Advertisement

Making Electronic Contracting Operational and Trustworthy

  • Joana Urbano
  • Henrique Lopes Cardoso
  • Eugénio Oliveira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6433)

Abstract

An Electronic Institution includes a normative environment with rules and norms for agents’ interoperability, and is also a service providing platform that assists agents in the task of establishing and conducting normative relationships (contracts). Using this platform, agents representing organizations willing to engage in a collective contractual activity select partners according to different factors, including their capabilities, current business needs and information on past business experiences that may be used as inputs to trust building. In our framework we have designed a tightly coupled connection between electronic contract monitoring and a computational trust model. In this paper, we explain the rationale behind this connection and detail how it is materialized. In particular, we explain how our situation-aware trust model relies on past contractual behavior to dynamically build up a trustworthiness image of each agent that can be helpful for future encounters. Experiments with simplified scenarios show the effectiveness of our approach.

Keywords

Trust Model Virtual Enterprise Normative Environment Contractual Obligation Trust Evidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: Electronic Institutions for B2B: Dynamic Normative Environments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1), 107–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oliveira, E., Rocha, A.P.: Agents Advanced Features for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce and Virtual Organisations Formation Process. In: Sierra, C., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 78–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopes Cardoso, H., Oliveira, E.: Monitoring Directed Obligations with Flexible Deadlines: A Rule-Based Approach. In: Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., Lloyd, J., Van Riemsdijk, M.B. (eds.) DALT 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5948, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Urbano, J., Rocha, A.P., Oliveira, E.: Refining the Trustworthiness Assessment of Suppliers through Extraction of Stereotypes. In: 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Madeira – Portugal (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arcos, J.L., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18(2), 191–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power. Logic Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 427–443 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atiyah, P.S.: An Introduction to the Law of Contract, 4th edn. Clarendon Law Series. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman-Hill, E.: Jess in Action. Manning Publications Co. (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellifemine, F., Poggi, A., Rimassa, G.: Jade: A FIPA-compliant agent framework. In: Practical Applications of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agents, pp. 97–108 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    FIPA, FIPA Subscribe Interaction Protocol Specification, http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00035/index.html
  12. 12.
    Sabater, J., Paolucci, M.: On Representation and Aggregation of Social Evaluations. Computational Trust and Reputation Models. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Formal Analysis of Models for the Dynamics of Trust Based on Experiences. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1647, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Urbano, J., Rocha, A.P., Oliveira, E.: Computing Confidence Values: Does Trust Dynamics Matter? In: Seabra Lopes, L., Lau, N., Mariano, P., Rocha, L.M. (eds.) EPIA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5816, pp. 520–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) ISBN 978-3-642-04685-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of Decision Trees. Machine Learning 1(1), 81–106 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rehak, M., Gregor, M., Pechoucek, M.: Multidimensional context representations for situational trust. In: IEEE Workshop on Distributed Intelligent Systems: Collective Intelligence and Its Applications, pp. 315–320 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joana Urbano
    • 1
  • Henrique Lopes Cardoso
    • 1
  • Eugénio Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACC - Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Laboratory, DEIFaculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations