2001
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45439-x_34
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Broker-Based Secure Negotiation of Intellectual Property Rights

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More complex negotiation protocols allow the information provider and user to reach an agreement through several exchanges of offers and counter-offers [36,10,12]. The offers and counter-offers may be constructed by human negotiators (presumably using some tool for constructing machine-readable licences), or by automated software agents [106,35,53].…”
Section: Rights Negotiationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More complex negotiation protocols allow the information provider and user to reach an agreement through several exchanges of offers and counter-offers [36,10,12]. The offers and counter-offers may be constructed by human negotiators (presumably using some tool for constructing machine-readable licences), or by automated software agents [106,35,53].…”
Section: Rights Negotiationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This presumption could be verified because more articles, published in the last two years, work on two standards at least. Regarding XML-based standards which are not assigned to XML Security, some interesting observations could be made: XrML emerges only one time in (Delgado, Gallego & Perramon 2001). Due to their similarity XACML and SAML often occur together, particularly in connection with Web Services.…”
Section: H3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Article WS Pub App Enh XSig XEnc XKMS (Alvaro, Farrell, Lindberg, Lockhart & Zhang 2005) 0 E N N 0 0 2 (Barhoom & Zhang 2004) 0 U Y N 2 0 0 (Beznozov, Flinn, Kawamoto & Hartman 2005) 2 E+U N N 1 1 0 (Boyer 2003) 0 E N N 2 0 0 (Bull, Stanski & Squire 2003) 0 U N Y 2 0 0 0 U N Y 2 0 0 (Bull, Squire & Zheng 2004) 0 U N Y 2 0 0 (Camenisch, Gross & Sommer 2006) 2 E Y N 2 0 0 (Chang & Hwang 2007) 0 U N Y 1 2 0 (Chen et al 2005) 2 U Y N 2 0 0 (Cho 2006) 2 U Y N 2 0 0 (Delgado et al 2001) 0 U Y N 1 0 0 (Geuer-Pollmann 2002) 0 U N Y 0 2 0 (Giereth 2005) 0 U Y N 1 2 0 (Hormann et al 2006) 0 E N N 0 0 2 (Hung et al 2003) 2 U Y N 2 2 0 (Hussain & Soh 2004) 0 U N Y 2 0 0 (Hwang & Chang 2004) 0 U N Y 2 2 0 (Imamura et al 2002) 0 E Y N 0 2 0 1 U N Y 1 1 2 (Kim, Kim, Kim & Shim 2006) 1 U N Y 2 0 1 (Kubbilun et al 2005) 0 E+U N Y 2 0 0 (Lee et al 2002) 0 E N Y 2 0 0 (Lee, Kwon, Lee, Oh & Ko 2003) 2 E Y N 1 1 1 (Lee et al 2005 (Park, Moon & Sohn 2003) 0 U Y N 1 1 2 (Park, Moon, Jang & Sohn 2004a) 2 U N Y 1 1 2 (Park, Moon, Jang & Sohn 2004b) 2 U Y N 1 1 2 (Park, Moon, Jang & Sohn 2004c) 2 U Y N 1 1 2 2 E N Y 1 1 2 1 U Y N 1 1 2 (Park, Kim, Chung, Kim & Won 2005) 2 U Y N 1 1 2 (Park, Moon, Jang, Sohn & Won 2005) 2 U N Y 1 1 2 (Park, Moon, Kim, Chung & Sohn 2005) 2 Y Y Y 2 0 0 (Park et al 2006) 1 U Y Y 2 2 2 (Polivy & Tamassia 2002) 2 E+U Y N 2 0 0 (Schadow 2005) 0 Priv. Y N 2 2 0 (Shirasuna et al 2004) 1 U N N 2 0 0 (Sun ...…”
Section: Acknowledgmentmentioning
confidence: 99%