A Community Authorization Service for Group Collaboration
POLICY '02 Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY'02)
Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems
ICAIL '03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
A game theoretic approach to contracts in multiagent systems
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews
An Action-Based Legal Model for Dynamic Digital Rights Expression
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Learning and reasoning about norms using neural-symbolic systems
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The distinction between the notions of permission and authorization is subtle. In the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary [4] permitting is "to allow something", "to make it possible for someone to do something, or to not prevent something from happening", while authorizing means "to give someone official permission to do something". Law studies argue that the distinction goes beyond the "officiality" of authorization. E.g., the Del Giudice [5]'s dictionary of law argues that adding or removing an authorization does not change the normative status of an agent while adding or removing a permission does. Authorizations change what is obligatory or permitted for agents without adding or removing norms. However, though legal philosophers distinguish permission from authorization, the distinction between the two is ignored in many (agent) theories and systems. How can this apparent paradox be explained?