Normative conflicts are critical in ethical and legal arguments. But, Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) can not tolerate them and in sntandard deontic logics normative conflicts lead to contradictions. In this paper we review Deontic Logic literature and introduce two major approaches facing to narmative conflicts. One of them is accepting the existence of normative conflicts and trying to build Conflict Tolerant Deontic Logics, and the other is separating the obligations to Prima Fcie obligations and Actual obligations and rejecting any actual normative conflict, which necessitates Formalizing two kinds of obligations (prima facie obligations and actual obligations) and the relation of them. Then we introduce Prioritized Adaptive Logics, which are useful in both approaches. In the last part of the paper, we search normative conflict arguments in 'osul al fiqh', which is the logic of Islamic legal system, and formalize some aspects of 'vajib', the Islamic obligation, in a prioritized adaptive logic format.

Model-Driven Development (MDD) aims at developing software more productively by using models as the main artifacts. Here, the models with high abstraction levels must be transformed into lower levels and  nally executable models, i. e., source code. As a result, model transformation languages/tools play a main role on realizing the MDD goal. The Object-Management Group (OMG) presented the Query/View/Transformation (QVT) as a standard for the Meta-Object Facility (MOF)-based model transformation languages. However, implementing a model transformation language, which supports the full features of the QVT proposal requires a formal model of the underlying concepts. Having common terminology and a formal, precise, and consistent speci cation facilitates developing dependable transformation languages/tools. This paper aims to provide a formal speci cation of the main characteristics of a QVT-Relations (QVTr) model transformation language using the Z notation. The proposed formal model can be adapted for Formalizing other domain and language concepts too. To show the applicability of the proposed formalism, a simpli ed version of the classic object-relational transformation is speci ed. Additionally, we show how the semantics clari es some outstanding semantic issues in QVTr. The proposed formalism of this paper will pave the way to building support tools for model transformations in a uni ed manner in MDD.

With regard to the difference between the concept of appropriate progress with epistemological and philosophical principles, Iranian various mental lines of thought have sought to formulate the problem. On this basis, the paper, relying on Foucaultian, Hegelian and, finally, native views, has studied the formalization of the concept of progress in Hegelian, postmodern and Islamic-Iranian approaches and has tried to answer the question: what relation may be found between Hegelian and postmodern view and Islamic-Iranian model of progress? Hegelian views in Iran have considered the category of progress as a line and the only fixed model as getting experience from the West. While, postmodern views have considered it not being as a line. As viewed in the paper, Islamic-Iranian model of progress, in spite of an attempt made by some to connect it to the postmodern one, is not of such a connection and presents another approach with different ontology, anthropology and epistemology.

The Sassanian dynasty, which established a strong government in the ancient Iran with the dream of the glory of the Achaemenian dynasty, saw the realization of such an idea in the light of integrating the formal religion with the policy. Although Ardeshir Babakan, the founder of the Sassanian dynasty, integrated Iran after conquering the Arscaian dynasty and the feudality of Iranshahr, stabilizing the new regime was possible only in the light of centralized political and administrative systems and the formalization of the national religion. So, the religion had an important stand in the Sassanian discipline in different aspects of life in the Iranian society. However, at the beginning of the Sassanian period, the Zoroastrianism did not have the necessary capacities as a formal and national religion. The most important factors against the formalization of the Zoroastrianism consisted of lack of a unique religious text, dispersed bases for the Zoroastrianism resulting from the attacks of Alexander the great and the feudality. Therefore, the first kings of the Sassanian dynasty, supported by the Zoroastrian clerics, began some important challenges in this regard and formalized this religion in a fluctuating way. This paper deals with the situation of Zoroastrianism at the beginning of the Sassanide dynasty, challenges of the first kings of the Sassanide dynasty and the Zoroastrian clerics as well as the fluctuation of this religion in the process of Formalizing it.

The present paper studies the possibility of translating “ sense relations” in the level of sentences into formal expressions. In so doing, it applies the mathematical logic, especially the logic of propositions within the constraints of sufficient Farsi examples. That is, firstly, a definition for each relation in sentence level is presented. Secondly, using the tools of propositional logic, a formal translation for each relation is offered. Then, each of the proposed relation is shown to be in accordance with its corresponding sense relation; finally, the efficiency of the formal expression is tested by examples from Farsi. The sense relations discussed are as follows: entailment, contradiction, inference, and presupposition. The author concluded that the sense relation of “ synonymy” is, basically, impossible to be translated into formal expression since there are no two sentences in any language that can be considered “ synonymous” . Thus, no formal translation can be proposed for “ synonymy” in the sentence level.

The present research intends to elaborate on the possibility of Formalizing the sense relation of ‘ opposition’ in word pairs. In order to do so, firstly, some fundamental concepts from set theory are introduced; main topics covered in this regard include: ‘ membership’ , ‘ inclusion’ , ‘ union’ , ‘ intersection’ and ‘ difference’ . Then some concepts corresponding to propositional logic, which the authors consider necessary for the purpose of the research, are presented. The concepts include logical connectives (‘ negation’ , ‘ conjunction’ , etc. ) and quantifiers (universal quantifier and existential quantifier). The present paper also applies the concept of ‘ function’ from mathematics to present some of the intended formal expressions corresponding to the introduced sense relations. To set a suitable framework, the authors go over various technical definitions of ‘ opposition’ which are introduced as fundamental concepts in linguistics dictionaries as well as semantics textbooks. Sense relation of ‘ opposition’ in word pairs can be classified into several sub-categories, all of which are introduced in this paper and the process of Formalizing each of them are explained. All in all, the present paper presents six different types of sense relation under semantic opposition category which are as follows; ‘ antonymy’ , ‘ gradable opposition’ , ‘ complementary opposition’ , ‘ directional opposition’ , ‘ symmetrical opposition’ , and ‘ contrast’ . Then, it goes over the process of Formalizing each of the mentioned sub-categories and introduces a formal translation for every proposed definition. Finally, the present research examines the efficiency of the introduced formal expressions by providing several examples. The formal expressions of the listed sub-categories are introduced in the following paragraphs in the same order as they are discussed in the paper. Antonymy; F(x) =-x. The logic behind the presented relation is that, based of the definition of antonymy, as it can be observed in the binary pairs (dead/alive), the absence or presence of a semantic feature pertaining to one word results in binary pairs which are antonyms; i. e. the meaning of one word equals the negated meaning of the other. So the absence or presence of the semantic feature [living] in the example in question (– living/+living), causes them to be antonyms; therefore, F(dead)= F(-living)=-(-living)= alive. Gradable Opposition; [(23)] ∀ p, ∃ q, ∀ x∈ M p(x) → q(x) So; p≃ q Relation [(23)][1], means that for every single utterance such as proposition p, that is the word x, and x is a member of the Universal Set of words M, there exists an utterance like q which is in opposition with p. For instance, if the word “ woman” is a member of M, then there exists a word, “ man’ which is in opposition with “ woman” It is noteworthy that relation [(23)] is a formal expression which is suitable for all kinds of sub-categories of the sense relation of opposition. Complementary Opposition; [(29)] p → q Therefore, p∧ q is never a tautology. For example, dead → alive, therefore, dead˄ alive is never a tautology. Directional Opposition; [(31)] g: X→ X ∀ x∈ X; g(x) = x-1 It is worth mentioning that X is a set of semantic features which concern with the concept of ‘ direction’ and the function g reverses x∈ X (x is a directional feature). The set an example, if we take x: to depart, then g(x) = g(depart) = (depart)-1 = arrive, that the function g reverses the semantic feature of direction. Symmetrical Opposition; [(32)] f, g: X→ X ∀ x∈ X; x =-y f(x) =-g(y) As it is seen, the relation of reciprocal opposition is defined as “ one element is in contrast with the other” ; that is they cannot coexist. Examples include pairs of words ‘ husband/wife’ , and ‘ sell/buy’ . So, if Mary is John’ s wife, then John should be Mary’ s husband. The relation [(32)], defines two functions that turn the very mutual semantic element of x to – y which is in fact the opposite of x. Considering the example ‘ sell/buy’ , it is clarified as follows: buy (+to get sth[2] by paying money) =-(to give sth by receiving money); so, f (buy) = (+to get sth by paying money) =-g (to give sth by receiving money) = g (sell). Contrast; as this relation is a type of antonymy, the very formal expression of [(23)] works for this relation as well. The efficiency and correctness of the presented formal expressions are discussed in detail in the paper using various examples from Persian. In the end, it is concluded that the sense relation of opposition in word pairs (which includes several sub-categories) can be formalized applying concepts from logic, set theory and mathematics. [1]. The numbers in bracket corresponds to the suggested formal expressions presented in the paper. [2]. sth: something

This paper aims to investigate and analyze the role of housing policy making in generating the informal policies in the field of housing, which is being referred to as informality. For this purpose, the effort was made to show that how the housing welfare policies, while themselves being a product of forces and more major structures in global, national and metropolitan scales, generate the other self, i.e. the informal processes. Since the emergence of neoliberal policies in 1970s, the housing policies themselves have become a mechanism for regeneration of informality in the form of informal settlements. Accordingly, the findings show that formal and informal policies are not currently two separate processes, rather they are united ones; Formalizing and in Formalizing which is named by some as informality. Therefore, unlike some western countries where urbanization has occurred by reliance on an industrialization process, in Iran we are faced with an urbanization without industrialization so that the urbanization in Iran with an oil-based economy even could be referred to as oil-based urbanization. This leads to some variations in experiences of Iranian and industrial western urbanization, as, in absence of a powerful production-based economy, spill-over of investment towards real states causes the city economy and subsequently the economy of the country to essentially find a speculative nature, which could have disastrous consequences in case of crisis outbreak.