Responsibilities in Organizations
Sketch of a logic for organizational structure and
Download 297.23 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
Responsibilities in organizations
3. Sketch of a logic for organizational structure and
responsibilities The logical framework we need in order to provide a formal characterization of the concepts introduced in Section 2 requires key expressivity capabilities for dealing with collective agency issues and with organizational structure issues. With respect to collective agency, expressions should be available to talk about: the performance of complex actions by agents and their effects (dynamic component); the obligations directed to agents (deontic component); the knowledge agents are endowed with (epistemic component). With respect to organizational structure issues, the relevant expressions concern essentially the possibility to represent relational structures depicting respectively the power, the coordination and the control structures (relational component). In this work we avoid to mention any technical aspect of the framework, limiting ourselves to a description of the language and its expressivity. For an exposition of the semantics, which is quite rich, we refer the reader to the work we exposed in Grossi, Dignum, Royakkers and Dastani (2005), and Grossi, Dignum, Royakkers and Meyer (2004). In what follows we provide a list of the family of expressions available which will be used in Section 4, providing an intuitive reading of them which suggest their underlying semantics. As we will see, each expression is parameterized by or concerns either an agent or a role. The sets of agent identifiers and of role identifiers are denoted, respectively, by Ag (agents) and RA (role agents). More in particular, in the system it is possible to express and reason about: • A set of agents Ag and a set of roles RA • Dynamic formulas such as [α i ]φ, meaning that after each execution of α i formula φ holds, where α i is a parameterized construct of the type i:α denoting the performance of action α by agent i, or a composed construct such as: i:α 1 ; j:α 2 (subsequent performance), i:α 1 & j:α 2 (parallel performance), i:α (i refrains from performing α). 2 • Assertions such as “α has just been performed by agent i” (DONE(i:α)), “α is going to be the next action performed by agent i” (DO(i:α)), and “α lies in the capabilities of agent i” (CAN i (α)). • Epistemic assertions to the effect that agent i knows that φ (K i (φ)), and deontic assertions to the effect that agent i ought to perform action α (O(i:α)). • Special propositions: Power(r,s) which indicate that ‘the agent enacting role r has the agent enacting role s in its power’ (i.e., the agent playing role r can delegate tasks to the agent playing role s), Coordination(r,s) which indicate that ‘the agent enacting role s has access to the information accessed by the agent enacting role r’, and Control(r,s) which indicate that ‘the agent enacting role r controls the agent enacting role s’ (i.e., the agent playing role r is responsible for the agent playing role s). Note that relations are defined on roles, i.e., on members of RA. We denote the fact that agent i enacts role r, by the special proposition rea(i,r). The semantics of these expressions is obtained by mixing the semantics of the collective action logic we developed in Grossi, Dignum, Royakkers and Meyer (2004). with a graph- theoretical semantics modeling the organizational structures that can be represented via the special propositions Power(r,s), Coordination(r,s), Control(r,s) and rea(i,r) 3 which we presented in Grossi, Dignum, Royakkers and Dastani (2005). Download 297.23 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling