Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:00:04.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rationale behind the concept of goal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

GUIDO GOVERNATORI ,
FRANCESCO OLIVIERI ,
SIMONE SCANNAPIECO ,
ANTONINO ROTOLO  and
MATTEO CRISTANI
GUIDO GOVERNATORI
Affiliation:
Data61, CSIRO, NICTA, Australia (e-mail: [email protected])
FRANCESCO OLIVIERI
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
SIMONE SCANNAPIECO
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
ANTONINO ROTOLO
Affiliation:
CIRSFID, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
MATTEO CRISTANI
Affiliation:
e-mail [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The paper proposes a fresh look at the concept of goal and advances that motivational attitudes like desire, goal and intention are just facets of the broader notion of (acceptable) outcome. We propose to encode the preferences of an agent as sequences of “alternative acceptable outcomes”. We then study how the agent's beliefs and norms can be used to filter the mental attitudes out of the sequences of alternative acceptable outcomes. Finally, we formalise such intuitions in a novel Modal Defeasible Logic and we prove that the resulting formalisation is computationally feasible.

Keywords

AgentsDefeasible logicDesiresintentionsGoalsObligations
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 16 , Special Issue 3: Special Issue on the International Web Rule Symposia 2012-2014 , May 2016 , pp. 296 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

References

Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P. and van der Torre, L. W. N., Ed. 2013. Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Vol. 4, Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. ISBN 978-3-939897-51-4.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2001. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, (2), 255–287. ISSN 1529-3785.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M. J. and Rock, A. 2000. A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In Proc. of ECAI 2000, Werner, Horn, Ed. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 459–463.Google Scholar
Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G. and Vlahavas, I. 2006. A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic web. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2, (1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 1987. Intentions, Plans and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Benferhat, S. and Le Berre, D. 2004. Qualitative choice logic. Artificial Intelligence 157, (1-2), 203–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J. and van der Torre, L. 2002. Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2, (3-4), 428–447. URL http://icr.uni.lu/leonvandertorre/papers/csqj02.ps.Z.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. 1990. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, (2-3), 213–261.Google Scholar
Dastani, M., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. and van der Torre, L. 2005. Programming cognitive agents in defeasible logic. In Proc. LPAR, Sutcliffe, G. and Voronkov, A., Ed. LNAI, Vol. 3835. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 621–636.Google Scholar
Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M. B. and Meyer, J.-J. C. 2006. Goal types in agent programming. In AAMAS, Nakashima, H., Wellman, M. P., Weiss, G. and Stone, P., Ed. ACM, New York, 1285–1287.Google Scholar
Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M. B. and Winikoff, M. 2011. Rich goal types in agent programming. In AAMAS, Sonenberg, L., Stone, P., Tumer, K. and Yolum, P., Ed. IFAAMAS, 405–412.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. 2005. Representing business contracts in RuleML. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14, (2-3), 181–216.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Rotolo, A. and Scannapieco, S. 2013a. Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42, (6), 799–829, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9295-1.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Rotolo, A., Scannapieco, S. and Cristani, M. 2013b. Picking up the best goal – an analytical study in defeasible logic. In RuleML, volume 8035, Morgenstern, L., Stefaneas, P. S., Lévy, F., Wyner, A. and Paschke, A., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 99–113. ISBN 978-3-642-39616-8.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V., Rotolo, A. and Sattar, A. 2009. A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes. Logic Journal of the IGPL 17, (3), 227–265.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2006. Logic of violations: A Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic 4, 193–215. ISSN 1448-5052.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2008. BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17, (1), 36–69.Google Scholar
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A. and Calardo, E. 2012. Possible world semantics for defeasible deontic logic. In DEON, volume 7393, Ågotnes, T., Broersen, J. and Elgesem, D., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 46–60.Google Scholar
Governatori, G. and Sadiq, S. 2008. The journey to business process compliance. In Handbook of Research on BPM, Cardoso, Jorge and van der Aalst, Wil, Ed. IGI Global, Hershley, New York, 426–454.Google Scholar
Hindriks, K. V., de Boer, F. S., van der Hoek, W. and Meyer, J.-J. C. 2000. Agent programming with declarative goals. In ATAL, volume 1986, Castelfranchi, C. and Lespérance, Y., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 228–243.Google Scholar
Knolmayer, G., Endl, R. and Pfahrer, M. 2000. Modeling processes and workflows by business rules. In Business Process Management, Springer, van der Aalst, Wil and Desel, Jörg and Pfahrer, Marcel, Ed. Springer, Volume: 1806, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G. and Antoniou, G. 2011. A modal defeasible reasoner of deontic logic for the semantic web. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 7, (1), 18–43.Google Scholar
Kravari, K., Papatheodorou, C., Antoniou, G. and Bassiliades, N. 2011. Reasoning and proofing services for semantic web agents. In IJCAI/AAAI, Walsh, T., Ed. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2662–2667.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P. and Governatori, G. 2009. The making of SPINdle. In Rule Representation, Interchange and Reasoning on the Web, Vol. 5858, Governatori, G., Hall, J. and Paschke, A., Ed. LNCS, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 315–322.Google Scholar
Lam, H.-P. and Governatori, G. 2011. What are the necessity rules in defeasible reasoning? In LPNMR-11, Delgrande, J. and Faber, W., Ed. Springer, Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume: 6645, Berlin Heidelberg, 187–192.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J. 2001. Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, (6), 691–711.Google Scholar
Olivieri, F., Governatori, G., Scannapieco, S. and Cristani, M. 2013. Compliant business process design by declarative specifications. In Proc. of PRIMA 2013: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems – 16th International Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 1–6, 2013, Boella, G., Elkind, E., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., Dignum, F. and Purvis, M. K., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8291. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 213–228. ISBN 978-3-642-44926-0. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-44927-7 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44927-7.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2006. Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In COMMA, Vol. 144, Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T., Ed. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 311–322.Google Scholar
Rao, A. S. and Georgeff, M. P. 1991. Modeling rational agents within a bdi-architecture. In Proc. of KR, Allen, J. F., Fikes, R. and Sandewall, E., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 473–484. ISBN 1-55860-165-1.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. and Brewka, G. 2007. Dynamic interactions between goals and beliefs. In IJCAI 2007, Veloso, M., Ed. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2625–2630.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., Lespérance, Y. and Levesque, H. J. 2007. Goal change in the situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 17, (5), 983–1018.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., Sardina, S., Thangarajah, J., Cavedon, L. and Padgham, L. 2012. Revising conflicting intention sets in bdi agents. In Proc. of the 11th International Conference on AAMAS - Volume 2, AAMAS '12, IFAAMS, 1081–1088.Google Scholar
Tachmazidis, I., Antoniou, G., Flouris, G., Kotoulas, S. and McCluskey, L. 2012. Large-scale parallel stratified defeasible reasoning. In ECAI, Vol. 242, De Raedt, L., Bessière, C., Dubois, D., Doherty, P., Frasconi, P., Heintz, F. and Lucas, P. J. F., Ed. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, Berlin, Heidelberg, 738–743.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. H. 2000. Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In Proc. of KR2000, Cohn, A. G., Giunchiglia, F. and Selman, B., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 702–713.Google Scholar
van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W. and Wooldridge, M. 2007. Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155, (2), 265–90.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, M. B., Dastani, M. and Winikoff, M. 2008. Goals in agent systems: A unifying framework. In AAMAS (2), Padgham, D. C., Parkes, L., Müller, J. P. and Parsons, S., Ed. IFAAMAS, 713–720.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, M. B., Dastani, M. and Meyer, J.-J. C. 2009. Goals in conflict: Semantic foundations of goals in agent programming. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 18, (3), 471–500.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, W. W., Kollingbaum, M. J. and Norman, T. J. 2009. Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19, (2), 124–152.Google Scholar
Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J. and Thangarajah, J. 2002. Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In Proc. of KR, Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D. L. and Williams, M., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 470–481.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R. 1995. Agent theories, architectures, and languages: A survey. In ECAI Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Vol. 890, Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 1–39.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Governatori supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Governatori supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 183.4 KB