David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Information Technology 7 (4):251-264 (2005)
In this paper we present an executable approach to model interactions between agents that involve sensitive, privacy-related information. The approach is formal and based on deontic, epistemic and action logic. It is conceptually related to the Belief-Desire-Intention model of Bratman. Our approach uses the concept of sphere as developed by Waltzer to capture the notion that information is provided mostly with restrictions regarding its application. We use software agent technology to create an executable approach. Our agents hold beliefs about the world, have goals and commitment to the goals. They have the capacity to reason about different courses of action, and communicate with one another. The main new ingredient of our approach is the idea to model information itself as an intentional agent whose main goal it is to preserve the integrity of the information and regulate its dissemination. We demonstrate our approach by applying it to an important process in the insurance industry: applying for a life insurance. In this paper we will: (1) describe the challenge organizational complexity poses in moral reasoning about informational relationships; (2) propose an executable approach, using software agents with reasoning capacities grounded in modal logic, in which moral constraints on informational relatio nships can be modeled and investigated; (3) describe the details of our approach, in which information itself is modeled as an intentional agent in its own right; (4) test and validate it by applying it to a concrete ‘hard case’ from the insurance industry; and (5) conclude that our approach upholds and offers potential for both research and practical application.
|Keywords||action logic deontic epistemic insurance privacy software agents|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229 - 275.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229-275.
Helmut Prendinger & Gerhard Schurz (1996). Reasoning About Action and Change. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 5 (2):209-245.
Alexandru Baltag & Lawrence S. Moss (2004). Logics for Epistemic Programs. Synthese 139 (2):165 - 224.
Francesco Amigoni & Viola Schiaffonati (2008). A Multiagent Approach to Modelling Complex Phenomena. Foundations of Science 13 (2):113-125.
Guillaume Aucher (2010). An Internal Version of Epistemic Logic. Studia Logica 94 (1):1 - 22.
Michael Nagenborg (2009). Designing Spheres of Informational Justice. Ethics and Information Technology 11 (3):175-179.
Churn-Jung Liau (2001). A Logical Analysis of the Relationship Between Commitment and Obligation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (2):237-261.
Frances Brazier, Anja Oskamp, Corien Prins, Maurice Schellekens & Niek Wijngaards (2004). Law-Abiding and Integrity on the Internet: A Case for Agents. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (1-2):5-37.
B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek & J.-J. Ch Meyer (1997). Seeing is Believing. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (1):33-61.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #207,121 of 1,707,716 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #266,161 of 1,707,716 )
How can I increase my downloads?