A Contract Agreement Policy-Based Workflow Methodology for Agents Interacting in the Semantic Web

  • Kalliopi Kravari
  • Grammati-Eirini Kastori
  • Nick Bassiliades
  • Guido Governatori
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6403)

Abstract

The Semantic Web aims at automating Web content understanding and user request satisfaction. Intelligent agents assist towards this by performing complex actions on behalf of their users into real-life applications, such as e-Contracts, which make transactions simple by modeling the processes involved. This paper, presents a policy-based workflow methodology for efficient contract agreement among agents interacting in the Semantic Web. In addition, we present the integration of this methodology into a multi-agent knowledge-based framework, providing flexibility, reusability and interoperability of behavior between agents. The main advantage of our approach is that it provides a safe, generic, and reusable framework for modeling and monitoring e-Contract agreements, which could be used for different types of on-line transactions among agents. Furthermore, our framework is based on Semantic Web and FIPA standards, to maximize interoperability and reusability. Finally, an e-Commerce contract negotiation scenario is presented that illustrates the usability of the approach.

Keywords

semantic web intelligent agents e-Contracts defeasible reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., et al.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hendler, J.: Agents and the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 30–37 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krishna, P.R., Karlapalem, K., Dani, A.R.: From Contracts to E-Contracts: Modeling and Enactment. Inf. Technol. and Management 6(4), 363–387 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merz, M., et al.: Supporting electronic commerce transactions with contracting services. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 7(4), 249–274 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiu, D.K.W., et al.: Workflow View Driven Cross-Organizational Interoperability in a Web-Service Environment. In: Bussler, C.J., McIlraith, S.A., Orlowska, M.E., Pernici, B., Yang, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2002 and WES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2512, pp. 41–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daskalopulu, A., Dimitrakos, T., Maibaum, T.: E-Contract Fulfilment and Agents’ Attitudes. In: ERCIM WG E-Commerce Workshop on The Role of Trust in e Business, Zurich (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winsborough, W., Li, N.: Safety in Automated Trust Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, pp. 147–160. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, A., Seamons, K., Winslett, M., Yu, T.: Automated Trust Negotiation in Open Systems. In: Secure Data Management in Decentralized Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kravari, K., Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N.: Towards a Knowledge-based Framework for Agents Interacting in the Semantic Web. In: 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM Int. Conf. on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2009), Milan, Italy, vol. 2, pp. 482–485 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kravari, K., Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N.: A Trusted Defeasible Reasoning Service for Brokering Agents in the Semantic Web. In: 3rd Int. Symp. on Intelligent Distributed Computing (IDC 2009), Cyprus, October 13-14, vol. 237, pp. 243–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    JESS, the Rule Engine for the Java Platform, http://www.jessrules.com/
  12. 12.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A Defeasible Logic Reasoner for the Semantic Web. IJSWIS 2(1), 1–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boley, H.: An Introduction to Object-Oriented RuleML. In: Pires, F.M., Abreu, S.P. (eds.) EPIA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2902, p. 4. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible Reasoning. In: 20th Int. Conf. on Systems Science, pp. 470–477. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, N., Grosof, B.N., Feigenbaum, J.: Delegation Logic: A Logic-based Approach to Distributed Authorization. ACM Trans. on Information Systems Security 6(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antoniou, G., Arief, M.: Executable Declarative Business rules and their use in Electronic Commerce. In: Proc. ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Governatori, G.: Representing Business Contracts in RuleML. Int. J. of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoniou, G., Skylogiannis, T., Bikakis, A., Doerr, M., Bassiliades, N.: DR-BROKERING: A Semantic Brokering System. Knowledge-Based Systems 20(1), 61–72 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Governatori, G., ter Hofstede, A., Oaks, P.: Defeasible Logic for Automated Negotiation. In: Proceedings of CollECTeR 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Governatori, G., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., Oaks, P.: A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation. In: Proc. ICAIL 2001, pp. 168–177 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skylogiannis, T., Antoniou, G., Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G., Bikakis, A.: DR-NEGOTIATE – A System for Automated Agent Negotiation with Defeasible Logic-Based Strategies. Data & Knowledge Engineering 63(2), 362–380 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Best Business Bureau Organization, http://www.bbb.org/
  25. 25.
    Governatori, G., Hoang, D.P.: A Semantic Web Based Architecture for e-Contracts in Defeasible Logic. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 145–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grosof, B.N., Poon, T.C.: SweetDeal: Representing Agent Contracts with Exceptions using XML Rules, Ontologies and Process Descriptions. In: 12th WWW, pp. 340–349. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krishna, P.R., Karlapalem, K., Chiu, D.K.: An EREC Framework for e-contract Modeling, Enactment and Monitoring. Data Knowl. Eng. 51(1), 31–58 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Badica, C., Ganzha, M., Paprzycki, M.L.: Implementing Rule-Based Automated Price Negotiation in an Agent System. J. of Universal Computer Science 13(2), 244–266 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalliopi Kravari
    • 1
  • Grammati-Eirini Kastori
    • 1
  • Nick Bassiliades
    • 1
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.NICTA, Queensland Research LaboratoryAustralia

Personalised recommendations