62,531 research outputs found
Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification
The logic of norms, called deontic logic, has been used to specify normative constraints for information systems. For example, one can specify in deontic logic the constraints that a book borrowed from a library should be returned within three weeks, and that if it is not returned, the library should send a reminder. Thus, the notion of obligation to perform an action arises naturally in system specification. Intuitively, deontic logic presupposes the concept of anactor who undertakes actions and is responsible for fulfilling obligations. However, the concept of an actor has not been formalized until now in deontic logic. We present a formalization in dynamic logic, which allows us to express the actor who initiates actions or choices. This is then combined with a formalization, presented earlier, of deontic logic in dynamic logic, which allows us to specify obligations, permissions, and prohibitions to perform an action. The addition of actors allows us to expresswho has the responsibility to perform an action. In addition to the application of the concept of an actor in deontic logic, we discuss two other applications of actors. First, we show how to generalize an approach taken up by De Nicola and Hennessy, who eliminate from CCS in favor of internal and external choice. We show that our generalization allows a more accurate specification of system behavior than is possible without it. Second, we show that actors can be used to resolve a long-standing paradox of deontic logic, called the paradox of free-choice permission. Towards the end of the paper, we discuss whether the concept of an actor can be combined with that of an object to formalize the concept of active objects
Recommended from our members
Interaction of agents and environments
A new abstract model of interaction between agents and environments considered as objects of different types is introduced. Agents are represented by means of labelled transition systems considered up to bisimilarity. The equivalence of agents is characterised in terms of an algebra of behaviours which is a continuous algebra with approximation and two operations: nondeterministic choice and prefixing. Environments are introduced as agents supplied with an insertion function which takes the behaviour of an agent and the behaviour of an environment as arguments and returns the new behaviour of an environment. Arbitrary continuous functions can be used as insertion functions, and we use functions defined by means of rewriting logic as computable ones. The transformation of environment behaviours defined by the insertion function also defines a new type of agent equivalence--- insertion equivalence. Two behaviours are insertion equivalent if they define the same transformation of an environment. The properties of this equivalence are studied. Three main types of insertion functions are used to develop interesting applications: one-step insertion, head insertion, and look-ahead insertion functions
Recommended from our members
A general theory of action languages
We present a general theory of action-based languages as a paradigm, for the description, of those computational
systems which include elements of concurrency and networking, and extend this approach
to describe dist.ributed systems and also t,o describe the interaction of a system, with an environment.
As part of this approach we introduce the Action Language as a common model for the class of nondeterministic
concurrent programming languages and define its intensional and interaction semantics
in terrors of continuous transformation of environment behavior. This semantics i.s specialized for
programs with stores, and extended to describe distributed computations
Recommended from our members
Graph models for reachability analysis of concurrent programs
Reachability analysis is an attractive technique for analysis of concurrent programs because it is simple and relatively straightforward to automate, and can be used in conjunction with model-checking procedures to check for application-specific as well as general properties. Several techniques have been proposed differing mainly on the model used; some of these propose the use of flowgraph based models, some others of Petri nets.This paper addresses the question: What essential difference does it make, if any, what sort of finite-state model we extract from program texts for purposes of reachability analysis? How do they differ in expressive power, decision power, or accuracy? Since each is intended to model synchronization structure while abstracting away other features, one would expect them to be roughly equivalent.We confirm that there is no essential semantic difference between the most well known models proposed in the literature by providing algorithms for translation among these models. This implies that the choice of model rests on other factors, including convenience and efficiency.Since combinatorial explosion is the primary impediment to application of reachability analysis, a particular concern in choosing a model is facilitating divide-and-conquer analysis of large programs. Recently, much interest in finite-state verification systems has centered on algebraic theories of concurrency. Yeh and Young have exploited algebraic structure to decompose reachability analysis based on a flowgraph model. The semantic equivalence of graph and Petri net based models suggests that one ought to be able to apply a similar strategy for decomposing Petri nets. We show this is indeed possible through application of category theory
A Formal Framework for Modeling Trust and Reputation in Collective Adaptive Systems
Trust and reputation models for distributed, collaborative systems have been
studied and applied in several domains, in order to stimulate cooperation while
preventing selfish and malicious behaviors. Nonetheless, such models have
received less attention in the process of specifying and analyzing formally the
functionalities of the systems mentioned above. The objective of this paper is
to define a process algebraic framework for the modeling of systems that use
(i) trust and reputation to govern the interactions among nodes, and (ii)
communication models characterized by a high level of adaptiveness and
flexibility. Hence, we propose a formalism for verifying, through model
checking techniques, the robustness of these systems with respect to the
typical attacks conducted against webs of trust.Comment: In Proceedings FORECAST 2016, arXiv:1607.0200
- …