[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: CPA negotiation, contact with negotiation research community plussome thoughts.
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 ------------------------------------------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]