<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Two adaptive logics of norm-propositions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">JOURNAL OF APPLIED LOGIC</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">147–168</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;We present two defeasible logics of norm-propositions (statements about norms) that (i) consistently allow for the possibility of normative gaps and normative conflicts, and (ii) map each premise set to a sufficiently rich consequence set. In order to meet (i), we define the logic &lt;strong&gt;LNP&lt;/strong&gt;, a conflict- and gap-tolerant logic of norm-propositions capable of formalizing both normative conflicts and normative gaps within the object language. Next, we strengthen &lt;strong&gt;LNP&lt;/strong&gt; within the adaptive logic framework for non-monotonic reasoning in order to meet (ii). This results in the adaptive logics &lt;strong&gt;LNP&lt;sup&gt;r&lt;/sup&gt;LNP&lt;sup&gt;r&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;LNP&lt;sub&gt;mLNP&lt;sup&gt;m&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, which interpret a given set of premises in such a way that normative conflicts and normative gaps are avoided whenever possible. &lt;strong&gt;LNP&lt;sup&gt;r&lt;/sup&gt;LNP&lt;sup&gt;r&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; and &lt;strong&gt;LNP&lt;sup&gt;m&lt;/sup&gt;LNP&lt;sup&gt;m&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; are equipped with a preferential semantics and a dynamic proof theory.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>