Advertisement

A Petri-Net-Based Modeling Framework for Automated Negotiation Protocols in Electronic Commerce

  • Shujuan Ji
  • Qijia Tian
  • Yongquan Liang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4078)

Abstract

A negotiation protocol is a specification of the rules that govern deliberation among negotiation agents. To model negotiation protocols formally is an important task in the designing of automated negotiation systems for electronic commerce. Lots of work has been done for negotiation modeling, but there still lacks a formalism for negotiation protocols of time-constrained multi-issue negotiation, which can be widely applied in electronic commerce. This paper proposes a modeling framework for time constrained multi-issue negotiation protocol. An extended Colored Petri Net model is proposed and used to represent the modeling framework formally. To illustrate the applicability of the extended Colored Petri Net model, an auction protocol with fixed number of bidders are modeled and the model’s characteristics are verified using the Petri Net verification tool HPSim.

Keywords

Agent Automated Negotiation Negotiation protocol Petri Net 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bichler, M., Kersten, G., Strecker, S.: Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations. Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 12(4), 311–335 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennings, N.R., et al.: Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lomuscio, A.R., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce. Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 12(1), 31–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Purvis, M., et al.: Multi-Agent System Interaction Protocols in a Dynamically Changing Environment. In: An Application Science for Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 95–112. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandholm, T.: Distributed Rational Decision Making. Multi-agent Systems, http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~sandholm/rational.ps
  6. 6.
    Simmon, C., Rebstock, M.: Integration of Multi-attributed Negotiations within Business Procoesses. In: Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080, pp. 148–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greaves, M., Bradshaw, J. (eds): Specifying and Implementing Conversation Policies, Autonomous Agents 1999 Workshop, Seattle, WA (May 1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nowostawski, M., Purvis, M., Cranefield, S.: A Layered Approach for Modeling Agent Conversations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Infrastructure for Agents, MAS, and Scalable MAS, Montreal, pp. 163–170 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    FIPA. FIPA protocol specifications, http://www.fipa.org/repository/ips.html
  10. 10.
    Smith, R.G.: The Contract Net Protocol: High-level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-29(12), 1104–1113 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergenti, F., et al.: A Contract Decommitment Protocol for Automated Negotiation in Time Variant Environments, http://www-lia.deis.unibo.it/books/woa2001/pdf/03.pdf
  12. 12.
    Winogradand, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, pp. 54–69. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barbuceanu, M., Fox, M.S.: COOL: A Language for Describing Coordination in Multi-Agent Systems. In: Lesser, V. (ed.) Proceeding of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 17–24. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartolini, C., et al.: A Generic Software Framework for Automated Negotiation. HP Labs Technical Report, HPL-2002-2, Palo Alto (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lind, J.: Specifying agent interaction protocols with standard UML. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, pp. 136–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-Agent systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, ch. 2. Addison-wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott Cost, R., et al.: Coordinating Agents using Agent Communication Languages Conversations. In: Coordination of Internet Agents: Models, Technologies, and Applications, London, pp. 183–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Köhler, M., Moldt, D., Rölke, H.: Modelling the Structure and Behavior of Petri Net Agents. In: Colom, J.-M., Koutny, M. (eds.) ICATPN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2075, pp. 224–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hung, P.C.K., Mao, J.-Y.: Modeling e-Negotiation Activity with Petri Nets. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science, pp. 26–36. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, H., Shatz, S.M.: An Agent-based Petri Net Model with Application to Seller/Buyer Design in Electronic Commerce. In: Proceedings the 5th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems, Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 11–18 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fisher, M., Wooldridge, M.: Specifying and Executing Protocols for Cooperative Action. In: Deen, S.M. (ed.) Proceeding of the Second International Working Conference on Cooperating Knowledge-Based Systems, pp. 13–28. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kakehi, R., Tokoro, M.: A Negotiation Protocol for Conflict Resolution in Multi-Agent Environments. In: Proceeding of 1st International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 185–196. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    FIPA. Agent Communication Language. FIPA Agent Communication Language, http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00003/OC00003A.html
  24. 24.
    Parunak, V.: Visualizing agent conversations: Using enhanced Dooley graphs for agent design and analysis, http://www.erim.org/vparunak/dooldesn.pdf
  25. 25.
    Singh, M.P.: Developing Formal Specifications to Coordinate Heterogeneous Autonomous Agents. In: International Conference on Multi Agent Systems 1998, pp. 261–268. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kraus, S.: Beliefs, Time and Incomplete Information in Multiple Encounter Negotiations Among Autonomous Agents. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 20(1-4), 111–159 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tamma, V., Wooldridge, M., Dickinson, I.: An ontology based approach to automated negotiation. In: Padget, J., Shehory, O., Parkes, D.C., Sadeh, N.M., Walsh, W.E. (eds.) AMEC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2531, pp. 219–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yuan, C.: Petri Net Theory, pp. 76–99. Electronic industry publishing company, Beijing (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wooldridge, M., Shi, C., et al. (trans.): An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, pp. 91–114. Electronic industry publishing company, Beijing (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shujuan Ji
    • 1
  • Qijia Tian
    • 1
  • Yongquan Liang
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information Science and EngineeringShandong University of Science and TechnologyP.R. China

Personalised recommendations