Abstract
This paper is a preliminary investigation into the application of the formal-logical theory of normative positions to the characterisation of normative-informational positions, pertaining to rules that are meant to regulate the supply of information. First, we present the proposed framework. Next, we identify the kinds of nuances and distinctions that can be articulated in such a logical framework. Finally, we show how such nuances can arise in specific regulations. Reference is made to Data Protection Law and Contract Law, among others. The proposed approach is articulated around two essential steps. The first involves identifying the set of possible interpretations that can be given to a particular norm. This is done by using formal methods. The second involves picking out one of these interpretations as the most likely one. This second step can be resolved only by using further information (e.g., the context or other parts of the regulation).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This means, essentially, that the action modality is closed under logical equivalence, and satisfies the T. schema, the ‘success condition’: \({E_j A \rightarrow A.}\)
In sect. 6.2, below, we indicate that there are nevertheless some contexts in which it would be appropriate to reintroduce the notion of agency.
The ‘\({^\star f}\) ’ in the notation had no particular significance. It was introduced in the multi-modal language described in (Jones and Parent 2007) merely to distinguish this particular notion of ideality from an evaluative normative modality, ‘I’, that also figured in the same language.
An expression of the form ‘O k A’ is implied by, but does not imply, one of the form ‘O E k A’. See also sect. 6.2, below.
The person arrested is ordinarily told that he/she has the right to remain silent, but that anything he/she says may be taken down and used in evidence against him/her. The right to remain silent implies (but is not implied by) the permission to remain silent, but the relational aspect, characteristic of the Hohfeldian interpretation of rights (rather than mere permissions), will be ignored for present purposes. It will most definitely figure in future work, however. As we indicated in the Introduction, the theory developed here is, we believe, capable of providing a platform for the development of a formal account of information rights.
This example, despite being facetious, does nevertheless serve to illustrate the way in which a map of the class of possible positions might play a role in choosing (for good or ill) an ‘appropriate’ strategy or policy. Prolegomena to the theory of spin .........?
Directive 95/46/EC, Official Journal L281, 23/11/1995 pp. 31-50.
In data protection law, the data subject is the natural person (individual) to whom the personal data refers.
In the EC Directive, the data controller is defined as anybody who determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. Data controllers are responsible for the lawful processing and may be held liable. The data processor acts on behalf of the data controller.
As explained below, there are cases where such a rendering is too strong. This need not concern us here.
However, it is possible to think of situations where conflicting information might be the most accurate information available: If the data controller has collected information from different parties who do not agree about factual information and the data controller has no possibility of verifying the information, then it may be appropriate to communicate the conflicting information.
Agent j might, for instance, wish to verify that the data concerning him are up-to-date.
Another rendering would be \({O_k E_k \neg E_k \neg (\neg I_j A \wedge \neg I_j \neg A)}\).
Cf. (Kanger 1985).
Cf. (Sen 1982).
The logic of the ‘can’ operator is discussed in, e.g., (Elgesem 1997).
References
Brena R, Chesnevar C, Aguirre J (2006) Argumentation supported information distribution in a multiagent system for knowledge management. In: Parsons S, Maudet N, Moraitis P, Rahwan I (eds) Argumentation in multi-agent systems: Proceedings of the second international workshop (ArgMAS 2005) Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 4049. Springer, Berlin, pp279–296
Chellas B (1980) Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Elgesem D (1997) The modal logic of agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:1–46
Jones A (2004) On normative-informational positions. In: Lomuscio A, Nute D (eds) Deontic logic in computer science: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop (DEON 2004), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 3065. Springer, Berlin, pp 182–190
Jones A, Parent X (2004) Conventional signalling acts and conversation. In: Dignum F (ed) Advances in agent communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 2922. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–17
Jones A, Parent X (2007) A convention-based approach to agent communication languages. Group Desis Negot 16: 101–141
Jones A, Sergot M (1992) Formal specification of security requirements using the theory of normative positions. In: Deswarte Y, Eizenberg G, Quisquater J-J (eds) Computer security - ESORICS 92 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 648. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 103–121
Kanger S (1972) Law and logic. Theoria 38:105–132
Kanger S (1985) On realization of human rights’. In: Holmstrom G, Jones A (eds), Action, logic and social theory, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol 38. D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Kanger S, Kanger H (1966) Rights and parliamentarism. Theoria 32:85–115
Lindahl L (1977) Position and change—a study in law and logic. Synthese library, vol 112. D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2002) Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 4, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 218–319
Sen A (1982) Rights and agency. Phil Public Affairs 11(1):3–39
Weitzenbock E (2004) Good faith and fair dealing in contracts formed and performed by electronic agents. Artif Intel Law 12:83–110
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the EU funded Working Group iTrust (IST-2001-34910) and the EU funded 6th Framework Integrated Project TrustCoM (IST-2002-2.3.1.9). Grateful acknowledgement of the support of the EC is hereby given. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is a revised and considerably extended version of (Jones 2004). Some of the material included herein is adapted from the document ‘Preliminary Analysis on Legal Issues’, an unpublished report that formed part of the deliverables from the project TrustCoM (to which reference is made in the concluding acknowledgements).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, A.J.I., Parent, X. Normative-informational positions: a modal-logical approach. Artif Intell Law 16, 7–23 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9045-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9045-1