Talk:Scenario: Logistics Management

Non-binding incomplete draft on the functional challenges matrix of the scenario

Functional Challenge Matrix for the Logistics Discovery Scenario

Functional Challenge	Related goals
	A1	A2	A3	B1	C1	D1	E1
Basic discrete matchmaking
Discrete conditions (Destination address in list of supported countries?)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Matching with hierarchical concept inclusions (destination address in list of supported continents?)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Matching with numbers
Numeric comparisons (comparison of durations)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Matching with temporal reasoning
Basic Comparison of time instances (comparison of operating hours with pickup and delivery times)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Arithmetic computations with basic time aspects (computation of shipping time)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Rules
Conditional matchmaking rules (A.T.P. / A.D.R., certain rules apply to certain goods)		√	√	√	√	√	√
Conditional matchmaking rules with arithmetics (if shipping time surplus too large, warehouse is needed)						√	√
Preferences, Ranking, Selection
Continuous preferences (preferences that establish an ordering based on infinitely many levels like "as small as possible")					√	√
Discrete preferences (expressions that result in discrete preference levels like "< 250" or "offers insurance")				√	√		√
Multiple prioritized ordering criteria (full ordering is established)					√
Multiple unprioritized ordering criteria (several conditions without priorities, i.e. only half-ordering is established)							√
Mediation
Data mediation on the semantic level (goals and requests must be specified with respect to different terminologies)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Advanced matchmaking aspects
Uncertain matching results due to lack of information (Need to provide conditional results or inquire with requestor)						√
Representation of domain functions (distance between locations)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√

Resolved issues

• What is the importance of the Broker from the perspective of this scenario? If "For a Client Company's point of view there is no real difference between a Broker or a single Logistic Operator", then can't it be ommitted from the scenario?

has been removed Ulrich Kuster 14:43, 27 February 2009 (CET)

with this right now, but we should make clear what the requirements are (e.g. is is ok to transport books in a refridgerator truck).

• I think it would be good to give a little more detail (introduce terms, least list possible options, provide some definition) in Section 2 or 3 on
  • Possible payment methods (carriageForward, etc.)
  • Insurence models
  • Meaning of "TruckFeatures"
  • Meaning of "AverageHoursForOrderManagement"
  • Meaning of "PaymentDeadline"
  • etc.

Even though most of the terms are quite intuitiv, it would be nice to introduce them briefly. I.e. logistic operators operate in a specified geographic area. They have a pricing model based upon... They will pick up and deliver packages only during the specified operating hours. They use trucks characterized by... For simplicity, we assume an average speed of a truck regardless of the specific route... etc.

done Ulrich Kuster 14:43, 27 February 2009 (CET)

• I also think it would be great to avoid potential misinterpretation by giving some indication how offers and requests are to be matched. I.e. a service offer matches a request if:
  • pickup and delivery time are within the service's operating hours and
  • pickup and delivery location are within the service's operating range and
  • the service's fleet has at least one truck that is able to transport the goods with respect to ATP and ADR requirements (please specify what to do if several trucks match, which may have different speed and other characteristics?) and
  • ...

mostly done Ulrich Kuster 14:43, 27 February 2009 (CET)

• With respect to trucks one should probably state that unless explicitly stated, a truck does not support any ADR or ATP class.

done Ulrich Kuster 14:43, 27 February 2009 (CET)

• I think it would be also good to provide a list of goods that a solution to this scenario needs to be able to handle (books, roman candles, ...). Just so that people know what they have to encode in their solutions.

done Ulrich Kuster 14:43, 27 February 2009 (CET)

• I also have a couple remarks regarding the service descriptions
  • What does "warehouse features: none" mean in terms of supported ATP classes?

done Ulrich Kuster 17:31, 4 March 2009 (CET)

• Goal E1 seems a little counter-intuitive, too:
  • Does "Insurance: refundForLoss, refundForDamage" mean any of those two is fine or both are required? : done Ulrich Kuster 17:34, 4 March 2009 (CET)
  • Please clarify the meaning of the collaboration period and the frequency, which is not use previously. : removed Ulrich Kuster 17:34, 4 March 2009 (CET)
• Can a refridgerator truck, for instance, transport books? I suppose it could, but it would not make much sense, right? Would it be desireable to state the price requirements on the level of trucks and not providers? It seems reasonable that transportation of goods that require cooling is more expensive than transportation of goods that do not require cooling. We do not necessarily have to deal with that right now.

TODO Uli: Make a corresponding statement in the scenario.

Done Ulrich Kuster 14:48, 6 March 2009 (CET)

• I think, a few requests are not really intuitive. For instance Goal C1:
  • SC2 - PaymentDeadline: 60 days - I prefer WSs whose values of Payment Deadline are closer to the value expressed in the soft constraint
  • Wouldn't it be more logical to aks for a payment deadline that is as late as possible? Payment deadline marks a point in time until which I must have payed for the shipment. Obviously I'm free to pay earlier. Thus, why would I want to prefer a deadline of 50 days to one of 80 days even though 50 days is closer to 60 than 80?
  • The goal has been changed Ulrich Kuster 14:56, 6 March 2009 (CET)

• As discussed (Goal D1) a soft constraint of "I prefer WSs whose base price is lower than 150 € and the lower it is the better is." is semantically equivalent to a soft constraint of "I prefer WSs with a lower base price.". Alternatively (but resulting in a different semantic) you might ask for a hard constraint of a base price lower than 150, and a soft constraint of "lower prices preferred". Generally I find it a little counter-intuitive to ask for requirements on the base price, because typically what you would be interested in is a low total price, not a low base price, right?
  • The goal has been clarified Ulrich Kuster 15:04, 6 March 2009 (CET)

• Goal E1 seems a little counter-intuitive, too:
  • I had a look at the specifications of WS1 but it did not become clear to me why the amount of shipments matters for the results of E1. Can you please explain that?

TODO Uli: Clarify this on the scenario page. The issue is that the discovery engine is required to output conditional result lists ("if this is the case, result list 1 is valid, otherwise result list 2") and deal with semi-ordered lists depending on the priority of preferences. Ulrich Kuster 16:27, 13 November 2008 (CET)

Done Ulrich Kuster 15:36, 6 March 2009 (CET)

Resolved by Andrea Some remarks on the scenario:

• Please clarify the meanings of the ATP classes, for instance:
  • classes "RNA" and "RRA" --> internal temperature less than +7 °C
    • What does that mean precisely? The temperature is somewhere below +7 but no further guarantee can be given?
  • class "FNA/FRA" --> internal temperature between +12 °C and 0 °C
    • What does that mean precisely? The vehicle can control the temperature but only within the specified limits? I.e. if I have a good that requires to be transported between -2 and +2 the vehicle would be suitable if it is set to 0°?

TODO Uli: clarify Ulrich Kuster

The RNA rules state: "The refrigerated vehicles [...] are capable [...] of lowering the temperature inside the empty body and thereafter maintaining it[...]. They are classified with respect to the *highest* internal temperature that they are able to maintain". This still seems odd to me. The task of the vehicle is to lower the temperature. So are you sure that they are not classified with respect to the *lowest* internal temperature that they are able to maintain? I had a look at the ATP ruls (page 11) and my interpretation of the wording "at +7 maximum in the case of class A", for instance, is that a class A vehicle is capable of lowering the temperature to +7 maximum, i.e. not lower. This would imply that the vehicles are classified with respect to the *lowest* internal temperature that they are able to maintain or the maximum *cooling* that they can supply. Ulrich Kuster 14:40, 6 March 2009 (CET)

• I believe the hierarchy of goals is great now. Yet I'm confused with the ADR normative (Goal A2). Apparantly, WS2 and WS7 do not qualify for the transport of roman candles because they do not support ADR transport. Now considering the given ADR table how am I supposed to know that roman candles (I have no idea what that is) require ADR class 1? Should this be stated in the section where the goods to be handled are listed ("mandatory requirements on scenario solutions")? Ulrich Kuster 14:41, 6 March 2009 (CET)

The information about ADR classes has been added to the listing of goods that need to be handled by scenario solutions. Ulrich Kuster 20:23, 6 April 2009 (CEST)