Re: Deontic Logic Conference

Thank you Owen
I ll include /address your comments in the draft if I get to it
PDM

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:35 AM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:

> Paola, while the theoretical complexities of deontic logic are beyond my
> level of comprehension, here are some practical thoughts related to these
> four bullet points in the conference announcement:
>
> * How do different perspectives on the evaluation of norms in social terms
> (e.g. individual vs. social, “flat groups” vs. networks of agents, in terms
> of explicit agreements vs. in terms of a social choice function) cash out
> in terms of formal logics?
>
> Agreements aren't explicit unless they are documented, and documentation
> is insufficient unless it clearly and unambiguously spells out both the
> stakeholder roles as well as the performance indicators leading from inputs
> to outcomes in the value chain.
>
> * Can we suitably combine deontic logics and formal frameworks for
> reasoning about networks? What formal and philosophical hurdles should
> first be taken in order to merge these two lines of research?
>
> There is no such thing as a "formal framework".  That is a contradiction
> in terms.  By definition, "frameworks" are relatively amorphous as well as
> incomplete in the sense they do not fulling specify the value chain and the
> stakeholder roles and responsibilities in model performance plans. And,
> yes, if value chains are fully documented, "reasoning" can be applied to
> learn how best to achieve the desired outcomes, based upon actual evidence
> shared in performance reports.
>
> * Can deontic terms such as must, ought, may acquire their meaning via
> social conventions? Could such a meaning acquisition be captured via a
> combination of logical and game theoretic tools?
>
> In value chains, the difference between the meaning of the terms "must,"
> "ought" and "may" is evidenced in the quality of the outputs and outcomes.
> Some minimal amounts of inputs and degrees of processing are required to
> produce any usable output.  Higher-quality outputs may be produced by
> additional inputs and processing, with diminishing returns.  Yes, such
> meaning can be captured -- in performance plans and reports, preferably in
> an open, standard, machine-readable format like StratML Part 2.
>
> * How do rights and duties of institutions relate to those of their
> members from a legal and political perspective? How can this relation be
> represented formally?
>
> The simple answer is that rights and duties are "represented" in documents
> (or, otherwise, the minds of mobs and dictators).  The common forms taken
> by such documents are laws, regulations, policies, directives, guidelines,
> etc. -- in relatively unstructured, non-semantically tagged, narrative
> formats ... all of which are poor and inadequate substitutes for actual
> model performance plans in open, standard, machine-readable format.
>
> BTW, I don't understand the logic of using the same URL to point to two
> different "pages", i.e., the org's home page <http://deonticlogic.org/>
> as well as the conference announcement, thus making it impossible to refer
> directly to the latter.
>
> Owen
>
> On 2/12/2020 4:07 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I d like to explore the synergy between deontic logic and knowledge
> representation.
> in relation to the many topics being discussed in this group
> http://deonticlogic.org/
>
> So (if my mind does not explode) I ll aim to put in an abstract, see the
> wiki for a page that need filling out
> https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/wiki/Main_Page
>
> If anybody has any free neurons in their prefrontal cortex and would like
> to contribute
> they would be most welcome!
>
> PDM
>
>
>