PANDA: Specifying Policies for Automated Negotiations of Service Contracts

  • Henner Gimpel
  • Heiko Ludwig
  • Asit Dan
  • Bob Kearney
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2910)


The Web and Grid services frameworks provide a promising infrastructure for cross-organizational use of online services. The use of services in large-scale and cross-organizational environments requires the negotiation of agreements that define these services. Buying at a fine granularity just when a need arises is only feasible if the costs of establishing new agreements are low. Today, negotiation is often a manual process yet many simple online services would allow full or partial automation. The PANDA approach automates decision-making and proposes to specify a negotiation policy, expressing a party’s private negotiation strategy, by combining rules and utility functions. In addition, the decision-making problem can be decomposed into different aspects that can be executed by different interacting decision-makers. Using PANDA for policy specification and negotiation decision-making reduces the costs of setting up new services and contracts. Hence, the use of fine-grained on-demand services becomes feasible.


Utility Function Service Level Agreement Service Contract Negotiation Policy Business Process Execution Language 
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.


  1. 1.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y., Klein, J., Leymann, F., Liu, K., Roller, D., Smith, D., Thatte, S., Trickovic, I., Weerawarana, S.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, Version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benyoucef, M., Alj, H., Levy, K., Keller, R.: A Rule-Driven Approach for Defining the Behavior of Negotiating Software Agents. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Distributed Communities on the Web, Sydney (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutilier, C., Das, R., Kephart, J.O., Tesauro, G., Walsh, W.E.: Cooperative Negotiation in Autonomic Systems using Incremental Utility Elicitation. In: Proceedings of Nineteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2003), Acapulco (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Box, D., Curbera, F., Hondo, M., Kaler, C., Langworthy, D., Nadalin, A., Nagaratnam, N., Nottingham, M., van Riegen, C., Shewchuk, J.: Web Services Policy Framework (WS-Policy), Version 1.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chinici, R., Gudgin, M., Moreau, J.-J., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL), Version 1.2, Part 1: Core Language. W3C Working Draft (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crawford, C., Dan, A.: eModel: Addressing the Need for a Flexible Modeling Framework in Autonomic Computing. In: IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems, MASCOTS 2002 (2002) (Fort Worth)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czajkowski, K., Dan, A., Rofrano, J., Tuecke, S., Xu, M. (eds.): Agreement-based Grid Service Management (OGSI-Agreement), Version 0 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czajkowski, K., Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Sander, V., Tuecke, S.: SNAP: A Protocol for Negotiation of Service Level Agreements and Coordinated Resource Management in Distributed Systems. In: Feitelson, D.G., Rudolph, L., Schwiegelshohn, U. (eds.) JSSPP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2537, pp. 153–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faratin, P.: Automated Service Negotiation between Autonomous Computational Agents. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of London (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo, Y., Müller, J.P., Weinhardt, C.: Learning User Preferences for Multi-attribute Negotiation: An Evolutionary Approach. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, p. 303. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. International Journal of Group 10(2) (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keller, A., Ludwig, H.: The WSLA Framework: Specifying and Monitoring Service Level Agreements for Web Services. Accepted for publication in: Journal of Network and Systems Management, Special Issue on E-Business Management 11(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenyon, C., Cheliotis, G.: Architecture Requirements for Commercializing Grid Resources. In: 11th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC 2002), Edinburgh (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lo, G., Kersten, G.E.: Negotiation in Electronic Commerce: Integrating Negotiation Support and Software Agent Technologies. In: Proceedings of the 29th Atlantic Schools of Business Conference, Halifax (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R.: A Service Level Agreement Language for Dynamic Electronic Services. In: Proceedings of WECWIS 2002, Newport Beach (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ludwig, H.: A Conceptual Framework for Electronic Contract Automation. IBM Research Report, RC 22608. New York (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation Analysis. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reeves, D.M., Wellman, M.P., Grosof, B.N., Chan, H.Y.: Automated Negotiation from Declarative Contract Descriptions. Computational Intelligence 18, 482–500 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahai, A., Durante, A., Machiraju, V.: Towards Automated SLA Management for Web Services. Hewlett-Packard Research Report HPL-2001-310 (R.1). Palo Alto (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ströbel, M.: Engineering electronic negotiations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Su, S.Y.W., Huang, C., Hammer, J.: A Replicable Web-based Negotiation Server for E-Commerce. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-33), Maui (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henner Gimpel
    • 1
  • Heiko Ludwig
    • 2
  • Asit Dan
    • 2
  • Bob Kearney
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität Fridericina Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterHawthorneUSA

Personalised recommendations