Contract E-Negotiation in Agricultural Supply Chains

Bacarin, Evandro; Madeira, Edmundo Roberto Mauro; Medeiros, Cláudia Bauzer

doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415120403

Cited by 13 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For simplicity's sake some details were omitted. The complete description is presented in [BMM08]. Usually, a negotiation process consists of determining the price for an item.…”

Section: Spica's Contracts and Negotiation Protocol: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participants are Web services that use the messages presented in the previous section (Section 4.3) to develop the intended negotiation (see [BMM08]). Thus, sending a negotia-tion message to a participant means invoking a particular operation of a service.…”

Section: Implementation Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is also a setup interface (interface S) that is out of the scope of this paper. Every negotiator (NM) implements a set of specific interfaces (described in [BMM08]) depicted as gray circles. Operations of these interfaces are activated when the corresponding negotiation message is dispatched to the negotiator.…”

Section: Ns Custom Servicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, implementation issues are handled either at the protocol (communications) level or concern negotiation logics. In [BMM08] we discuss SPICA Negotiation Protocol (SPICA, for short), a new kind of contract e-negotiation in which each clause may be established according to a different negotiation protocol. This provides the flexibility needed in multiparty negotiation in which partners change at each situation (e.g., typical of supply chains).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

SPIℂA'S MULTI-PARTY NEGOTIATION PROTOCOL: IMPLEMENTATION USING YAWL

Baccarin

Madeira

Medeiros

et al. 2011

Int. J. Coop. Info. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A supply chain comprises several different kinds of actors that interact either in an ad hoc fashion (e.g. an eventual deal) or in a previously well-planned way. In the latter, how the interactions develop is described in contracts that are agreed on before the interactions start. This agreement may involve several partners, thus a multi-party contract is better suited than a set of bi-lateral contracts. If one is willing to negotiate automatically such kind of contracts, an appropriate negotiation protocol should be at hand. However, the ones for bi-lateral contracts are not suitable for multi-party contracts, e.g. the way to achieve consensus when only two negotiators are haggling over some issues is quite different if there are several negotiators involved. In the first case, a simple bargain would suffice, but in the latter a ballot process is needed. This paper briefly presents our negotiation protocol for electronic multi-party contracts which seamlessly combines several negotiation styles. It also elaborates on the main negotiation patterns the protocol allows for: bargain (for peer-to-peer negotiation), auction (when there is competition among the negotiators) and ballot (when the negotiation aims at consensus) and presents other patterns that can be built on these basic ones. Finally, it describes an implementation of this protocol based on Web services, and built on the YAWL Workflow Management System.

show abstract

“…For simplicity's sake some details were omitted. The complete description is presented in [BMM08]. Usually, a negotiation process consists of determining the price for an item.…”

Section: Spica's Contracts and Negotiation Protocol: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implementation Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ns Custom Servicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

SPIℂA'S MULTI-PARTY NEGOTIATION PROTOCOL: IMPLEMENTATION USING YAWL

Baccarin

Madeira

Medeiros

et al. 2011

Int. J. Coop. Info. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For models of contract negotiation see, among others, Reeves et al (2002); Rittgen (2008); Bacarin et al (2008).…”

Section: Contracts In Rulemlmentioning

confidence: 99%

DR-CONTRACT: an architecture for e-contracts in defeasible logic

Governatori

Pham

2009

IJBPIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We introduce the DR-CONTRACT architecture to represent and reason on e-Contracts. The architecture extends the DR-device architecture by a deontic defeasible logic of violation. We motivate the choice for the logic and we show how to extend RuleML to capture the notions relevant to describe e-contracts for a monitoring perspective in Defeasible Logic.Keywords: Defeasible Deontic Logic, Violations, e-Contract.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Guido Governatori and Duy Hoang Pham (2009) Biographical notes: Guido Governatori received his Ph.D. in computer science and law at the University of Bologna in 1997. Since then he has held academic and research positions at Imperial College, Griffith University, Queensland University of Technology, the University of Queensland, and NICTA. He has published more than 160 scientific papers in logic, artificial intelligence, and database and information systems. His current research interests include modal and nonclassical logics, defeasible reasoning and its application to normative reasoning and e-commerce, agent systems, and business process modeling for regulatory compliance. He is a member of the editorial board of Artificial Intelligence and Law.Duy Hoang Pham is a lecturer at

show abstract