Skip to main content

Rules of Order for Electronic Group Decision Making – A Formalization Methodology

  • Chapter
Collaboration between Human and Artificial Societies

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1624))

Abstract

This paper reports on an ongoing research project, consisting of formalizing rules of order for group decision making, and implementing them as a procedural component of automated mediation systems for group decision making. The component should ultimately assist a human mediator in maintaining order at electronic meetings, and in giving advice to the participants on their options, rights and obligations in the decision making process. A main requirement for the system is that order can be maintained in a flexible way, allowing to set the rules aside when needed. This paper presents the first research result of the project: a way of formalizing rules of order that makes it possible to maintain order in such a flexible way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2, 189–208 (1971)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game. In: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gordon, T.F., Karacapilidis, N.: The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 10–18. ACM Press, New York (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.J.: On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Meyer, J.J.C., Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pp. 275–307. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D., Gordon, T.F., Voss, H.: Collaborative environmentalplanning with GeoMed. European Journal of Operational Research, Special Issue on Environmental Planning, Vol 102(2), 335–346 (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Kowalski, R.A.: Legislation as logic programs. In: Bankowski, Z., White, I., Hahn, U. (eds.) Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy Library, vol. 256, pp. 325–356. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Page, C.V.: Principles for democratic control of bounded-rational, distributed, knowledge agents. In: Mosekilde, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the European Simulation Conference, pp. 359–361 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Prakken, H.: Formalizing Robert’s Rules of Order. An Experiment in Automating Mediation of Group Decision Making. GMD Report 12, GMD - German National Research Center for Information Technology, Sankt Augustin, Germany (1998), Electronically available at http://nathan.gmd.de/projects/zeno/publications.html

  9. Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 155–169 (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Robert, H.M.: Robert’s Rules of Order. In: The Standard Guide to Parliamentary Procedure, Bantam Books, New York (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shanahan, M.P.: Solving the Frame Problem. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stary, C.: Modelling decision support for rational agents. In: Mosekilde, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the European Simulation Conference, pp. 351–356 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Suchman, L.: Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 2, 177–190 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Suber, P.: The Paradox of Self-amendment: a Study of Logic, Law, Omnipotence, and Change. Peter Lang, New York (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Formalizing Nomic: working on a theory of communication with modifiable rules of procedure. Technical report CS 95-02, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Prakken, H., Gordon, T.F. (1999). Rules of Order for Electronic Group Decision Making – A Formalization Methodology. In: Padget, J.A. (eds) Collaboration between Human and Artificial Societies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1624. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/10703260_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/10703260_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66930-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46624-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics