Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] CPA negotiation, contact with negotiationresearch community plus some thoughts.

[Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>]

Hi Marty

I remember a presentation from Jeffrey Kepphart (from the IBM Thomas
Watson Research Center) at a Artificial Intelligence conference in
Stockholm.

There were more people doing crazy stuff combining software agents,
negotiation and electronic market.

Probably the IBM Research center does a lot of different things :)

Kind regards

Sacha

yOn Tue, 2004-05-25 at 04:28, Martin Sachs wrote:
> Hi Sacha,
> 
> As far as the negotiation research community goes, my main contacts have 
> been with the DSTC group in Australia, in particular Zoran Milosevic.  I 
> remember you telling me that you were aware of that team and know of Zoran.
> 
> I agree with your comments about where work is needed and in particular 
> about having to carefully consider the NDD.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> 
> At 10:58 AM 5/24/2004, Sacha Schlegel wrote:
> >Hi CPA negotiation team
> >
> >When I started with the CPA negotiation research project I was looking
> >at a negotiation suport system (at www.interneg.org) from the interneg
> >project.
> >
> >Back then I exchanged 1 or 2 emails with:
> >
> > > Dr. Gregory E. Kersten
> > > Professor of Decision and Information Systems, DSMIS
> > > Director of Information Systems and Technologies
> > > J. Molson School of Business, Concordia University
> > > 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
> > > Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8
> > > http://commerce.concordia.ca/gkersten
> > > http://interneg.org/~gregory
> >
> >Today, after almost 2 years, I sent another email to Dr. Gregory E.
> >Kersten telling him about my research project and the CPA negotiation
> >specification. I added a link to screenshots of my work. To me, my
> >prototype implementation looks a little bit like a negotiation support
> >system. It guides the negotiation actor (currently a human user) through
> >the negotiation and makes sure, the negotiation actor follows the
> >negotiation protocol (bpss).
> >
> >In New Orleans, I told Kartha, that we should get some closer contact
> >with the negotiation research community. Marty might also have some good
> >contacts with the (negotiation) research community. So I started off
> >with an email to Dr. Gregory E. Kersten.
> >
> >Currently, I am having problems to make the link between an ebXML BSI
> >and a backend application. In the CPA negotiation process, the BSI
> >executes the BPSS and uses a Message Service Interface to exchange the
> >negotiation messages and the backend application will do the negotiation
> >part.
> >
> >In my research project I provided a user interface, so the negotiation
> >actor could do the negotiation, eg. select how to react to an offer (or
> >counter offer) and to set values for a negotiable information item.
> >
> >Now, the user interface, looks like the backend application. So
> >potentially, the automated negotiation of a CPA will be done completely
> >in a backend application. If software programs (or software agents) will
> >be the negotiation actors, I think this will be the backend application.
> >
> >If the Automated Negotiation of CPA specification does not deal with the
> >actual negotiation, then I think the negotiation protocol (bpss), the
> >negotiation messages, and some negotiation rules, are already pretty
> >good. The problem I think is the high number of possiblites of what can
> >be negotiated, there are so many possiblities, that its difficult to
> >imagine.
> >
> >So, if we want to continue the negotiation path, I think we need to talk
> >about the NDD more, specially about those types of the negotiable
> >information items. In my research I did not realy use an NDD but sort of
> >a restricted NDD, where users only could negotiate over values of
> >elements and attributes of the CPA template, not about ranges or
> >cardinality problems, or values with piecewise functions.
> >
> >Also, I wonder how much negoitation information is necessary in an NDD.
> >Beacuse, in the end, the negotiation will be run in a negotiation
> >application (or software agent). So for example, a piecewise function
> >might expose already too much information. A simple reference to the
> >negotiable element or attribute might be sufficient. The only reason for
> >more information in the NDD was (as far as I remember), to potentially
> >converge to a solution faster. On the other hand, the CPA composition
> >process can use some more information, again on the cost of revealing
> >those information.
> >
> >Please let me know what you think.
> >
> >Sacha
> >--
> >------------------------------------------------
> >Sacha                                   Schlegel
> >------------------------------------------------
> >public key:            www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
> >------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> >the OASIS TC), go to 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa-negot/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
> *************************************
> Martin Sachs
> standards architect
> Cyclone Commerce
> msachs@cyclonecommerce.com 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa-negot/members/leave_workgroup.php.
-- 
------------------------------------------------
Sacha                                   Schlegel
------------------------------------------------
public key:            www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
------------------------------------------------