Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A knowledge-based framework for complex, proactive and service-oriented e-negotiation systems

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances in information technology and knowledge management change the way that e-negotiations, which constitute an important aspect of worldwide e-trading, can be structured and represented. In this paper, a novel approach that focuses on knowledge modeling, formalization, representation and management in the domain of e-negotiation is described. The proposed approach exploits Ontologies, Service Oriented Architectures, Semantic Web Services, software agent platforms, and Knowledge-Bases to construct a framework that favors dynamically adapted negotiation protocols, negotiation process visualization and management, modeling and preference elicitation of the negotiated object and automatic deployment of negotiation interfaces. Negotiation process, protocol and strategy are examined, and a hybrid approach that integrates rules and workflow diagrams to describe and represent them is introduced.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hurwitz Report. (2000). Negotiated trade: the next frontier for B2B e-commerce (Technical Report). The Hurwitz Group.

  2. Wurman, P., Wellman, M., & Walsh, W. (2001). A parameterization of the Auction Design Space. Games and Economic Behaviour, 35, 304–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bichler, M., Kersten, G., & Strecker, S. (2003). Towards a structured design of electronic negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kersten, G. E., & Lai, H. (2006). Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems (Technical report, InterNeg Research Report 13).

  5. Wurman, P. R., Wellman, M. P., & Walsh, W. E. (1998). The Michigan Internet AuctionBot: a configurable auction server for human and software agents. In Agents’98 (pp. 301–308). New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benyoucef, M., Keller, R. K., Lamouroux, S., Robert, J., & Trussart, V. (2000). Towards a generic e-negotiation platform. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on re-technologies for information systems, Zurich, Switzerland.

  7. Gimpel, H., Mäkiö, J., & Weinhardt, C. (2005). Multi-attribute double auctions in financial trading. In 7th international IEEE conference on e-commerce technology, Munich, Germany.

  8. Kim, J. B., & Segev, A. (2005). A web services-enabled marketplace architecture for negotiation process management. Journal on Decision Support Systems, 40(1), 71–87. Special Issue on Web Services and Process Management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chiu, D. K. W., Cheung, S. C., Hung, P. C. K., Chiu, S. Y. Y., & Chung, A. K. K. (2005). Developing e-negotiation support with a meta-modeling approach in a web services environment. International Journal on Decision Support Systems, 40(1), 51–69. Special Issue on Web Services and Process Management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benyoucef, M., & Rinderle, S. (2006). Modeling e-negotiation processes for a service oriented architecture. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kersten, G., Law, K. P., & Strecker, S. (2004). A software platform for multi-protocol e-negotiations (InterNeg Research Report 04/04). April 2004. Available at http://interneg.org.

  12. Tung, B., & Gachet, A. (2006). Web services for negotiation and bargaining in electronic markets: design requirements, proof-of-concepts, and potential applications to e-procurement. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Internet Negotiation Group. http://interneg.org/interneg/tools/inss/.

  14. Buttner, R. (2006). A classification structure for automated negotiations. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology.

  15. Bartolini, C., Preist, C., & Jennings, N. (2003). Architecting for reuse: a software framework for automated negotiation. In J. Odell & G. Weiss (Eds.), LNCS: Vol. 2585. Agent-oriented software engineering III, F. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Tamma, V., Wooldridge, M., & Dickinson, I. (2002). An ontology based approach to automated negotiation. In Proceedings AMEC’02 (pp. 219–237). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Badica, C., Ganzha, M., & Paprzycki (2006). Rule-based automated price negotiation: overview and experiment. In ICAISC (pp. 1050–1059).

  18. Simon, C., & Rebstock, M. (2004). Integration of multi-attributed negotiations within business processes. Business Process Management, 2004, 148–162.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weigand, H., & Schoop, A. (2003). B2B negotiation support: the need for a communication perspective. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kowalczyk, R., & Bui, V. (2001). On constraint-based reasoning in e-negotiation agents. Dignum and Cortes, 26, 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kowalczyk, R. (2002). Fuzzy e-negotiation agents. Journal of Soft Computing, 6(5), 337–347. Special Issue on Fuzzy Logic and the Internet.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wang, Y., & Ren, K. L. (2005). Towards autonomous and automatic evaluation and negotiation in agent-mediated Internet marketplaces. Electronic Commerce Research, 5, 343–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurney, P., Parson, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2004). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., & Moraitis, P. (2007). A general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. ArgMAS, 2007, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fatima, S. S., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2006). Multi-issue negotiation with deadlines. Journal of Artificial Intelligent Research (JAIR), 27, 381–417.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pu, P., Chen, L., & Kumar, P. (2008). Evaluating product search and recommender systems for E-commerce environments. Electronic Commerce Research, 8(1–2), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Skylogiannis, T., Antoniou, G., Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G., & Bikakis, A. (2007). DR-NEGOTIATE—A system for automated agent negotiation with defeasible logic-based strategies. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 63(2), 362–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Desai, N. J., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). OWL-P: a methodology for business process modeling and enactment. In Proceedings of the AAMAS 2005 workshop on agent oriented information systems.

  29. W3C, OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features. Accessed 25 November 2008.

  30. W3C, SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBMSWRL-20040521. Accessed 25 November 2008.

  31. Berners-Lee, T., Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor (1st Ed.). San Francisco: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  32. FIPA The Foundation for Physical Intelligent Agents. http://www.fipa.org/repository/index.html. Accessed 25 November 2008.

  33. Lomuscio, A. R., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. (2002). A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce. In LNCS: Vol. 1991. Agent mediated electronic commerce: the European AgentLink perspective (pp. 19–33). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Strobel, M., & Weinhardt, C. (2003). The Montreal taxonomy for electronic negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cerquides, J., López-Sánchez, M., Reyes-Moro, A., & Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2007). Enabling assisted strategic negotiations in actual-world procurement scenarios. Electronic Commerce Research, 7, 189–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Desai, N. J., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Su, S., Huang, C., & Hammer, J. (2000). A replicable web-based negotiation server for e-commerce. In Proceedings of 33rd international conference on system sciences, Hawaii.

  38. Kumar, M., & Feldman, S. I. (1998). Business negotiations on the Internet (Technical Report). IBM Research Division, New York.

  39. Koumoutsos, G., & Thramboulidis, K. (2007). Towards a framework for automated e-negotiations. In International conference on e-business (ICE-B), Barcelona, Spain.

  40. WfMC—XML Precess Definition Language. http://www.wfmc.org/standards/xpdl.htm. Accessed 25 November 2008.

  41. Kephart, J. O., & Das, R. (2007). Achieving self-management via utility functions. IEEE Internet Computing, 11(1), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ragone, A., Straccia, U., Noia, T., Sciascio, E., & Donini, F. (2008). Towards a fuzzy logic for automated multi-issue negotiation. In FoIKS (pp. 381–396).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

    Giannis Koumoutsos & Kleanthis Thramboulidis

Authors
  1. Giannis Koumoutsos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kleanthis Thramboulidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giannis Koumoutsos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koumoutsos, G., Thramboulidis, K. A knowledge-based framework for complex, proactive and service-oriented e-negotiation systems. Electron Commer Res 9, 317–349 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-009-9040-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-009-9040-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation