A logic for reasoning about safety in decision support systems

  • S. K. Das
  • J. Fox
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 747)


Safety is increasingly recognised as an important property of a software system. The safety of a decision support system is a property that ensures that actions recommended by the system will have minimal undesirable consequences. The objective of this paper is to proposes a logical formalism for reasoning about the external safety of a decision support system. The proposed logical language makes provision for representing time, preferences, actions and also deontic and safety related operators such as “obligation”, “safety” and “authorisation”.


Modal Operator Decision Support System Modal Logic Integrity Constraint Safety Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. F. Allen: Towards a general theory of action and time, North-Holland: Artificial Intelligence, 1984, Vol. 23, pp. 123–154Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Aqvist: Deontic Logic, D. Reidel: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol II, pp. 605–714Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. H. Bonczek, C. W. Holsapple and A. B. Whinston: Development in decision support systems, Academic Press, Inc.: Advances in Computers, 1984, Vol. 3, pp. 141–175Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Chellas: Modal Logic, Cambridge University Press, 1980Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. K. Das: Deductive databases and logic programming, Addison-Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Fox: Engineering safety into expert systems, Direction in Safety-Critical Systems, Chapman and Hall, 1993Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Y. Halpern and Y. Shoham: A prepositional modal logic of time intervals, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1991, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 935–962Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. J. Wieringa, J.-J. Meyer, H. Weigand: Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints, North-Holland: Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1989, Vol. 4, pp. 157–189Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. H. von Wright: The logic of preference, Edinburgh University Press, 1963Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Das
    • 1
  • J. Fox
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceQMW, University of LondonLondon
  2. 2.Advanced Computation LaboratoryImperial Cancer Research FundLondon

Personalised recommendations