with non atomic actions and deadlines. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (June 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, B., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.: A programming language for cognitive agents: Goal directed 3APL. In: PROMAS 2003. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Demolombe, R., Bretier, P., Louis, V.: Formalisation de l’obligation de faire avec délais. In: Proc. Journées Francophones sur la Modélisation Formelle de l’Interaction, Caen (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gabbay, D., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., Zakharyachev, M.: Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilpinen, R.: New studies in deontic logic. Reidel (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent programming in 3apl. International Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4), 357–401 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Pnueli, A.: The temporal semantics of concurrent programs. Theoretical Computer Science 13, 45–60 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen, J., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: van Hoe, R. (ed.) Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ross, A.: Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7, 53–71 (1941)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wright, G.v.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Broersen, J., Brunel, J. (2008). ‘What I Fail to Do Today, I Have to Do Tomorrow’: A Logical Study of the Propagation of Obligations. In: Sadri, F., Satoh, K. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5056. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88833-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88833-8_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88832-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88833-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics