794 Applying Information Gathering Techniques in Business-to-Consumer and Web Scenarios tion Discovery and Integration Protocol 8'', VSHFL¿HV D SURWRFRO IRU TXHU\LQJ and updating a common directory of Web service information. The directory includes information about service providers, the services they host, and the protocols those services implement. The directory also provides mechanisms to add meta-data to any registered information. Therefore, this protocol can be used by information agents (or Web agents) to automatically discover new Web sources. • The problem of Web knowledge representa - tion can be reduced using the XML stan- dard representation provided by the Web service. • The extraction of the information could be automatically learned using the provided Web service representation. If this repre- VHQWDWLRQLVPRGL¿HGLWLVSRVVLEOHWRXVH the new data and meta-data information to build a new wrapper that is able to extract information. Using these new set of technologies, our previous B2C Web system can be designed to adapt its functionalities to new Web services technologies. MAPWeSC Architecture From our initial MAPWeb architecture, the skills RIVHYHUDODJHQWVQHHGWREHPRGL¿HGWRDGDSW them to the new Web services characteristics. Agents will be considered as Web services inside the system. Therefore some architectural charac- WHULVWLFVZLOOEHPRGL¿HG • Control Agents: The ManagerAgent and & R D F K $ J H Q WED VLF V N L O O V Z L O O Q RWEHP R G L ¿HG because they are responsible for the manage- ment of the different agents in the system. The communication processes is adapted to allow a request to the different Web service agent for a particular service (i.e., suspend a particular agent, insert or delete an agent from a particular team) to be managed as a Web service. • Execution Agents: 7KHPDLQPRGL¿FDWLRQV are achieved in the information agents (or Web agents) that are adapted to the Web ser- YLFH7KHVHPRGL¿FDWLRQVZLOOEHGHVFULEHG in detail in the next section. The new architecture of MAPWeSC is shown i n Fig u r e 4. T h is ne w a rch it ect u r e h as b een mo di- ¿HGWRDOORZWKHVKDULQJRILQIRUPDWLRQEHWZHHQ agents using the protocols provided by Web services such as SOAP. An infrastructure agent that registers a Web service agent’s service as a Web service in the UDDI registry would be useful. The necessary UDDI advertisement information should be acces- sible in the FIPA Service Description and contain a tag to indicate the Web service agent’s intent to offer its service as a Web service. A UDDI registering agent could harvest the information on such services from the Directory Facilitator and dynamically register them in the appropriate UDDI registry. The UDDI registry could be used by different agents (such as WebService agents LQ)LJXUHWR³GLVFRYHU´QHZSRWHQWLDO:HE services. The suggested infrastructure elements are shown in Table 3. Agent’s Characteristics in MAPWeSC To have a software agent access an external Web service for its own use or to offer its service to other agents is relatively straightforward. A mapping between the Web service descriptions and the basic agent skills must be done. Table 4 presents agent roles and skills necessary to proxy an external (non-agent system) Web service. Agents within the MAS that offer services to o t h e r a g e n t s s h o u l d h a v e t h e o p t i o n o f h a v i n g t h e s e services offered as Web services for the potential 795 Applying Information Gathering Techniques in Business-to-Consumer and Web Scenarios Figure 4. MAPWeSC Web service-oriented architecture Manager Agent Coach Agent User Agent PlannerAgent PlannerAgent WServiceAgent WServiceAgent WServiceAgent Internet Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service Web Service SOAP/ACLSOAP/ACL SOAP/ACL SOAP/ACL SOAP/ACL Discovery (UDDI) Manager Agent Manager Agent Coach Agent Coach Agent User Agent User Agent PlannerAgentPlannerAgent PlannerAgentPlannerAgent WServiceAgentWServiceAgent WServiceAgentWServiceAgent WServiceAgentWServiceAgent Internet Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service Web ServiceWeb Service SOAP/ACLSOAP/ACL SOAP/ACL SOAP/ACL SOAP/ACL Discovery (UDDI) Table 3. Necessary elements to support agent-based Web services Element Functionality Web Service Agent Agent offers a Web service to other clients. The Web service is an exposed service of the MAS at useful level of granularity UDDI Registering capability Dynamically harvest descriptions of agent-based Web services and register them in the UDDI registry Service description and translation services Provide support for describing agent-based Web services according to FIPA, or KQML, standards and translating, where possible, to alternative descriptions of Web Services (e.g., DAML-S and WSDL, UDDI entries) 796 Applying Information Gathering Techniques in Business-to-Consumer and Web Scenarios use of non-agent clients. Our approach requires a new layer of software agents that have the task of offering these services. They have been modi- ¿HGIURPRXUROG:HEDJHQWVFDOOHG:HEVHUYLFH agents (Figure 4). Other agent clients can continue to interact with the original service-offering agents in the same ACL (Agent Communication Language) Interaction protocol-based manner (i.e., FIPA, KQML). As an example, consider an agent in the MAS that has as part of its knowl- HGJHEDVHWKHPRVWUHFHQWÀLJKWWLFNHWSULFH7KH Web service report contains information such as GHSDUWXUHDQGDUULYDOGDWHDQGWLPHSULFHÀLJKW duration, number of transfers, etc. Other agents within the MAS will interact with this Search- Flights agent in pursuit of their individual goals as part of an overall agent-based application. Part RIWKLVÀLJKWLQIRUPDWLRQFDQEHRIIHUHGWRQRQ agent clients through a Web Services framework. The exposure of the MAS services can be done at various levels of granularity by adjusting the information that the Web service agents offer. Although communication between agents in any MAS is intrinsically asynchronous, a Web browser (and any Web service) typically expects a synchronous response. We have implemented in MAPWeSC asynchronous communications embedded in a synchronous communication module. Finally, The Web service software agent must advertise its service. It must have its service advertised in the UDDI registry (for non-agent clients) and with the Directory Facilitator (for agent clients, in our approach this service needs to be advertised to the CoachAgent). The Web service software agent must describe its service on the agent platform. Since this is the same service that is being offered to non-agent clients, the service information content would also be useful for its entries in the UDDI registry and in its WSDL ¿OH$ PDSSLQJ LVQHHGHG7KH8'',UHJLVWU\ entry for a Web service must contain at least one SRLQWHUWRD:6'/DFFHVV¿OHLQDGGLWLRQWRDQ\ descriptive information. Information on where WKH:6'/DFFHVV¿OHLVKRVWHGPXVWEHSURYLGHG to the agent platform. CONCLUSION This chapter has analyzed how a Multi-Agent System can be redesigned using a Web services oriented architecture. This new design perspec- tive allows any MAS to utilize Web services technologies, and provides a natural way to share their information product with other business-to- consumer (B2C) applications. 7DEOH$JHQWIHDWXUHVPRGL¿FDWLRQWRIDFLOLWDWHXVHRIH[WHUQDO:HEVHUYLFHVLQ0$3:H6& Roles Skills Communication Module WebServiceAgent - Automatic access to external Web services - Proxy external Web service agent - SOAP-Binding - Transport HTTP - Binding exemplar - Interface of Web service, endpoints (WSDL file), UDDI descriptive info - Knowledge of SOAP binding to HTTP or other transport - Caching technique SOAP/ACL PlannerAgent - Web services composition - Data integration - CBP - Planning - WS querying, discovering (WS agents) SOAP/ACL UserAgent - User/system interaction - WS querying, discovering (planners) SOAP/ACL 797 Applying Information Gathering Techniques in Business-to-Consumer and Web Scenarios Two alternatives can be considered for empow- ering Web services with agents’ properties. One is to implement a wrapper that turns a current Web service into an agent-like entity. The other alternative is to capture all the functionalities of a Web Service and embed them into an existing software agent in a MultiAgent System. While the ¿UVWDSSURDFKLVTXLWHVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGLWGRHVQ¶W guarantee a large-scale usage. The second ap- SURDFKUHTXLUHVFRQVLGHULQJDUHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQRI the new agent as a Web Service. To do so, we have described and redesigned a new kind of informa- tion agent, called a Web service agent, to make it advertisable in a UDDI registry, and accessible through the SOAP communication protocol. Using our previous multi-agent approach, we have obtained several advantages. On one hand, we allow the building of active, autonomous, co- operative and context-aware Web service agents. On the other hand, these agents can coordinate their work with other agents (i.e., planner agents) to allow an automatic service composition, through the utilization of other CI techniques such as planning (Camacho & Aler, in press; Camacho et al., 2005). REFERENCES Abowd, G., Atkeson, C., Hong, J., Long, S., Kooper, R., & Pinkerton, M. (1997). Cyberguide: A mobile context-aware tour guide. ACM Wire- less, 3, 421-433. Ambite, J. L., Barish, G., Knoblock, C. A., Muslea, M., Oh, J., & Minton, S. (2002). Getting from here to there: Interactive planning and agent execu- tion for optimizing travel. In S. Chien & J. Riedl (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Innovative $SSOLFDWLRQVRI$UWL¿FLDO,QWHOOLJHQFH&RQIHUHQFH (IAAI). Edmonton, Canada: AAAI. Ambite, J. L., Genevieve, G., Gordon, P., Pan, Q., & Bharracharjee, S. (2002). Integrating heterogeneous data sources for better freight ÀRZDQDO\VLVDQGSODQQLQJ,Q Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Digital Government Research. Redondo Beach, CA: Digital Government Research Center. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www.dgrc.org/confer- ences/2002_proceedings.jsp Ambite et al. (2004). ARGOS: Dynamic composi- tion of Web services for goods movement analysis. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Dig- ital Government Research. Redondo Beach, CA: Digital Government Research Center. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://dgrc.org/dgo2004/ Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval. London: Addison- Wesley Longman. Berners-Lee, T. (2003). Web services. Program integration across application and organization boundaries. Retrieved July 24, 2003, from http:// www.w3.org/DesignIssues/WebServices.html Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001, May). The semantic Web. 6FLHQWL¿F$PHULFDQ 284(5), 34-43. Camacho, D., & Aler, R. (2005). Software and performance measures for evaluating multi-agent frameworks. $SSOLHG$UWL¿FLDO,QWHOOLJHQFH(6), 645-657. Camacho, D., Aler, R., Borrajo, D., & Molina, J. M. (2005). A multi-agent architecture for intel- ligent gathering systems. AI Communications: 7KH(XURSHDQ-RXUQDORQ$UWL¿FLDO,QWHOOLJHQFH 18(1), 1-19. Camacho, D., Borrajo, D., & Molina, J. M. (2001). Intelligent travel planning: A multi-agent planning system to solve Web problems in the e-tourism domain. International Journal on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 4(4), 387-392. Camacho, D., Borrajo, D., Molina, J. M., & Aler, R. (2001, September). Flexible integration of plan- ning and information gathering. In A. Cesta & D. Borrajo (Eds.), Proceedings of the European 798 Applying Information Gathering Techniques in Business-to-Consumer and Web Scenarios Conference on Planning (ECP-01), Spain (pp. 73-84). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Carranza, C., Muñoz-Avila, H., Weberskirch, F., & Bergmann, R. (1998). Proposal for a plan- ning approach for information seeking. In R. Bergmann & A. Kott (Eds.), AIPS’98 Workshop on Integrating Planning, Scheduling and Execu- tion in Dynamic and Uncertain Environments. Pittsburgh, PA: AAAI. Chavez, A., Dreilinger, D., Guttman, R., & Maes, P. (1997, April). A real-life experiment in creat- ing an agent marketplace. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM’97). London. Chen, H., Chung, Y., Ramsey, M., & Yang, C. (2001). A smart itsy bitsy spider for the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(7), 604-618. Cheverst, K., Davies, N., Mitchell, K., Friday, A., & Efstratiou, C. (2000). Developing a context- aware electronic tourist guide: Some issues and e x p e r i e n ce s. I n J. M . C a r r oll & P. P. Ta n n e r ( E d s .), Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 17-24). The Hague, The Netherlands: ACM. Curbera, F., Duftler, M., Khalaf, R., Nagy, W., Mukhi, N., & Weerawarana, S. (2002). Unravel- ling the Web services Web: An introduction to SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI. IEEE Internet Com- puting, 6(2), 86-93. Daniels, J. J., & Rissland, E. L. (1995). A case- based approach to intelligent information retrieval. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Inter- national ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 238-245). Seattle, WA: ACM. Decker, K., Sycara, K., & Williamson, M. (1997). Middle-agents for the Internet. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on $UWL¿FLDO,QWHOOLJHQFH,-&$,. Nagoya, Japan. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://citeseer.ist. psu.edu/decker97middleagents.html Fan, Y., & Gauch, S. (1999). Adaptive agents for information gathering from multiple, distributed information sources. Proceedings of 1999 AAAI Symposium on Intelligent Agents in Cyberspace. Stanford University, AAAI Press. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~sgauch/pa- pers/AAAI99.html Ferber, J. (1999). Multi-agent systems: An in- WURGXFWLRQWR GLVWULEXWHG DUWL¿FLDOLQWHOOLJHQFH. London: Addison-Wesley Professional. FIPA-org. (1997) Agent communication language. Technical report, Foundation for intelligent physical agents. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from KWWSZZZ¿SDRUJ Fodor, O., Dell’Erba, M., Ricci, F., & Werthner, H. (2002, October 7-9). Harmonise: A solution for data interoperability. In Proceedings of the Second IFIP Conference on E-Commerce, E- Business and E-Government (pp. 1-13). Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://ectrl. itc.it:8080/home/publications/2002/Harmon- ise_IFIP02-5.pdf Franklin, S., & Graesser, A. (1996). Is it an agent, or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In J. P. Müller, M. Wooldridge, & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Inter- national Workshop on Agent Theories, Archi- tectures, and Languages (pp. 21-35). London: Springer-Verlag. Gardner, T. (2001, October). An introduction to Web services. Ariadne, 29. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue29/ gardner/intro.html Howe, A. E., & Dreilinger, D. (1997). Savvysearch. A metasearch engine that learns which search engines to query. AI Magazine, 18(2), 19-25. Hüllen, J., Bergmann, R., & Weberskirch, F. (1999). WebPlan: Dynamic planning for domain- 799 Applying Information Gathering Techniques in Business-to-Consumer and Web Scenarios VSHFL¿F VHDUFK LQ WKH ,QWHUQHW ,QProceedings RIWKH:RUNVKRS3ODQHQXQG.RQ¿JXULHUHQ (PuK-99). Jones, K. S., & Willett, P. (1997). Readings in information retrieval. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Knoblock et al. (2000). The Ariadne approach to Web-based information integration. International Journal on Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) Special Issue on Intelligent Informa- tion Agents: Theory and Applications, 10(1-2), 145-169. Lieberman, H. (1995). Letizia: An agent that as- sists Web browsing. In C. S. Mellish (Ed.), Interna- WLRQDO-RLQW&RQIHUHQFHRQ$UWL¿FLDO,QWHOOLJHQFH (IJCAI95) Montreal, Canada (pp. 924-929). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. McIlraith S., Son T. C., & Zeng, H. (2002). Seman- tic Web services, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on the Semantic Web, 16(2), 46-53. OASIS-UDDI. (2005). Advancing Web services discovery standard, UDDI version 3.0.2. Re- trieved May 8, 2005, from http://uddi.org/pubs/ uddi_v3.htm Petrie, C. (1996). Agent-based engineering, the Web, and intelligence. IEEE Expert, 11(6), 24- 29. Ricci F., Arslan B., Mirzadeh N., & Venturini A. (2002, September 4-7). ITR: A case-based travel advisory system. In S. Craw & A. D. Pre- ece (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Case Based Reasoning (ECCBR 2002), Aberdeen, Scotland (pp. 613-627). LNCS 2416. Berlin: Springer Verlag. SOAP. (2003). Simple Object Access Protocol 1.1. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www. w3.org/TR/soap/ Sycara, K. P. (1998). Multiagent systems. AI Magazine, 19(2), 79-92. Sycara, K. P. (1989). Multiagent compromise via negotiation. In M. Huhns (Ed.),. Distributed DUWL¿FLDO LQWHOOLJHQFH, Volume II (pp. 119-138). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multi- agent systems. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995), Agent theories, architectures, and languages: A survey. I n M . Wo old r i d g e & N . R . J e n n i n g s ( E d s .) , Intelli- gent agents (pp. 1-22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. WSDL. (2001). Web services description language 1.1. W3C Note 15 March 2001. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl WWW Consortium. (2002). Semantic Web ser- vices. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www. w3.org/2002/ws Yang, J., Yang, W., Denecke, M., & Waibel, A. (1999). Smart sight: A tourist assistant system. In International Software Web Conference (pp. 73-78). Zipf, A., (2002). User-adaptive maps for location- based services (lbs) for tourism. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for Informa- tion and Communication Technologies in Tourism, ENTER 2002.Berlin: Springer Verlag. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://www2.geoinform.fh- mainz.de/~zipf/ENTER2002.pdf This work was previously published in Business Applications and Computational Intelligence, edited by K. Voges and N. Pope, pp. 91-112, copyright 2006 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global). 800 Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 3.9 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business: Multiagent Formulation of Electronic Contracts Tagelsir Mohamed Gasmelseid King Faisal University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ABSTRACT The unprecedented advancements witnessed in the ¿HOGRILQIRUPDWLRQDQGFRPPXQLFDWLRQWHFKQRO- RJ\RYHUWKHODVWFRXSOHRI\HDUVDUHVLJQL¿FDQWO\ affecting the nature and magnitude of B2B interac- tions as well as their operational effectiveness and HI¿FLHQF\+RZHYHULQWHUDFWLRQDQGFRQWUDFWLQJ among global enterprises continued to be chal- lenged by the difference of laws, authentication requirements, and endorsement constrains. With the rapidly increasing proliferation of mobile devices, wireless communication systems, and advanced computer networking protocols, the deployment of electronic contracting platforms and applications has provided many opportuni- ties to enterprises, dictated new axioms for doing business, and gave rise to new paradigms. Together with the increasing institutional transformations, technological advancements motivated businesses to engage in an interactive process of contract formulation and negotiation. INTRODUCTION The use of Internet technologies is enhancing distributed business processes through improved information generation, retrieval, and storage, cost reduction, disintermediation, and the trans- formation of organizational boundaries. The resulting global repositories of generic, volatile, and heterogeneous data originating from dif- IHUHQWV\VWHPVDUHVLJQL¿FDQWO\DIIHFWLQJ%% interaction (Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, 2004; Daniel, 2003; Klusch, 2001) and are resulting in alternative e-business models, strategies, and enabling frameworks. The use of such technologies in e-business DOORZV¿UPVWRLQWHJUDWHFRUHDQGVXSSRUWEXVL- ness processes and enhance information sharing 801 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business HI¿FLHQF\ ,WDGGUHVVHV FRQQHFWLRQVDPRQJHQ- terprises (B2B) as well as between enterprises and customers (B2C) by speeding information processing and responsiveness and shifting the HPSKDVLVIURPRSWLPL]LQJWKHHI¿FLHQF\RILQGL- YLGXDOHQWHU SULVHVWRRSWLPL]LQJWKHHI¿FLHQF\RI a network of enterprises in pursuit of improving competitive advantage (Xirogiannis & Glykas, 2007). According to Lumpkin and Gregory (2004), there are seven e-business models that account for the vast majority of business conducted online. Commission-based models are used by busi- nesses (third-party intermediaries) to provide services for a fee such as brokerage services. Advertising-based models are used by companies that provide content and/or services to visitors and sell advertising to businesses that want to reach those visitors. Markup-based (merchant) models are used by businesses that add value in marketing and sales (rather than production) by acquiring products, marking up the price, and UHVHOOLQJ WKHP DW D SUR¿W IRU ERWK ZKROHVDOHUV and retailers. Production-based (manufacturing) models are used by companies that add value in the production process by converting raw mate- rials into value-added products. In this respect, the Internet adds value to this model by lower- ing marketing costs and enabling direct contact with end users to facilitate customization and problem-solving. Referral-based models are used E\¿ U PVW KDWVWHHUFX VWRPHUVW RDQRWKHUFRPSDQ\ for a fee. Subscription-based models are used by EXVLQHVVHVWKDWFKDUJHDÀDWIHHIRUSURYLGLQJ either a service or proprietary content such as Internet service providers. Fee-for-service based models are used by companies that provide ongo- ing services similar to a utility company. Unlike the commission-based model, the fee-for-service model involves a pay-as-you-go system because activities are metered, with payment being made only for the amount of service used such as the application service providers. However, the capacity of these e-business models to facilitate an organizational migration towards dynamic e-business and ERP applica- tions will be improved with the existence of enabling platforms mainly electronic payment and contracting systems. Because dynamic e- business allows organizations to integrate systems across intranets, extranets, and the Internet in a dynamic fashion and permit them to modify existing systems quickly and easily when the business process requires (Andrew, Sagnika & Shao, 2006) enabling systems align e-business technologies with organizational processes and competitiveness. Within the context of globalization and or- JDQL]DWLRQDOWUDQVIRUPDWLRQV¿UPVDUHVWDUWLQJ to use information technology as instruments to support their trading relations, manage their contractual matrix of rights-and-obligations and reduce risk. Electronic contracting that provides the means for a high level of automation of the contract establishment, contract management, and HQDFWPHQWSURFHVVHVSUHVHQWVVLJQL¿FDQWO\PRUH opportunities to the trading parties (Angelov & Grefen, 2004; Sallé, 2002). However, the growing multiplicity of data modeling and organization tools, content representation algorithms, ontolo- gies, vocabularies, and query languages that ac- count for heterogeneity and global information RYHUORDGLVSURPLVLQJ¿UPVWRJDLQPXFKIDVWHUDQG cheaper processing than traditional contracts. While different approaches are being used to conceptualize the context of electronic contracts, the basic aim of this article is to address the con- text of electronic contracting by using multiagent concepts to develop a framework that describes the process of formulation of these contracts using Sudatel as a case study. ELECTRONIC CONTRACTING Electronic contracting involves the exchange of messages between (the concerned parties), structured according to a prearranged format so 802 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business that the contents are machine-processible and automatically gives rise to contractual obliga- tions necessary for achieving a legally supported business relationship (Baum & Perrit, 1991; Milosevic, 1995). :KLOH VRPH ¿UPV XVH LW WR HQKDQFH WKHLU FDSDFLW\WRSHUIRUPQHHGLGHQWL¿FDWLRQPDQDJH production and merchant brokering, and negotiate in the space of time as explained by the consumer buying behavior model, others are aiming for the G\QDPLFFXVWRPL]DWLRQRIWKHLU³IRXU3V´SURG- XFWSULFHSURPRWLRQDQGSODFHPHQWDQG³RQH C” (customer relationship) and the deployment RI RQOLQH ÀH[LEOH DQG HI¿FLHQW QHJRWLDWLRQ DQG electronic contracting infrastructures (Dutta & Segev, 1999; Guttman, Moukas, Alexandros & Maes, 1998; Runge, 1998). I n a d d i t i o n t o t e c h n o l og i c a l d eve lo p m e n t s a n d LQVWLWXWLRQDOLPSHUDWLYHVWKHLQWHUHVWRI¿UPVLQ electronic contracting is enhanced by the willing- ness of governments to develop legislation that removes barriers to electronic commerce. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act in the U.S. and the European Electronic Signature Directive, among others, include provisions relating to the liability of network service providers, digital signatures as well as the duties of digital signature subscribers DQGFHUWL¿FDWLRQDXWKRULWLHVZLWKUHJDUGVWRWKH creation or execution of, among others, a will, negotiable instruments, and indentures. The Model Law of Electronic Commerce (UNCIT- 5$/ LQWURGXFHG WKH FRQFHSWV RI ³IXQFWLRQDO HTXLYDOHQFH´DQG³WHFKQRORJ\QHXWUDOLW\´DVQHZ axioms for contract formation, authentication, and implementation. In dynamic e-business settings, electronic contracts help enterprises to (a) identify business partners, (b) match their individual offer speci- ¿FDWLRQV ZLWKFRPSOHPHQWDU\ RQHV IURP RWKHU partners, (c) negotiate conditions and contractual terms, (d) collectively sign contracts, and (e) H[HFXWHREOLJDWLRQVDQGDFWLRQVWKDWDUHGH¿QHG in the contract (Lai, Manfred, Jeusfeld & Paul, 2005; Merz, Frank, Tuan, Stefan, Harald, Marko & Winfried, 1998). However, irrespective of the widespread use of electronic contracting, business enterprises have some worries. Electronic contracts are not ³G H ¿ Q L W H ´ H Q RXJ KD V W R ZKHWKHUDEX VL Q H V V W U D G H U L V PDNLQJDQ³RIIHU´RU³DQLQYLWDWLRQWRWUHDW´7KH information provided lacks the sense of absolute intent necessary to have a binding agreement and a conclusive intent of a binding offer in the sense WKDWWKHRIIHURULVZLOOLQJDQGDEOHWR³GHDO´ZLWK all without any reservation. Such confusion affects the decision of the concerned parties as whether WRFRPPXQLFDWHDQ³DFFHSWDQFHRIDQRIIHU´RUWR discuss further. Jurisdictional concerns also aris- ing from the disputes regarding the place where the contract is formed and the laws to be applied. Such concerns are directly related to contract validity and communication of acceptance in a legally binding form. In addition, some authen- tication and attribution concerns create some worries regarding the process of matching the parties contracting electronically by attributing electronic messages to the person who purports to send it. The contracting partners want to know that they can rely on the messages to be exchanged and avoid liability in case of messages being sent by an interloper or hacker. To minimize these uncertainties, different solutions are being proposed. The use of brows- LQJDQGGRZQORDGLQJ³IDFLOLWDWLYH´FDSDELOLWLHV ³FKHFNER[HV´ ³GLVFODLPHUV´ DQG ³WHFKQRORJ\ ¿OWHUV´LVUHOD[LQJVRPHRIWKHMXULVGLFWLRQDOFRQ- cerns by shaping out the inclusion or exclusion of FHUWDLQWUDQVDFWLRQVDQGRUVSHFL¿FORFDWLRQV7KH use of metrics to account for the time in which the information is sent, received, and accessed using servers, routers, TCP/IP, packet switching, client and server technologies is another development t h a t c l e a r s o u t s o m e d o u b t s a b o u t c o n t r a c t v a l i d i t y. The use of a wide range of Internet technologies such as EDI, EFT, and VAN has also enhanced universal availability of global repositories of generic, reusable transaction models. 803 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business RELATED WORK Within the context of international trade the basic TXHVWLRQ LQFRQ¿JXULQJ FRQWUDFW QHJRWLDWLRQ LV ³ZKDWWREHQHJRWLDWHG´*URVRI/DEURX&KDQ 1999; Reeves, Benjamin, Grosof, Wellman & Chan, 1999). In any contracting context, some IHDWXUHVRIWKHSRWHQWLDOFRQWUDFWDUH¿[HGZKLOH others are variable and are expected to be deter- mined through the contracting process. 7KH ³SKDVH PRGHO IRU FRPPHUFLDO WUDQVDF- tions” has been widely used to guide the pro- cess of decomposing architectural elements of electronic contracting services (Schmid & Lindemann, 1998). The model consists of three phases: information, negotiation, and execution. Such phases are supported by different computer- based services including online catalogues, search engines, or banner advertising (information phase), telecollaboration, negotiation protocols DQG VWUDWHJLHV QHJRWLDWLRQ SKDVH ZRUNÀRZ management, business process integration among market participants, electronic payment systems, and EDI-based message exchange functions (ex- ecution phase). Support functions like brokerage (i.e., to select and match respective offers and inquiries, to form a (service providing) consortium or to set-up the negotiation session for all parties of the commercial transaction) and signing (i.e., to enter the execution phase by establishing a contract and encouraging all parties to sign it) are being widely used also. This process has also been supported by trusted third parties such as FHUWL¿FDWLRQDXWKRULWLHVRUHOHFWURQLFQRWDULHV Runge (1998) claimed that electronic con- WUDFWLQJ LQYROYHV WZR SURFHVVHV ³DJUHHPHQW QHJRWLDWLRQ´DQG³DJUHHPHQWVLJQLQJ´WKURXJK which the exchange of electronic messages among the contracting parties is supposed to lead to contract formulation and signing. The terms of WKHDJUHHPHQWERWK¿[HGDQGWKRVHWRHPHUJH through negotiation) as well as the actions to be WDNHQRFFXUWKURXJK³HOHFWURQLFUHFRUGV´RU³GDWD messages” that are generated, communicated, received, or stored by electronic, magnetic, or optical means in an information system or for transmission from one information system to another (Reeves et al., 1999). According to Milosevic and Bond (1995), the FRQWUDFW F\FOH LQFOXGHV ³HVWDEOLVKPHQW´ ³SHU- IRUPDQFH´DQG³SRVWFRQWUDFW´SKDVHVZLWKWKH rules and policies being stored in a Legal Rules Repository. The contracting process involves a contract validator (to perform contract validity checking), Contract Negotiator (to support con- tract negotiation), Contract Enforcer, and Contract Arbitrator. It also includes Contract Legality and Monitoring objects. Electronic contracting LVJXLGHGE\³FRQWUDFWWHPSODWHV´FRQWDLQLQJWKH roles of the contracting parties, the period of the contract, the nature of consideration, associa- WLRQVEHWZHHQ³UROHV´DQG³REOLJDWLRQV´DQGWKH semantics to be used for the representation of alternative contracting scenarios. Using these templates, contract validity can be established WKURXJKWKHLGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIDVHWRIPDQGDWRU\ elements (agreement, considerations and compe- tence). Contract monitoring, on the other hand, can be performed by the parties or by a third party acting on behalf of one or all the parties. Similarly, Goodchild, Charles, and Zoran (2000) considered a valid business contract as being containing four elements: agreement, con- sideration, capacity, and legal purpose. Instead RIXVLQJ³FRQWUDFWWHPSODWHV´WKH\SURSRVHGWKH use of a standard contract as a base for the con- tracting process. Such a standard contract can be provided by one of the parties, a third party or a commercial organization specialized in providing general–purpose contracts. The Reference Model for Electronic Markets proposed by Lindemann and Schmid (1998), views electronic contracting within the context of an electronic market by using two dimensions (horizontal and vertical) and four views (business, W U D Q V D F W LRQVHU Y LFH V D Q G L Q I U D V W U X F W X U H W R U H ÀH FW both organizational and technological aspects. Lindemann and Runge (1997) proposed the use of . for Electronic Markets proposed by Lindemann and Schmid (1998), views electronic contracting within the context of an electronic market by using two dimensions (horizontal and vertical) and. across intranets, extranets, and the Internet in a dynamic fashion and permit them to modify existing systems quickly and easily when the business process requires (Andrew, Sagnika & Shao,. matrix of rights -and- obligations and reduce risk. Electronic contracting that provides the means for a high level of automation of the contract establishment, contract management, and HQDFWPHQWSURFHVVHVSUHVHQWVVLJQL¿FDQWOPRUH opportunities