Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 93–131 | Cite as

A policy-based B2C e-Contract management workflow methodology using semantic web agents

  • Kalliopi Kravari
  • Nick Bassiliades
  • Guido Governatori
Article

Abstract

Since e-Commerce has become a discipline, e-Contracts are acknowledged as the tools that will assure the safety and robustness of the transactions. A typical e-Contract is a binding agreement between parties that creates relations and obligations. It consists of clauses that address specific tasks of the overall procedure which can be represented as workflows. Similarly to e-Contracts, Intelligent Agents manage a private policy, a set of rules representing requirements, obligations and restrictions, additionally to personal data that meet their user’s interests. In this context, this study aims at proposing a policy-based e-Contract workflow management methodology that can be used by semantic web agents, since agents benefit from Semantic Web technologies for data and policy exchanges, such as RDF and RuleML that maximize interoperability among parties. Furthermore, this study presents the integration of the above methodology into a multi-agent knowledge-based framework in order to deal with issues related to rules exchange where no common syntax is used, since this framework provides reasoning services that assist agents in interpreting the exchanged policies. Finally, a B2C e-Commerce scenario is presented that demonstrates the added value of the approach.

Keywords

Semantic Web Intelligent Agents e-Contracts Workflows Policies Defeasible Reasoning 

References

  1. Antoniou G, Skylogiannis T, Bikakis A, Doerr M, Bassiliades N (2007) DR-BROKERING: a semantic brokering system. Knowl-Based Syst 20(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou G, Dimaresis N, Governatori G (2009) A modal and deontic defeasible reasoning system for modelling policies and multi-agent systems. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):4125–4134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASC (2013) Advanced software concepts. United States: 16 corporate way, Suite 2-3284, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassiliades N, Antoniou G, Vlahavas I (2006) A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic web. Int J Seman Web Inf Syst 2(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassiliades N, Antoniou G, Governatori G (2007) Proof explanation in the DR-DEVICE system. In: Proceeding of the 11th international conference on web reasoning and rule systems (RR ‘07), LNCS 4524, p 249–258Google Scholar
  6. BBBO: Better Business Bureau Organization (2012) Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. http://www.bbb.org/
  7. Bellifemine F, Caire G, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2003) JADE: a white paper. EXP Search Innov 3(3):6–19Google Scholar
  8. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Scientific American Magazine 284(5):34–43 (Revised 2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boley H, Kifer M (2010) A guide to the basic logic dialect for rule interchange on the web. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 22(11):1593–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boley H, Paschke A, Shafiq O (2010) RuleML 1.0: the overarching specification of web rules. In: Proceeding of the 4th international web rule symposium: research based and industry focused (RuleML’10) 6403, p 162–178Google Scholar
  11. Chiu D, Cheung S, Till S, Karlapalem K, Li Q, Kafeza E (2004) Workflow view driven cross-organizational interoperability in a web service environment. Inf Technol Manage 5(3–4):221–250CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Chopra A, Oren N, Modgil S, Desai N, Miles S, Luck M, Singh M (2011) Analyzing contract robustness through a model of commitments. Agent Oriented Softw Eng XI LNCS 6788:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CONTRACT (2006) Contract based systems engineering methods contract based systems engineering methods for verifiable cross for verifiable cross-organisational networked organisational networked business applications business applications, 6th framework programme, pr. number FP6-034418Google Scholar
  14. Daskalopulu A, Dimitrakos T, Maibaum T (2001) E-Contract fulfilment and agents’ attitudes. In: Presented in ERCIM WG E-Commerce workshop on the role of trust in e Business, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  15. Degel M (2013) Adopting semantic technology in the enterprise. In: Opening keynote at semantic technology & business conference (SemTechBiz), San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunne P, Wooldridge M, Laurence M (2005) The complexity of contract negotiation. Artif Intell 164(1–2):23–46MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Exari Systems (2013) Exari document assembly and contract management. Melbourne: Level 7, 10–16 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. Gärtner M, Seidel I, Berger H (2008) Agent mediated trading in a 3D e-tourism environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on electronic commerce (ICEC ‘08), p 14:1–14:10Google Scholar
  19. Gattani A (2013) How to connect people and products using big, fast, and heterogeneous data. In: Opening keynote at semantic technology & business conference (SemTechBiz), San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. GoodRelations Project (2013) The web vocabulary for E-Commerce. Universität der Bundeswehr München, E-Business and Web Science Research Group, MunichGoogle Scholar
  21. Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Coop Inf Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Governatori G, Pham DH (2009) DR-CONTRACT: an architecture for e-Contracts in defeasible logic. Int J Business Process Integr Manag 4(3):187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Governatori G, Rotolo A (2008) BIO logical agents: norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. J Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 17(1):36–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Governatori G, Dumas M, Hofstedeter A, Oaks P (2001) A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (Legal) negotiation. ICAIL 2001:168–177Google Scholar
  25. Grosof BN, Poon TC (2004) SweetDeal: representing agent contracts with exceptions using semantic web rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. Int J Electron Commer (IJEC) 8(4):61–98 special issue on web e-commerce Google Scholar
  26. Gummesson E, Polese F (2009) B2B is not an island! J Bus Ind Mark 24(5/6):337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. He H, Haas H, Orchard D (2004) Web services architecture usage scenarios. W3C working group note, 11 February 2004. Retrieved 1 Nov 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch-scenarios/
  28. Hendler J (2001) Agents and the semantic web. IEEE Intell Syst 16(2):30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hensher D, Stanley J (2008) Transacting under a performance-based contract: the role of negotiation and competitive tendering. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 42(9):1143–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huang CC, Liang WY, Lai YH, Lin YC (2010) The agent-based negotiation process for B2C e-commerce. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):348–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huang H, Kauffman R, Xu H, Zhao L (2011) Mechanism design for e-procurement auctions: on the efficacy of post-auction negotiation and quality effort incentives. Electron Commer Res Appl 10(6):650–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hutt M, Speh T (2012) Business marketing management: B2B, 11th edn. South-Western, Cengage Learning, MasonGoogle Scholar
  33. IACCM: The International Association for Contract & Commercial Management. Worldwide Head Office, 90 Grove Street, Ridgefield, CT 06877, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Indukuri KV, Krishna PR (2010) Mining e-contract documents to classify clauses. In: Proceedings of the third annual ACM Bangalore conference (COMPUTE ‘10), Article 7, 5 pagesGoogle Scholar
  35. Infosys (2013) White paper: contract lifecycle management. The DNA of procurement. Retrieved 15 Jan 2014. http://www.infosys.com/supply-chain/white-papers/Documents/contract-lifecycle-management.pdf
  36. Jertila A, Schoop M (2005) LAP and semantic web: a language action perspective on electronic contracts. In: Proceedings of the 10th international working conference on the language action perspective on communication modeling (LAP 2005), p 157–171Google Scholar
  37. JESS, the Rule Engine for the Java Platform (2008) Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. http://www.jessrules.com/
  38. Karlapalem K, Krishna R (2006) State-of-the-Art in modeling and deployment of electronic contracts. In: Advances in conceptual modeling-theory and practice, LNCS, vol 4231. Springer, Berlin, p 3–4Google Scholar
  39. Kontopoulos E, Bassiliades N, Antoniou G (2011) Visualizing semantic web proofs of defeasible logic in the DR-DEVICE system. Knowl Based Syst 24(3):406–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koons R (2009) Defeasible reasoning. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/
  41. Koppensteiner G, Merdan M, Lepuschitz W, Moser T, Reinprecht C (2011) Multi agent systems combined with semantic technologies for automated negotiation in virtual enterprises. In: Modeling, control, programming, simulations and applications, INTECH, p 221–240Google Scholar
  42. Kravari K, Bassiliades N (2012) Advanced agent discovery services. In: Procedings of the 2nd international conference on web intelligence, mining and semantics (WIMS ‘12), Article 38, p 338–349Google Scholar
  43. Kravari K, Kontopoulos E, Bassiliades N (2009a) A trusted defeasible reasoning service for brokering agents in the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on intelligent distributed computing (IDC’09), vol 237, p 243–248Google Scholar
  44. Kravari K, Kontopoulos E, Bassiliades N (2009b) Towards a knowledge-based framework for agents interacting in the semantic web. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (IAT’09), vol 2, p 482–485Google Scholar
  45. Kravari K, Kastori GE, Bassiliades N, Governatori G (2010) A contract agreement policy-based workflow methodology for agents interacting in the semantic web. In: Semantic web rules, proceedings of the 4th international web rule symposium (RuleML 2010): LNCS, vol 6403, p 225–239 (Best Paper Award)Google Scholar
  46. Kravari K, Kontopoulos E, Bassiliades N (2010a) EMERALD: a multi-agent system for knowledge-based reasoning interoperability in the semantic web. In: Konstantopoulos S, Perantonis SJ, Karkaletsis V, Spyropoulos CD, Vouros GA (Ed.), Artificial intelligence: theories, models and applications, 6th hellenic conference on artificial intelligence, SETN 2010: LNCS, vol 6040/2010, p 173–182Google Scholar
  47. Kravari K, Kontopoulos E, Bassiliades N (2010c) Trusted reasoning services for semantic web agents. Informatica 34(4):429–440Google Scholar
  48. Kravari K, Malliarakis C, Bassiliades N (2010) T-REX: a hybrid agent trust model based on witness reputation and personal experience. In: Proceeding of 11th international conference on electronic commerce and web technologies (EC-Web 2010): LNBIP, 61(3), 107–118Google Scholar
  49. Kravari K, Papatheodorou K, Antoniou G, Bassiliades N (2011). Reasoning and proofing services for semantic web agents. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-2011). Best Paper Track, vol 3, p 2662–2667Google Scholar
  50. Krishna PR, Karlapalem K (2008) Electronic contracts. IEEE Internet Comput 12(4):60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krishna PR, Karlapalem K, Chiu DK (2004) An EREC framework for e-contract modeling, enactment and monitoring. Data Knowl Eng 51(1):31–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krishna PR, Karlapalem K, Dani AR (2005) From contracts to e-contracts: modeling and enactment. Inf Technol Manage 6(4):363–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Laudon K, Traver CG (2012) E-Commerce 2012, 8th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee A, Seamons K, Winslett M, Yu T (2007) Automated trust negotiation in open systems. In: Secure data management in decentralized systems, advances in information security, vol 33. Springer, p 217–258Google Scholar
  55. Lin J (2008) A conceptual model for negotiating in service-oriented environments. Inf Process Lett 108(4):192–203MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maher MJ (2001) Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory Pract Log Program 1(6):691–711MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Mawji A (2005) Contract life-cycle management. Retrieved 15 Jan 2014. http://www.ncmahq.org/files/Articles/390E6_CM_Nov05_p38.pdf
  58. Miles S, Oren N, Luck M, Modgil S, Faci N, Holt C, Vickers G (2008). Modelling and administration of contract-based systems. In: Proceedings of the AISB 2008 symposium on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, p 19–24Google Scholar
  59. Moreno A (2008) Agent applications in tourism. In: Issues in multi-agent systems, Whitestein series in software agent technologies, p 179–206Google Scholar
  60. NCMA: National Contract Management Association. Headquarters: NCMA, 21740 Beaumeade Circle, Suite 125, Ashburn, Virginia 20147, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. Nute D (1987) Defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on systems science, p 470–477Google Scholar
  62. BPMN, Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (2012) Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. http://www.bpmn.org/
  63. Park H, Yoon A, Kwon HC (2012) Task model and task ontology for intelligent tourist information service. Int J u- e-Service, Sci Technol 5(2):43–58Google Scholar
  64. Patterson M (2010) Standardization of standard-form contracts: competition and contract implications. William Mary Law Rev 52(2):327–414Google Scholar
  65. Pollock JL (1992) How to reason defeasibly. Artif Intell 57(1):1–42MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. RDF Specifications: Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification (2004) Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-syntax/
  67. Šaučiūnas M (2012) Automated e-Contract negotiation in web service environment: electronic contract management aspects. In: Tenth international baltic conference on databases and information systems, p 241–247Google Scholar
  68. Silva GC, de Souza Gimenes IM, Fantinato M, de Toledo BF (2012) Towards a process for negotiation of E-Contracts involving web services. In: VIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação (SBSI 2012), p 267–278Google Scholar
  69. 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 Knowl Eng 63(2):362–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stadermann J, Symons S, Thon I (2013) Extracting hierarchical data points and tables from scanned contracts. In: UIMA@GSCL, vol 1038, p 50–57Google Scholar
  71. Stuart R, Norvig P (2009) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Turban E, King D (2011) Electronic commerce 2012: managerial and social networks perspectives, 1st edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  73. Udupi Y, Singh M (2006) Contract enactment in virtual organizations: a commitment-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), p 722–728Google Scholar
  74. UNCTAD: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2012). Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. http://www.unctad.org
  75. Vidyasankar K, Krishna R, Karlapalem K (2007) A multi-level model for activity commitments in E-Contracts. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS, LNCS, vol 4803, p 300–317Google Scholar
  76. Yueh YTF, Chiu DKW, Leung H, Hung PCK (2007) A virtual travel agent system for M-tourism with semantic web service based design and implementation. In: Advanced information networking and applications, AINA ‘07, p 142–149Google Scholar
  77. Zhang XM (2009) A semantic grid oriented to E-Tourism. In: CloudCom 2009, LNCS 5931, p 485–496Google Scholar
  78. Ζycus (2013) 5 steps to realizing value from contract lifecycle management. Retrieved 15 Jan 2014. http://www.zycus.com/newsletter/jan-2013/5step-contract-lifecycle-management_final.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalliopi Kravari
    • 1
  • Nick Bassiliades
    • 1
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Data61, CSIRO, NICTASpring HillAustralia

Personalised recommendations