[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:36:56 -0600
That's a bit of a word game. Such games are the
problem of ontologies. A service can offer to
negotiate with an agent for a best price and
the service can provide a BAFO (Best and Final
Offer). That is what "terms and conditions" means
and why you want the agent to negotiate on your
behalf. Otherwise, catalog-based business is
about as good as B2C gets. B2B is Ts&Cs.
They are not on the "same playing field". We seldom are
in business this side of Burger King.
Write an ontology for buying a used car. If you
can't "deal", you don't buy.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
To me the concept of a "service" implies that everyone gets the
same thing from a given input. The concept of an "agent" implies something
more individual. While we all exist on the same playing field, I might have
the capability of giving "my" agent "my" instructions.
|
