Enriching deontic logic with typicality

Legal reasoning is a method that is applied by legal practitioners to make legal decisions. For a scenario, legal reasoning requires not only the facts of the scenario but also the legal rules to be enforced within it. Formal logic has long been used for reasoning tasks in many domains. Deontic logic is a logic which is often used to formalise legal scenarios with its built-in notions of obligation, permission and prohibition. Within the legal domain, it is important to recognise that there are many exceptions and conflicting obligations. This motivates the enrichment of deontic logic with not only the notion of defeasibility, which allows for reasoning about exceptions, but a stronger notion of typicality which is based on defeasibility. KLM-style defeasible reasoning introduced by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM), is a logic system that employs defeasibility while a logic that serves the same role for the stronger notion of typicality is Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL). Deontic paradoxes are often used to examine deontic logic systems as the scenarios arising from the paradoxes' structures produce undesirable results when desirable deontic properties are applied to the scenarios. This is despite the various scenarios themselves seeming intuitive. This dissertation shows that KLM-style defeasible reasoning and PTL are both effective when applied to the analysis of the deontic paradoxes. We first present the background information which comprises propositional logic, which forms the foundation for the other logic systems, as well as the background of KLM-style defeasible reasoning, deontic logic and PTL. We outline the paradoxes along with their issues within the presentation of deontic logic. We then show that for each of the two logic systems we can intuitively translate the paradoxes, satisfy many of the desirable deontic properties and produce reasonable solutions to the issues resulting from the paradoxes

A System for Modal and Deontic Defeasible Reasoning

Defeasible reasoning is a well-established nonmonotonic reasoning approach that has recently been combined with semantic web technologies. This paper describes modal and deontic extensions of defeasible logic, motivated by potential applications for modelling multi-agent systems and policies. It describes a logic metaprogram that captures the underlying intuitions, and outlines an implemented system

Knowledge Representation Concepts for Automated SLA Management

Outsourcing of complex IT infrastructure to IT service providers has increased substantially during the past years. IT service providers must be able to fulfil their service-quality commitments based upon predefined Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with the service customer. They need to manage, execute and maintain thousands of SLAs for different customers and different types of services, which needs new levels of flexibility and automation not available with the current technology. The complexity of contractual logic in SLAs requires new forms of knowledge representation to automatically draw inferences and execute contractual agreements. A logic-based approach provides several advantages including automated rule chaining allowing for compact knowledge representation as well as flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing business requirements. We suggest adequate logical formalisms for representation and enforcement of SLA rules and describe a proof-of-concept implementation. The article describes selected formalisms of the ContractLog KR and their adequacy for automated SLA management and presents results of experiments to demonstrate flexibility and scalability of the approach.Comment: Paschke, A. and Bichler, M.: Knowledge Representation Concepts for Automated SLA Management, Int. Journal of Decision Support Systems (DSS), submitted 19th March 200

Computing Strong and Weak Permissions in Defeasible Logic

In this paper we propose an extension of Defeasible Logic to represent and compute three concepts of defeasible permission. In particular, we discuss different types of explicit permissive norms that work as exceptions to opposite obligations. Moreover, we show how strong permissions can be represented both with, and without introducing a new consequence relation for inferring conclusions from explicit permissive norms. Finally, we illustrate how a preference operator applicable to contrary-to-duty obligations can be combined with a new operator representing ordered sequences of strong permissions which derogate from prohibitions. The logical system is studied from a computational standpoint and is shown to have liner computational complexity

Adaptive logic characterizations of input/output logic

We translate unconstrained and constrained input/output logics as introduced by Makinson and van der Torre to modal logics, using adaptive logics for the constrained case. The resulting reformulation has some additional benefits. First, we obtain a proof-theoretic (dynamic) characterization of input/output logics. Second, we demonstrate that our framework naturally gives rise to useful variants and allows to express important notions that go beyond the expressive means of input/output logics, such as violations and sanctions

A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

A Paradox of Inferentialism

John McDowell articulated a radical criticism of normative inferentialism against Robert Brandom’s expressivist account of conceptual contents. One of his main concerns consists in vindicating a notion of intentionality that could not be reduced to the deontic relations that are established by discursive practitioners. Noticeably, large part of this discussion is focused on empirical knowledge and observational judgments. McDowell argues that there is no role for inference in the application of observational concepts, except the paradoxical one of justifying the content of an observational judgment in terms of itself. This paper examines the semantical consequences of the analysis of the content of empirical judgments in terms of their inferential role. These, it is suggested, are distinct from the epistemological paradoxes that McDowell charges the inferentialist approach with