Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 741–754 | Cite as

Context-Sensitive Semantic Synchronization Enablement in Electronic Negotiations

  • Heiko Paulheim
  • Janina FengelEmail author
  • Michael Rebstock


When integrating electronic negotiations into real-world business processes, an important problem arising is the magnitude of e-business standards in use. In order to support electronic negotiations when negotiation partners use and need to integrate terms named and formatted according to different document standards, taxonomies or similar standards, references between those standards are needed. In this paper, we present a framework for a negotiation support meta-tool which is designed to maintain and dynamically evolve a collection of such references. To deal with semantic ambiguities in different contexts, it provides users with context-sensitive references. The framework uses technologies from ontological engineering and machine learning, its services can be integrated into existing negotiation applications via web services. Furthermore, it allows parameterzation for the actual domain of use.


Multi-attribute negotiation Semantic synchronization Ontologies Semantic interoperability Business integration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beam C, Segev A, Bichler M, Krishnan R (1999) On negotiations and deal making in electronic markets. Inf Syst Front 1(3):241–258,, 8. Nov. 06
  2. Becks A, Huster J, Jarke M, Jertila A, Kensche D, Quix C, Seeling C (2005) Value-added services enabling semantic web technologies for SMEs. In: Proceedings poster & demonstration, international semantic web conference (ISWC), Galway, Ireland, (2005), 25. Okt. 06
  3. Beneventano D, Guerra F, Magnani S, Vincini M (2004) A Web service based framework for the semantic mapping amongst product classification schemas. J Electron Commerce Res 5(2):114–127, 10 Nov. 2006
  4. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am Mag 284(5): 34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun P, Brzostowski J, Kersten G, Kim JB, Kowalczyk R, Strecker S, Vahidov R (2006) e-Negotiation systems and software agents: methods, models, and applications. In: Special Issue on Frontiers in GDN research,'bcStrecker/idmss06.pdf, 25 Oct. 2006 (to appear)
  6. Corcho O, Gómez-Pérez A (2001) Solving integration problems of e-commerce standards and initiatives through ontological mappings. In: Proceedings of the workshop on E-Business and intelligent web at the seventeenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI2001), Seattle, USA, August 5, 2001,, 10 Nov. 2006
  7. Dudani S (1976) The distance-weighted k-nearest-neighbor rule. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 6: 325–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkan C (1997) Boosting and Naive Bayesian learning. Technical Report No. CS97-557, September 1997, UCSD,, 31 Oct. 2006
  9. Fensel D, Omelayenko B, Ding Y, Klein M, Flett A, Schulten E, Botquin G, Brown M, Dabiri G (2002) Intelligent information integration in B2B electronic commerce. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Fensel D (2001) Ontologies and electronic commerce. Intell Syst IEEE 16(1):8–14, 10 Nov. 2006
  11. Ferror-Troyano Francisco J, Aguilar-Ruiz Jesús S, Riquelme José C (2001) Non-parametric nearest neighbor with local adaption. In: Bradzil P, Jorge A (eds) EPIA 2001, LNAI 2258. Springer, Berlin, pp 22–29Google Scholar
  12. Gómez-Pérez A, Fernández-López M, Corcho O (2004) Ontological engineering. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Hepp M (2006) Ontologizing eClass, 31 Oct. 2006
  14. Hümmer W (2005) Produktkonfiguration im E-business. Ibidem, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  15. Ide N, Véronis J (1998) Introduction to the special issue on word sense disambiguation: the state of the art. Comput Linguist 24(1): 1–40Google Scholar
  16. Kalfoglou Y, Schorlemmer M (2003) Ontology mapping: the state of the art. In: The knowledge engineering review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol 18(1), pp 1–31Google Scholar
  17. Kersten GE (2004) E-negotiation systems: interaction of people and technologies to resolve conflicts. Interneg Res Paper INR08/04, 2004,, 25 Oct. 2006
  18. Kersten GE, Lai H (2007) Satisfiability and completeness of protocols for electronic negotiations. Eur J Oper Res 180(2): 922–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim W, Choi Dae W, Park S (2005) Product information meta-search framework for electronic commerce through ontology mapping. In: Gómez-Pérez A, Euzenat J (eds) European semantic web conference ESWC 2005 LNCS 3532. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 408–422Google Scholar
  20. Klein M (2006) DAML+OIL and RDF Schema representation of UNSPSC, 31 Oct. 2006
  21. Koeszegi Sabine T, Srnka Katharina J, Pesendorfer E-M (2006) Electronic negotiations—a comparison of different support systems. DBW 66(4): 441–463Google Scholar
  22. Malucelli A, Palzer D, Oliveira E (2005) Combining ontologies and agents to help in solving the heterogeneity problem in E-commerce negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on data engineering issues in E-commerce (DEEC’05), 9 Nov. 2006
  23. Obrst LW, Robert E, Liu H (2001) Ontological engineering for B2B E-Commerce In: Proceedings of the international conference on formal ontology in information systems FOIS’O1, October 17–19, 2001, Ogunquit, Maine, USA, 10 Nov. 2006
  24. Rebstock M (2001) Elektronische Unterstützung und Automatisierung von Verhandlungen. Wirtschafts Inf 43(6): 609–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rebstock M, Fengel J, Paulheim H (2008) Ontologies-based business integration. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  26. Schulten E, Akkermans H, Guarino N, Botquin G, Lopes N, Dörr M, Sadeh N (2001) The E-commerce product classification challenge. Intell Syst IEEE 16:86–89, 10 Nov. 2006
  27. Stonebraker M, Hellerstein JM (2001) Content integration for E-business. ACM SIGMOD Record, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data SIGMOD‘01 30(2):552–560, 31 Oct. 2006
  28. Strecker S, Kersten G, Kim J-B, Law KP (2006) Electronic negotiation systems: the invite prototype. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006, GITO, Berlin, Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 20–22 Feb. 2006, pp 315–331Google Scholar
  29. Ströbel M (2003) Design of roles and protocols for electronic negotiations. Electron Commerce Res Specl Issue Market Des 1(3):335–353, 9 Nov. 2006
  30. Uszkoreit H (2005) Shallow language processing, deep language processing and domain ontologies. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE international conference on natural language processing and knowledge engineering, IEEE NLP-KE, 30 Oct. to 1 Nov. 2005, pp 7–8Google Scholar
  31. W3C (2004a) RDF vocabulary description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, 10 Nov. 2006
  32. W3C (2004b) OWL web ontology Language. Overview W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004,, 27 Nov. 2006
  33. Yuan Y, Turel O (2004) A business model for e-negotiation in electronic commerce, InterNeg Res Pap INR 02/04, 27 Nov. 2006
  34. Zhdanova AV, Shvaiko P (2006) Community-driven ontology matching. In: Sure Y, Domingue J (eds) The semantic web: research and applications, ESWC 2006, LNCS 4011. Springer, Berlin, pp 34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Paulheim
    • 1
  • Janina Fengel
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael Rebstock
    • 2
  1. 1.SAP Research Center DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of Applied SciencesDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations