Affirmative Action Essays (964 words) - Discrimination,

Affirmative Action One of the most recent civil rights policies is Affirmative action. Affirmative action is loosely defined as lower educational standards for minorities, and a certain quota of minorities is to be met by employers. Affirmative action is wrong and will not help solve the problems minorities face. The reason it is wrong is because it's discrimination. It has no place in today's society because it does more bad than good. In addition to that, most people don't enjoy the presence of affirmative action. Also, it appears that affirmative action can actually be detrimental to employees health. First of all, affirmative action is discrimination, there is no hiding it. When an employer hires anyone because he or she is a minority, even if someone else is more qualified to do the job, it is discrimination. Just because it is reverse discrimination, when whites are discriminated against and minorities are being discriminated for, doesn't make it right. Affirmative action legalizes discrimination. I thought discrimination was illegal in this country. Also , if this discrimination continues racism in the United States may become worse. Imagine what you would feel like if you couldn't get a job just because you are a white man and not a Hispanic man. The racism will become worse because of it, and that is the very thing it is trying to prevent. It is possible that because of affirmative action, racism will grow and continue to grow. In addition to that, people say affirmative action is okay because it cures past discrimination. Discrimination wasn't okay when blacks were the ones getting the short end of the stick. Therefore it's not okay when whites are discriminated against. Two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, affirmative action doesn't make discrimination ok just because it's against blacks instead of whites. Affirmative action in college is the most discriminating thing this country has ever seen. At ivy league colleges the median GPA of applicants close to 4.0 and SATs are close to 1300, minorities are let in with GPA's less than 3.0 and SATs less than 1000. The only way for colleges to achieve ethnic proportionalism is to downplay or abandon merit criteria and to accept students from typically under represented groups, such as blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians, over better qualified students from among whites and Asian Americans. Obviously, affirmative action is allowing undereducated citizens to get into college when the people that are qualified aren't getting accepted when they should. When we passed the equal opportunities law, it didn't mean treat different races differently , it means we should treat all people as equals, affirmative action doesn't treat everyone as equals. If we lower acceptance standards for minorities, we should lower standards for everyone. Since nobody would do that we should raise the standard for minorities. In addition, if affirmative action gets its way, it will do more harm than good. Affirmative action will only work short term because if you hire a minority that's under qualified they'll eventually get fired. Also, you can only hire so many people, eventually you'll get too much under qualified people working for you and you'll eventually have to abandon affirmative action all together. Also, affirmative action doesn't work because it doesn't change anything. If there is racism in to day's modern age, then racism will always be present and affirmative action won't work. In addition if we need to discriminate against white people to give minorities jobs now, it won't change. Giving someone a job won't do any good in making the quality of life of minorities better. Just because you enroll more minorities in your college, doesn't mean you're making the playing field even. When someone isn't good enough to get into a certain college, they're out of their league when they get in. To give minorities a better life we have to fix the moral decay caused by the absence of two parent families to help minorities. Affirmative action is also insulting to minorities because they may feel they have to be helped out just to get a job. A minority that benefits form affirmative action may feel that they're inadequate for the job they were hired for. Every employee that benefits from affirmative action bears

Final exam study guide Essays

Final exam study guide Essays Final exam study guide Essay Final exam study guide Essay Be able to discuss and give examples of the three dimensions of inequality (economics, power, and prestige) Lecture 5 American ideology and education Lecture 7 Native American history and demographics Chapter 8 Key facts about sexual orientation Chapter 15 9. Issues that were discussed in the threads will be prime targets. 10. Reviewing the Tacos will also be a great preparation for the Final Exam which I have listed below for your convenience. 1 Given an example of the need to increase productivity in a cultural diversity on team building in the workplace, and formulate strategies for facilitating cooperation among members of a culturally diverse work group. 2 Given a simulated situation where a qualified minority candidate is denied employment based on the hiring managers cultural prejudice and practice of discrimination, erectly assess the situation and recommend intervention strategies to correct the situation. Given a situation in a culturally diverse workplace where tension among employees is rising and Job satisfaction is low, formulate a plan to evaluate organizational culture and strategies to increase organizational cultural competence. 4 Given a case study or simulated situation in which an individual must give directives or recommendations, such as work directives or healthcare recommendations, to an individual from a different culture, assess the potential ultra barriers to communication and compliance with the directives or recommendations and suggest methods for improving communication and ensuring compliance. :

Sati & Sutee Tradition in India - History of Sati Tradition Research Paper

Sati & Sutee Tradition in India - History of Sati Tradition - Research Paper Example Hinduism contains a collection of scriptures written for over four thousand years. Among these writing, discrepancies on widow burning led many to exalt the act while others condemned it in the name of religion. During Vishnusmriti, widows were provided with two options: celibacy or immolation. The Ninayasindu later declared sati as a widow’s essential duty; so did the Puritans of the 6th century. These texts went further to elaborate on how the act was to be performed. In the years that followed, religious leaders and followers deified women who sacrificed themselves and became sites. Regardless of the religious interpretation of the act, the practice became deeply embedded in Indian culture. This presented new challenges to people trying to eradicate it. In addition, the social value accorded to widows who sacrificed themselves presented more barriers. Widows were perceived as worthless, with very low social status making a life for them unbearable. Widows who did not want to go ahead with the practice were coerced, physically forced or threatened onto the pyre. In many cases, the male relatives played a significant role in a widow’s decision to pursue sati. The demise of sati is attributed to British ruling during the 19th century. The British colonialist had refrained from interfering with Indian tradition, culture, and practices. The British rarely tried to enforce change in Muslim or Hindu practices. The governor general to India, however, in the 19th century wondered whether the British government should take measures to eliminate static.

Efficient Markets Hypothesis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Efficient Markets Hypothesis - Essay Example The essence of the efficient markets hypothesis evolved from an earlier capital assetpricing model or CAPM based on investors’ unobservable beliefs about future returns. The CAPM predicts a linear relationship between the expected rate of return on an asset and that asset’s systematic risk, often termed â€Å"beta.† The CAPM model in turn led to the arbitrage pricing theory which is more general than the CAPM by including a set of unspecified factors which influence capital valuations. The CAPM in turn has been expanded into a broader format including such factors as the size of the company and the ratio of book value to market value; this version has gained wider support over the past ten years (Negakis, page 3). The efficient market hypothesis, as defined by Fama going back to 1970, â€Å"defines an Efficient Market as the one in which ‘security prices fully reflect all available information’†. Fama, in 1970, identified three forms of Market Efficiency. In the weak form, no investor can expect to gain from analyzing historical data as that data would already be reflected in capital asset prices. In the semi-strong form, no investor can expect to gain from analyzing publicly available information for the same reason. In the strong form, no investor can expect to gain from analyzing information from any source (Negakis, page 3). The efficient market hypothesis requires the existence of a highly-competitive market. with a large number of very-well-informed traders and in which transactions are costless. It would then not matter how many shares or other capital assets a trader sells - the price would remain unaffected by his actions as the market would already have taken them into account. The market would already reflect all available information, which would be included automatically in the price of the shares or other assets under consideration. The advent of portfolio theory has strengthened the efficient market hypothesis by focusing 3 on the valuation of an entire portfolio of many securities rather than on each one's value. In a fully-diversified portfolio, the trader or investor need not be as concerned over each security or capital asset but rather on the risk and return of the total range of those assets. According to Fama, the strong version of the efficient mar

Development and Economic Sustenance in the Third World Context Essay

Development and Economic Sustenance in the Third World Context - Essay Example The "Third World" is seen as being a victim to the class struggle imposed from the top. There were strong roots in dependency theory which implies that developed regions continue to exploit developing regions for sustained growth. WAD theory adopts a rather mechanistic outlook on the role of women in development. It thus states that women are and have always been part of the process of development. The participation of women in the process of development is said to be in the form of both paid and unpaid labour considered an essential part of development. (Ramji: 1997). There is also a generalized inequity in role distribution in the WAD approach which assumes that women will contribute more in their traditional roles of home and hearth with supplemental roles being added through the forces of modernization. There is an implied inferiority-superiority dyad by which the determining role for development is not accorded to women. A detailed analysis of the other approaches to development will enable clarification of this concept. The â€Å"Women in Development† approach arose from the liberal trend in feminism. It recognizes the importance of roles and status of women in the process of development. Thus women are provided with a special role and status when development assistance is provided. Active involvement of women in the implementation of assistance is also underlined by aid-giving countries as Japan. The enhancement of opportunities for participation of women is said to lead to the improvement of the status of women in society in general.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Abstract- In the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) domain, researchers have always wondered about which principles and models to adopt for the development of collaborative applications capable to really meet the needs of their users. However, these users requirements are unpredictable and depend on several task or environment-related factors. Integrated collaborative environments are rarely open, extensible and reconfigurable enough so as to meet these requirements. This paper presents an environment, called LEICA (Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications), allowing the integration of existing cooperative applications. LEICA adopts a loosely-coupled integration approach which is based on Web services Services technology, an event notification system, and the definition of Collaboration Policies to control the interactions among integrated applications. LEICA allows different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled, enhancing therefore the flexibility. Through a case study we show how LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, an instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. Index Terms-Collaborative work, integrated collaborative environments, web services. INTRODUCTION Advances in networking and computing technologies, combined with the fact that companies and work teams are becoming geographically distributed, have created increased a need for communication technologies to ease distance collaboration among distributed individuals (virtual work teams). This leads to the appearing of the so-called Integrated Collaboration Environments (ICEs), having as main goal to integrate different collaborative applications together into a single easy-to-use operational environment [1]. Users needs are very frequently unpredictable and depending on several emerging factors, including the size of the workgroup, the collaborative activities to be accomplished, the intensiveness of the required communications, the coordination policy and the communication needs of the workgroup. Therefore, the possibility of dynamically integrating new functionalities to the environment appears as an important characteristic for collaborative applications [3]. Supporting the integration of new collaborative functionalities reflects how flexible the environment is while responding to unpredictable users needs. We can define this characteristic as integration flexibility that denotes the ease with which an ICE can be its functionalities in response to the users needs. Nowadays one of the main problems of ICEs is that their lack of integration flexibility and as consequence various users decide to set-up their own environments composing different collaborative applications executed independently. In this case, each application is completely isolated from others, without any possibility of coordination among them. This lack of integration can lead to a loss of control from the part of the user, since the operation environment is particularly artificial. Promoting the integration flexibility of ICEs could bring significant benefits to users, allowing different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled (enhancing therefore the flexibility itself). For instance, a whiteboard application can be integrated with an instant messaging application in such a way that whenever a user joins an instant messaging room, he is automatically logged into the same whiteboard session, instead of been forced to manually login into a session of each one of these collaborative tools. Another case could be the integration of a distributed game and an audio conference application. Whenever a user avatar enters a level/place into the game, his is logged into the audio conference session associated to that level/place, so that the users can online discuss with each other. In order to achieve the integration of existing collaborative applications without having to deal with their low-level features, this work presents LEICA, a Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications. Relying on Web services Services (WS) technologies and an event notification system, different collaborative applications can interoperate by exchanging information within the context of a global collaborative session. The loosely-coupled approach proposed by LEICA overcomes a key problem usually related to integration environments it does not require a true semantic integration of applications. Accordingly, it supports further integration possibilities, such as the integration of third party applications, enhancing, thus, flexibility. LEICA also offers flexibility in the level of the integration semantics. Based on Collaboration Policies to control the interactions between integrated applications, LEICA provides means to define how the collaboration activity supported by one collaborative application will be affected by information received from other collaborative applications. In practice, these collaborative applications interact through the notification of events which may lead to performing specific action(s) in some of these applications themselves. As we will explain later in detail, we think that once a collaborative session has been configured, the use of LEICA can improve users productivity by reducing the application-related administrative tasks, focusing precisely on the collaboration activity itself, and all that by just by interpreting the rules stated for a particular session, all this in function of some pre-established policy rules (also to be explained in detail later). In this way users will find a more natural collaboration environment from the users point of view. In order to illustrate the usability of LEICA in real-world conditions, this paper presents a case study that demonstrates the capability of LEICA to integrate collaborative applications. In this case study, LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. The paper is structured as follows. Section II presents related work regarding the integration of CSCW systems. Section III overviews the general integration approach proposed by LEICA. Section IV explains how to specify Collaboration Policies. Section V presents the LEICAs architecture, detailing how to integrate applications in practice. Some implementation issues are considered in section VI. Section VII describes a case study illustrating the use of LEICA. Finally, in section VIII we draw some conclusions and presents directions of future work. RELATED WORK There are several works oriented to improving integration flexibility of collaborative environments. In this context, four main approaches can be identified: user-tailorable solutions; CSCW toolkits; middleware based solutions; and platforms for integration of heterogeneous collaborative systems. User-Tailorable Solutions As stated in [2], different definitions of tailorability can be found in the literature. Most of them focus on user tailorability ([3], [4], [5] [6]) defining that a tailorable application can be adapted and modified by its own users in order to meet their different requirements. In CSCW, tailorability must focus on the requirements of the group task and of the organization, in which the CSCW system is used [5]. Actually, tailorability is one of the main concerns of groupware development methods. For example, application of participatory design methods ([7] [8]) has been proposed in order to approach the user involvement during groupware development, augmenting thus the opportunities for tailoring. According to [6], tailoring can be supported in three different levels: customization, selecting among a set of predefined configuration options; integration, linking together predefined components within or between applications; extension, improving the implementation by adding new program code. Most of user-tailorable groupware tools support only the customization or integration level (e.g. [2] [9]). Note that the integration level supposes that the functionality to be integrated has been pre-developed and is available somewhere [6]. Only at the extension level users would be able to integrate new functionalities, even if they have not been anticipated by developers at design time. A method frequently used for supporting tailoring at the extension level is the component-based tailoring. For example, in [10], components are implemented using Flexibeans (an extension of the Java Beans model) and end-users tailor the system using a composition language. In [11], end-users may assemble components into larger composite components using the visual representation rather than writing lines of code. However, even at the extension level the integration flexibility is partial as the integration of existing collaborative systems or groupware would require them to be redesigned according to the system architecture. CSCW Toolkits CSCW toolkits ease the implementation of CSCW systems by providing reusable components and behaviors designed to be applicable in a range of circumstances [12]. The need for flexibility and tailorability in CSCW toolkits is well acknowledged. The Neem Platform [13] offers a generic (application-neutral) evolvable framework upon which socially and culturally aware applications are developed. Flexibility and extensibility in Neem result from its foundation on a core architectural coordination model [13]: decoupled components interact indirectly through message exchanges. Intermezzo [14] is a collaboration support environment supporting the coordination information sharing, offering fluid interactions, user awareness, session management and policy control. It addresses dynamic flexibility [12] by allowing applications to adapt not just their own behavior, but also the behavior of the toolkit in reacting to the changing dynamics of the world they run into. The Groupware Toolkit/Shared Dictionary (or GT/SD) toolkit [15][16] has been developed to support rapid development of groupware, focusing mainly on networking and data sharing aspects. GT/SDs extensibility is based on its modular design, which allows adding or modifying behavior by replacing or wrapping different components. Toolkits may represent an interesting solution for helping the development of CSCW systems, as they promote the reuse of components. But in general, CSCW toolkits offer a limited set of functionalities or they are target for some specific kind of domain. Besides, to reuse components of the toolkit, developers often need to implement very specific details of the toolkit in order to adapt it to the application needs [16][17]. Middleware based solutions The integration of heterogeneous applications has been a widely investigated subject, mainly in distributed systems area. General integration solutions based on middleware, like CCM (CORBA Component Model), .NET and Enterprise JavaBeans have been developed. Moreover, integration solutions associated with specific domains have also been proposed, such as Enterprise Application Integration systems [17][18]. The emergence of Web services WS has also led to the development of general solutions for integration of distributed applications, due mainly to the use of open standards. In the CSCW domain, some middleware-based solutions have been proposed. Dustdar et al. [18][19] discuss the importance of using Web services WS in order to provide collaborative application interoperability. But in order to be integrated, collaborative applications must originally support Web servicesWS. Even if Web servicesWS represent an emerging software trend, only a limited set of collaborative applications are currently supporting these technologies. As an enhancement to traditional middleware, some SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions have also been proposed. For example, WGWSOA [19][20] uses Web ServicesWS as an access interface in order to support the reuse and the interoperability of different collaborative services. But an important drawback of WGWSOA is that collaborative services must be developed following the respective middleware architecture. It is also important to note that like WGWSOA, most middleware based solutions present technical responses to the so called syntactic interoperability [20][21]. They provide mechanisms allowing applications to communicate and interact through information exchange. But according to [21][22], the integration concept goes beyond the possibility of sharing and exchanging specific information. Applications must agree upon the meaning (or the semantics) of these exchanges. In other words, integration solutions should provide means for defining integration semantics. Thus, interoperability can be seen as a requirement for integration. The EcoSpace Project [22][23] proposes an environment that, besides being based on SOA and Web servicesWS, relies on Semantic Web technologies (WSDL-S with services ontologies) to support semantic description of collaborative services. Besides a semantic description of each service, it would be necessary a semantic description of the composition of services so as to coordinate their orchestration. However, this part of the project remains as design aspect. Moreover, using Web serviceWSs as integration technology may imply some performance loss, particularly associated to the use of SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) [23][24]. Luo et al. [24][25] claim that Web ServicesWS should be only used in situations which are really heterogeneous. They propose a service-oriented solution for the integration of collaborative applications that, instead of using SOAP, adopts a unified service bus (implemented through an open source Enterprise Service Bus). Platforms for integrating heterogeneous collaborative systems The latter latest approach to improve the integration flexibility of collaborative environments is to create platforms aiming specifically at the integration of collaborative applications. They focus on the integration of collaborative functionalities provided by these applications while trying to define any semantics behind integration. Iqbal et al. [25][26] propose an integrative framework based on the three-level model presented by [26][27]: the Ontological Model specifies shared objects, their relations and taxonomies; the Coordination Model specifies how interactions take place during system execution; and the User Interface Model specifies how the system is presented to the final user. Integration process consists firstly in identifying, for each collaborative application, the elements associated with these three models. Then, on each level the elements from different applications are grouped and merged when equivalent. As a result, common ontological, coordination and user interface models are generated. In spite of enabling a multi-level integration, this approach requires an internal knowledge of the collaborative applications so that their functionalities can be mapped into the three-level model. Accordingly, the integration of third party applications becomes a complex task. In order to avoid considering application internals during the integration process (facilitating the integration of existing applications), some integration solutions propose the so called loosely-coupled approach. This approach presents two main features: (i) once integrated to the environment, collaborative applications preserve their autonomy, i.e., they can still be used as standalone application; (ii) the integration environment remains independent of integrated applications, and accordingly, applications can be integrated and detached from the environment without compromising its behavior. This last feature is particularly important considering the integration flexibility aspect. In fact, in a loosely-coupled environment, the set of integrated applications must be easily modified according to users needs. Systems like AREA [27][28] and NESSIE [28][29] have proposed a loosely-coupled integration for supporting cross-application awareness. Both systems represent a collaborative environment where independent applications can share a common information space, implemented through an event notification system. Users can receive notifications of activity relevant events from different applications (executed by other users). An important aspect of these systems is the use of open Internet technologies (such as HTTP and CGI) to enable the integration of third party collaborative applications. However, the main drawback of both systems is that the integration semantics is statically defined collaborative applications are integrated so as to offer a common awareness of the whole collaboration activity. Another proposal also based on a loosely-coupled approach is the framework XGSP [29][30]. XGSP proposes the integration of audio and videoconferencing tools based on SIP and H.323 standards, as well as the integration of Access Grid applications [30][31]. In this framework, XGSP manager servers are in charge of controlling collaborative sessions. A different gateway is defined for each application type (i.e. SIP, H.323 and Access Grid applications). Using a signaling protocol based on Web servicesWS, these gateways are employed to mediate the communication between applications and XGSP servers. An important disadvantage of XGSP is the fact that, originally, it only allows the integration of application based on SIP, H.323 and Access Grid. Loosely-coupling is also inherent to the Web servicesWS based solutions presented in the previous section. Similarly to those solutions, LEICA represents an integration environment that proposes a loosely-coupled approach based on Web servicesWS technologies. Regarding the performance implications of SOAP, Alonso et al. [31][32] suggest that Web ServicesWS technologies should be used only to implement coarse-gained interactions, where the impact of the overhead associated to SOAP would be less important. Following the recommendations of [31][32], Web servicesWS are employed by LEICA for coarse-grained operations only. As it will be detailed in the following sections, LEICA defines a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied as an initial mechanism for registering newly integrated applications, as well as for setting and starting up collaborative sessions. Then, during the execution of integrated collaborative sessions a different infrastructure is used to interconnect collaborative applications. Another important aspect concerns integration semantics. Unlike the previous solutions, LEICA provides users with the possibility to define the desired integration semantics for each collaborative session. The Integration Environment: LEICA LEICA aims at the integration of different collaborative applications, where integration semantics is to be defined according to user requirements. Before explaining the general integration approach and the behavior of LEICA, a possible scenario is presented to better illustrate the advantages of such integration. Integration Scenario An important domain where collaborative environments have been largely used is e-Learning. In particular, a CVE (Collaborative Virtual Environment) can be used to implement a 3D shared world representing a school building divided into: one entrance hall, classrooms, and teachers rooms. Different collaborative applications could be associated to each room: (i) a chat room associated to the entrance hall; (ii) a collaborative web browsing (it would enable teachers to guide students through lecture notes) and an audio conference tool associated to the classrooms; and (iii) a shared whiteboard associated to each of the teachers room. Un paragraphe pour montrer la situation: Utilisation des outils non integrà ©es, et lintà ©gration avec LEICA. With this integration semantics, whenever an avatar enters into a room, the respective user is automatically connected to the associated collaborative application(s). Besides, only authorized users should enter into private rooms (e.g. the teachers rooms with its whiteboard could be restricted to teachers). Another possible behavior specified by this integration semantics is some kind of floor coupling between the two applications used as a support for virtual class sessions. This way, it would be possible to assure that the user holding the Web browsing floor (i.e. the one guiding the lecture notes browsing) is the only one to have the right to speak to the class attendees. General Integration Approach As previously mentioned, and illustrated in Fig. 1, LEICA follows a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied at the collaborative sessions start up, and an event notification system allows collaborative applications to interact through the exchange of event notifications. Two other basic components of LEICA are the Wrappers and the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The integration of a collaborative application to LEICA is achieved by attaching a Wrapper to it. Three main cases may be considered: a) open source applications, b) API-based applications, and c) applications without any available API. Integration of open source applications can achieve the tightest interaction degree, since any internal event/action can be exported/performed; it might however imply great development efforts. API-based integration is straightforward, and interaction is limited to the provided API. Applications without API are the most limitating ones, constraining to interact only through application start and stop actions. LEICAs integration approach is mainly driven by case (b), believing that developers are certainly interested in creating specific and performable collaboration tools that can be used either stand-alone or integrated with other applications (through a flexible API, being able to get a great share of the market). This is for instance the case of Skypeâ„ ¢, a successful example of communication tool that has released its API since some time ago. Fig. 2 summarizes LEICAs general integration framework. The first step of the LEICAs integration framework is the Collaborative Application Integration. For instance, in the illustrative scenario presented in III.A, the first step to integrate the CVE with the instant messenger (supporting the chat room associated to the entrance hall), the collaborative Web browser and the audio conference applications, it is necessary to create a Wrapper for each one of these applications. As detailed in Section V, these wrappers can be automatically generated by LEICAs API Factory, based on the API description of each collaborative application. The Wrappers comprise a Web services Services WS interface allowing the collaborative application to register itself with LEICA. As illustrated by Fig. 1, through the Wrappers Web servicesWS ports, the integrated application can interact with the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The SCS is a Web service Service WS used for (i) configuring new global SuperSessions and (ii) starting up SuperSessions. A SuperSession is an integrated collaborative session holding the whole collaboration activity. Within the context of a global SuperSession, different specificSessions can exist. A specificSession is a conventional collaborative session defined within the context of a collaborative application (e.g. a videoconference session, a whiteboard session, etc.). The SCS dynamically contacts each integrated application, during the SuperSession configuration process, in order to request: (i) which specific data is required to create specificSessions for this respective application (e.g. a videoconference tool could require an IP multicast address); and (ii) which kind of events it can notify, and action requests it can handle. The interaction degree among the integrated applications depends essentially on the nature of the events they are able to exchange, and actions they are able to perform. In order to create a SuperSession, a user must define its integration semantics. It is accomplished by configuring the Collaboration Policy. A Collaboration Policy is a set of rules under a condition/action model. These rules define how collaborative applications must react when receiving information (events) notified by other integrated applications. In other words, the specification of Collaboration Policies allows defining specific integration semantics (i.e. how to coordinate integrated applications) to each SuperSession, according to the different users requirements. Once a SuperSessions has been created (and its associated configuration file is generated), it can finally be started up. The SCS firstly contacts each integrated collaborative application requesting them to create the specificSessions defined in the SuperSession. Then, during the execution of collaborative sessions the integrated application can interact through the exchange of event using the Event Notification System. According to predefined Collaboration Policies, these notifications may lead specific actions to be performed. Wrappers are in charge of managing the SuperSessions Collaboration Policy. When the Wrapper of a collaborative application receives event notifications, it verifies if the notified events enable any policy rule concerning this collaborative application. If so, the Wrapper sends action requests to the respective application. Note that LEICA is not intended to support low-level physical events (e.g. mouse click/scrolling) or high frequency synchronization events (e.g. current position of moving objects). It aims at supporting activity relevant events that carry some semantics. SuperSession Concept As previously mentioned, LEICA controls the whole collaboration activity within the context of a global SuperSession. A SuperSession model has been defined in order to precisely identify and describe its components. Based on this model, LEICA maintains concise and coherent SuperSession state information. Furthermore, a well-defined taxonomy of the components and their attributes are also implied from the model. General models for describing collaborative applications have already been proposed in the literature. Some of them [26][27] [32][33] represent a conceptual or ontological model describing the entities and relationships of individual CSCW systems. Few models aim at describing integrated CSCW systems, like OOActSM [33][34] and the conceptual model presented in [34][35]. However, these models are based on the notion of a general activity as the central abstraction, which was considered rather abstract for a detailed specification of the SuperSession. Nevertheless, these models have inspired several concepts adopted in the defined SuperSession model. The SuperSession represents a collaboration activity involving different integrated applications, a group of users and general roles associated to these users. Formally, a CIE Session CS is a tuple: SS = (SSid, CA , NA , Rl , U , SSat) where: SSid is a unique identifier; CA = {CAi } | i ÃŽ [1,I]} is a finite set of collaborative applications where CAi = (CAidi, spSi, CAati) a specific collaborative application running a set of specificSessions (sSi). CAati is a list of attributes characterizing the collaborative application. These attributes provide information about the application description, including name, type, whether it is a role-based application, its distribution architecture (client/server, multi-servers, peer-to-peer) and the type of user applications (stand-alone or webWeb-based).); NA is a finite set of non-collaborative applications (data converters, databases, web applications, etc.); Rl = {Rlk } | k ÃŽ [1,K]} is a finite set of general roles. The concept of general role refers to a group of users owning the same set of responsibilities and privileges inside LEICA; Rlk = (Rlidk , Rlatk). Rlidk is a unique role identifier; and Rlatk is a list of attributes characterizing this general role. This list provides details like roles description, membership and administration rights. Regarding the membership, it defines how the role is associated with users: it may be either (i) a static association (there is a membership list), (ii) an automatic association (there is a predicate function based on users parameters and SuperSession state) or (iii) a users choice (password protected or not).); U = {Ul } | l ÃŽ [1,L]} is a finite set of connected users; Ul = (Uidl, URlidl, Mbl, Uatl) represent a user, where Uidl is a unique identifier; URlidl is one general role associated with the user; Mbl is a finite set of membership relations; Uatl is a list of attributes (name, email, IP address, network connection, device type, etc.); Mbl.n = (mCAidl.n , mSidl.n , msRlidl.n) is a membership relation, where mCAidl.n is an application identifier; mSidl.n is a specificSession identifier; msRlidl.n is a finite set of specific roles identifiers. Thus, each membership relation indicates the participation of a connected user to a specificSession of a collaborative application (once connected to the SuperSession, a user can concurrently take part in none, one or more specificSessions of different collaborative applications); SSat is a list of attributes characterizing the SuperSession. These attributes describe information like session context (name, purpose, etc.), scheduling (if scheduled or not, duration, etc.), accessibility type (open or closed), role association type (how users are associated to a general role) and maximum number of connected users. A specificSession regards a conventional collaborative session of a collaborative application. The role of the specificSession entity (spSi.m), wich is formally represented by the tuple: spSi.m = (Sidi.m, sRli.m, pUidi.m, Rsi.m, spSati.m) is not to precisely describe each aspect of a collaborative task. Instead, it captures relevant elements like the specific roles defined for this session (sRli.m), the users participating to this session (pUidi.m.) and the shared resources accessed by these users (Rsi.m). A specific role is a tuple, sRli.m.o = (sRlidi.m.o, sRlati.m.o), where sRlidi.m.o is a specific role identifier and sRlati.m.o is a list of attributes characterizing the specific role (description and maximum number of simultaneous users). A resource is also a tuple Rsi.m.p= (urli.m.p, Rsati.m.p ), where urli.m.p is a resource locator and Rsati.m.p is a list of attributes characterizing the resource. The purpose of the resource element is simply to allow the implementation of an inter-application access control mechanism. LEICA will not need to keep the state of each resource. Thus, resources attributes just describe its type (file, device, virtual object, interface widget, etc.) and the read/write access type (exclusive or concurrent). SuperSession Configuration In order to create a SuperSession, a two step configuration process is carried out: (i) Session Management configuration and (ii) Collaboration Policy configuration. In the first configuration step, two groups of information should be specified: General Session Management information (GSMinfo): It carries management information such as scheduling, membership and general user roles.; Integrated Applications information (IAinfo): It defines the list of integrated applications to be used during this SuperSession; for each collaborative application, a list of specificSessions is defined, where specific data required by this application for creating sessions is provided (e.g. a videoconference application will be provided with an IP multicast address). Once Session Management configuration is completed, the Collaboration Polic Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Abstract- In the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) domain, researchers have always wondered about which principles and models to adopt for the development of collaborative applications capable to really meet the needs of their users. However, these users requirements are unpredictable and depend on several task or environment-related factors. Integrated collaborative environments are rarely open, extensible and reconfigurable enough so as to meet these requirements. This paper presents an environment, called LEICA (Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications), allowing the integration of existing cooperative applications. LEICA adopts a loosely-coupled integration approach which is based on Web services Services technology, an event notification system, and the definition of Collaboration Policies to control the interactions among integrated applications. LEICA allows different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled, enhancing therefore the flexibility. Through a case study we show how LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, an instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. Index Terms-Collaborative work, integrated collaborative environments, web services. INTRODUCTION Advances in networking and computing technologies, combined with the fact that companies and work teams are becoming geographically distributed, have created increased a need for communication technologies to ease distance collaboration among distributed individuals (virtual work teams). This leads to the appearing of the so-called Integrated Collaboration Environments (ICEs), having as main goal to integrate different collaborative applications together into a single easy-to-use operational environment [1]. Users needs are very frequently unpredictable and depending on several emerging factors, including the size of the workgroup, the collaborative activities to be accomplished, the intensiveness of the required communications, the coordination policy and the communication needs of the workgroup. Therefore, the possibility of dynamically integrating new functionalities to the environment appears as an important characteristic for collaborative applications [3]. Supporting the integration of new collaborative functionalities reflects how flexible the environment is while responding to unpredictable users needs. We can define this characteristic as integration flexibility that denotes the ease with which an ICE can be its functionalities in response to the users needs. Nowadays one of the main problems of ICEs is that their lack of integration flexibility and as consequence various users decide to set-up their own environments composing different collaborative applications executed independently. In this case, each application is completely isolated from others, without any possibility of coordination among them. This lack of integration can lead to a loss of control from the part of the user, since the operation environment is particularly artificial. Promoting the integration flexibility of ICEs could bring significant benefits to users, allowing different functionalities of existing applications to be dynamically combined and controlled (enhancing therefore the flexibility itself). For instance, a whiteboard application can be integrated with an instant messaging application in such a way that whenever a user joins an instant messaging room, he is automatically logged into the same whiteboard session, instead of been forced to manually login into a session of each one of these collaborative tools. Another case could be the integration of a distributed game and an audio conference application. Whenever a user avatar enters a level/place into the game, his is logged into the audio conference session associated to that level/place, so that the users can online discuss with each other. In order to achieve the integration of existing collaborative applications without having to deal with their low-level features, this work presents LEICA, a Loosely-coupled Environment for Integrating Collaborative Applications. Relying on Web services Services (WS) technologies and an event notification system, different collaborative applications can interoperate by exchanging information within the context of a global collaborative session. The loosely-coupled approach proposed by LEICA overcomes a key problem usually related to integration environments it does not require a true semantic integration of applications. Accordingly, it supports further integration possibilities, such as the integration of third party applications, enhancing, thus, flexibility. LEICA also offers flexibility in the level of the integration semantics. Based on Collaboration Policies to control the interactions between integrated applications, LEICA provides means to define how the collaboration activity supported by one collaborative application will be affected by information received from other collaborative applications. In practice, these collaborative applications interact through the notification of events which may lead to performing specific action(s) in some of these applications themselves. As we will explain later in detail, we think that once a collaborative session has been configured, the use of LEICA can improve users productivity by reducing the application-related administrative tasks, focusing precisely on the collaboration activity itself, and all that by just by interpreting the rules stated for a particular session, all this in function of some pre-established policy rules (also to be explained in detail later). In this way users will find a more natural collaboration environment from the users point of view. In order to illustrate the usability of LEICA in real-world conditions, this paper presents a case study that demonstrates the capability of LEICA to integrate collaborative applications. In this case study, LEICA was successfully used to integrate three collaborative applications: a co-browsing tool, instant messaging tool and a VoIP conference controller. The paper is structured as follows. Section II presents related work regarding the integration of CSCW systems. Section III overviews the general integration approach proposed by LEICA. Section IV explains how to specify Collaboration Policies. Section V presents the LEICAs architecture, detailing how to integrate applications in practice. Some implementation issues are considered in section VI. Section VII describes a case study illustrating the use of LEICA. Finally, in section VIII we draw some conclusions and presents directions of future work. RELATED WORK There are several works oriented to improving integration flexibility of collaborative environments. In this context, four main approaches can be identified: user-tailorable solutions; CSCW toolkits; middleware based solutions; and platforms for integration of heterogeneous collaborative systems. User-Tailorable Solutions As stated in [2], different definitions of tailorability can be found in the literature. Most of them focus on user tailorability ([3], [4], [5] [6]) defining that a tailorable application can be adapted and modified by its own users in order to meet their different requirements. In CSCW, tailorability must focus on the requirements of the group task and of the organization, in which the CSCW system is used [5]. Actually, tailorability is one of the main concerns of groupware development methods. For example, application of participatory design methods ([7] [8]) has been proposed in order to approach the user involvement during groupware development, augmenting thus the opportunities for tailoring. According to [6], tailoring can be supported in three different levels: customization, selecting among a set of predefined configuration options; integration, linking together predefined components within or between applications; extension, improving the implementation by adding new program code. Most of user-tailorable groupware tools support only the customization or integration level (e.g. [2] [9]). Note that the integration level supposes that the functionality to be integrated has been pre-developed and is available somewhere [6]. Only at the extension level users would be able to integrate new functionalities, even if they have not been anticipated by developers at design time. A method frequently used for supporting tailoring at the extension level is the component-based tailoring. For example, in [10], components are implemented using Flexibeans (an extension of the Java Beans model) and end-users tailor the system using a composition language. In [11], end-users may assemble components into larger composite components using the visual representation rather than writing lines of code. However, even at the extension level the integration flexibility is partial as the integration of existing collaborative systems or groupware would require them to be redesigned according to the system architecture. CSCW Toolkits CSCW toolkits ease the implementation of CSCW systems by providing reusable components and behaviors designed to be applicable in a range of circumstances [12]. The need for flexibility and tailorability in CSCW toolkits is well acknowledged. The Neem Platform [13] offers a generic (application-neutral) evolvable framework upon which socially and culturally aware applications are developed. Flexibility and extensibility in Neem result from its foundation on a core architectural coordination model [13]: decoupled components interact indirectly through message exchanges. Intermezzo [14] is a collaboration support environment supporting the coordination information sharing, offering fluid interactions, user awareness, session management and policy control. It addresses dynamic flexibility [12] by allowing applications to adapt not just their own behavior, but also the behavior of the toolkit in reacting to the changing dynamics of the world they run into. The Groupware Toolkit/Shared Dictionary (or GT/SD) toolkit [15][16] has been developed to support rapid development of groupware, focusing mainly on networking and data sharing aspects. GT/SDs extensibility is based on its modular design, which allows adding or modifying behavior by replacing or wrapping different components. Toolkits may represent an interesting solution for helping the development of CSCW systems, as they promote the reuse of components. But in general, CSCW toolkits offer a limited set of functionalities or they are target for some specific kind of domain. Besides, to reuse components of the toolkit, developers often need to implement very specific details of the toolkit in order to adapt it to the application needs [16][17]. Middleware based solutions The integration of heterogeneous applications has been a widely investigated subject, mainly in distributed systems area. General integration solutions based on middleware, like CCM (CORBA Component Model), .NET and Enterprise JavaBeans have been developed. Moreover, integration solutions associated with specific domains have also been proposed, such as Enterprise Application Integration systems [17][18]. The emergence of Web services WS has also led to the development of general solutions for integration of distributed applications, due mainly to the use of open standards. In the CSCW domain, some middleware-based solutions have been proposed. Dustdar et al. [18][19] discuss the importance of using Web services WS in order to provide collaborative application interoperability. But in order to be integrated, collaborative applications must originally support Web servicesWS. Even if Web servicesWS represent an emerging software trend, only a limited set of collaborative applications are currently supporting these technologies. As an enhancement to traditional middleware, some SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions have also been proposed. For example, WGWSOA [19][20] uses Web ServicesWS as an access interface in order to support the reuse and the interoperability of different collaborative services. But an important drawback of WGWSOA is that collaborative services must be developed following the respective middleware architecture. It is also important to note that like WGWSOA, most middleware based solutions present technical responses to the so called syntactic interoperability [20][21]. They provide mechanisms allowing applications to communicate and interact through information exchange. But according to [21][22], the integration concept goes beyond the possibility of sharing and exchanging specific information. Applications must agree upon the meaning (or the semantics) of these exchanges. In other words, integration solutions should provide means for defining integration semantics. Thus, interoperability can be seen as a requirement for integration. The EcoSpace Project [22][23] proposes an environment that, besides being based on SOA and Web servicesWS, relies on Semantic Web technologies (WSDL-S with services ontologies) to support semantic description of collaborative services. Besides a semantic description of each service, it would be necessary a semantic description of the composition of services so as to coordinate their orchestration. However, this part of the project remains as design aspect. Moreover, using Web serviceWSs as integration technology may imply some performance loss, particularly associated to the use of SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) [23][24]. Luo et al. [24][25] claim that Web ServicesWS should be only used in situations which are really heterogeneous. They propose a service-oriented solution for the integration of collaborative applications that, instead of using SOAP, adopts a unified service bus (implemented through an open source Enterprise Service Bus). Platforms for integrating heterogeneous collaborative systems The latter latest approach to improve the integration flexibility of collaborative environments is to create platforms aiming specifically at the integration of collaborative applications. They focus on the integration of collaborative functionalities provided by these applications while trying to define any semantics behind integration. Iqbal et al. [25][26] propose an integrative framework based on the three-level model presented by [26][27]: the Ontological Model specifies shared objects, their relations and taxonomies; the Coordination Model specifies how interactions take place during system execution; and the User Interface Model specifies how the system is presented to the final user. Integration process consists firstly in identifying, for each collaborative application, the elements associated with these three models. Then, on each level the elements from different applications are grouped and merged when equivalent. As a result, common ontological, coordination and user interface models are generated. In spite of enabling a multi-level integration, this approach requires an internal knowledge of the collaborative applications so that their functionalities can be mapped into the three-level model. Accordingly, the integration of third party applications becomes a complex task. In order to avoid considering application internals during the integration process (facilitating the integration of existing applications), some integration solutions propose the so called loosely-coupled approach. This approach presents two main features: (i) once integrated to the environment, collaborative applications preserve their autonomy, i.e., they can still be used as standalone application; (ii) the integration environment remains independent of integrated applications, and accordingly, applications can be integrated and detached from the environment without compromising its behavior. This last feature is particularly important considering the integration flexibility aspect. In fact, in a loosely-coupled environment, the set of integrated applications must be easily modified according to users needs. Systems like AREA [27][28] and NESSIE [28][29] have proposed a loosely-coupled integration for supporting cross-application awareness. Both systems represent a collaborative environment where independent applications can share a common information space, implemented through an event notification system. Users can receive notifications of activity relevant events from different applications (executed by other users). An important aspect of these systems is the use of open Internet technologies (such as HTTP and CGI) to enable the integration of third party collaborative applications. However, the main drawback of both systems is that the integration semantics is statically defined collaborative applications are integrated so as to offer a common awareness of the whole collaboration activity. Another proposal also based on a loosely-coupled approach is the framework XGSP [29][30]. XGSP proposes the integration of audio and videoconferencing tools based on SIP and H.323 standards, as well as the integration of Access Grid applications [30][31]. In this framework, XGSP manager servers are in charge of controlling collaborative sessions. A different gateway is defined for each application type (i.e. SIP, H.323 and Access Grid applications). Using a signaling protocol based on Web servicesWS, these gateways are employed to mediate the communication between applications and XGSP servers. An important disadvantage of XGSP is the fact that, originally, it only allows the integration of application based on SIP, H.323 and Access Grid. Loosely-coupling is also inherent to the Web servicesWS based solutions presented in the previous section. Similarly to those solutions, LEICA represents an integration environment that proposes a loosely-coupled approach based on Web servicesWS technologies. Regarding the performance implications of SOAP, Alonso et al. [31][32] suggest that Web ServicesWS technologies should be used only to implement coarse-gained interactions, where the impact of the overhead associated to SOAP would be less important. Following the recommendations of [31][32], Web servicesWS are employed by LEICA for coarse-grained operations only. As it will be detailed in the following sections, LEICA defines a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied as an initial mechanism for registering newly integrated applications, as well as for setting and starting up collaborative sessions. Then, during the execution of integrated collaborative sessions a different infrastructure is used to interconnect collaborative applications. Another important aspect concerns integration semantics. Unlike the previous solutions, LEICA provides users with the possibility to define the desired integration semantics for each collaborative session. The Integration Environment: LEICA LEICA aims at the integration of different collaborative applications, where integration semantics is to be defined according to user requirements. Before explaining the general integration approach and the behavior of LEICA, a possible scenario is presented to better illustrate the advantages of such integration. Integration Scenario An important domain where collaborative environments have been largely used is e-Learning. In particular, a CVE (Collaborative Virtual Environment) can be used to implement a 3D shared world representing a school building divided into: one entrance hall, classrooms, and teachers rooms. Different collaborative applications could be associated to each room: (i) a chat room associated to the entrance hall; (ii) a collaborative web browsing (it would enable teachers to guide students through lecture notes) and an audio conference tool associated to the classrooms; and (iii) a shared whiteboard associated to each of the teachers room. Un paragraphe pour montrer la situation: Utilisation des outils non integrà ©es, et lintà ©gration avec LEICA. With this integration semantics, whenever an avatar enters into a room, the respective user is automatically connected to the associated collaborative application(s). Besides, only authorized users should enter into private rooms (e.g. the teachers rooms with its whiteboard could be restricted to teachers). Another possible behavior specified by this integration semantics is some kind of floor coupling between the two applications used as a support for virtual class sessions. This way, it would be possible to assure that the user holding the Web browsing floor (i.e. the one guiding the lecture notes browsing) is the only one to have the right to speak to the class attendees. General Integration Approach As previously mentioned, and illustrated in Fig. 1, LEICA follows a hybrid architecture where Web ServicesWS are applied at the collaborative sessions start up, and an event notification system allows collaborative applications to interact through the exchange of event notifications. Two other basic components of LEICA are the Wrappers and the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The integration of a collaborative application to LEICA is achieved by attaching a Wrapper to it. Three main cases may be considered: a) open source applications, b) API-based applications, and c) applications without any available API. Integration of open source applications can achieve the tightest interaction degree, since any internal event/action can be exported/performed; it might however imply great development efforts. API-based integration is straightforward, and interaction is limited to the provided API. Applications without API are the most limitating ones, constraining to interact only through application start and stop actions. LEICAs integration approach is mainly driven by case (b), believing that developers are certainly interested in creating specific and performable collaboration tools that can be used either stand-alone or integrated with other applications (through a flexible API, being able to get a great share of the market). This is for instance the case of Skypeâ„ ¢, a successful example of communication tool that has released its API since some time ago. Fig. 2 summarizes LEICAs general integration framework. The first step of the LEICAs integration framework is the Collaborative Application Integration. For instance, in the illustrative scenario presented in III.A, the first step to integrate the CVE with the instant messenger (supporting the chat room associated to the entrance hall), the collaborative Web browser and the audio conference applications, it is necessary to create a Wrapper for each one of these applications. As detailed in Section V, these wrappers can be automatically generated by LEICAs API Factory, based on the API description of each collaborative application. The Wrappers comprise a Web services Services WS interface allowing the collaborative application to register itself with LEICA. As illustrated by Fig. 1, through the Wrappers Web servicesWS ports, the integrated application can interact with the Session Configuration Service (SCS). The SCS is a Web service Service WS used for (i) configuring new global SuperSessions and (ii) starting up SuperSessions. A SuperSession is an integrated collaborative session holding the whole collaboration activity. Within the context of a global SuperSession, different specificSessions can exist. A specificSession is a conventional collaborative session defined within the context of a collaborative application (e.g. a videoconference session, a whiteboard session, etc.). The SCS dynamically contacts each integrated application, during the SuperSession configuration process, in order to request: (i) which specific data is required to create specificSessions for this respective application (e.g. a videoconference tool could require an IP multicast address); and (ii) which kind of events it can notify, and action requests it can handle. The interaction degree among the integrated applications depends essentially on the nature of the events they are able to exchange, and actions they are able to perform. In order to create a SuperSession, a user must define its integration semantics. It is accomplished by configuring the Collaboration Policy. A Collaboration Policy is a set of rules under a condition/action model. These rules define how collaborative applications must react when receiving information (events) notified by other integrated applications. In other words, the specification of Collaboration Policies allows defining specific integration semantics (i.e. how to coordinate integrated applications) to each SuperSession, according to the different users requirements. Once a SuperSessions has been created (and its associated configuration file is generated), it can finally be started up. The SCS firstly contacts each integrated collaborative application requesting them to create the specificSessions defined in the SuperSession. Then, during the execution of collaborative sessions the integrated application can interact through the exchange of event using the Event Notification System. According to predefined Collaboration Policies, these notifications may lead specific actions to be performed. Wrappers are in charge of managing the SuperSessions Collaboration Policy. When the Wrapper of a collaborative application receives event notifications, it verifies if the notified events enable any policy rule concerning this collaborative application. If so, the Wrapper sends action requests to the respective application. Note that LEICA is not intended to support low-level physical events (e.g. mouse click/scrolling) or high frequency synchronization events (e.g. current position of moving objects). It aims at supporting activity relevant events that carry some semantics. SuperSession Concept As previously mentioned, LEICA controls the whole collaboration activity within the context of a global SuperSession. A SuperSession model has been defined in order to precisely identify and describe its components. Based on this model, LEICA maintains concise and coherent SuperSession state information. Furthermore, a well-defined taxonomy of the components and their attributes are also implied from the model. General models for describing collaborative applications have already been proposed in the literature. Some of them [26][27] [32][33] represent a conceptual or ontological model describing the entities and relationships of individual CSCW systems. Few models aim at describing integrated CSCW systems, like OOActSM [33][34] and the conceptual model presented in [34][35]. However, these models are based on the notion of a general activity as the central abstraction, which was considered rather abstract for a detailed specification of the SuperSession. Nevertheless, these models have inspired several concepts adopted in the defined SuperSession model. The SuperSession represents a collaboration activity involving different integrated applications, a group of users and general roles associated to these users. Formally, a CIE Session CS is a tuple: SS = (SSid, CA , NA , Rl , U , SSat) where: SSid is a unique identifier; CA = {CAi } | i ÃŽ [1,I]} is a finite set of collaborative applications where CAi = (CAidi, spSi, CAati) a specific collaborative application running a set of specificSessions (sSi). CAati is a list of attributes characterizing the collaborative application. These attributes provide information about the application description, including name, type, whether it is a role-based application, its distribution architecture (client/server, multi-servers, peer-to-peer) and the type of user applications (stand-alone or webWeb-based).); NA is a finite set of non-collaborative applications (data converters, databases, web applications, etc.); Rl = {Rlk } | k ÃŽ [1,K]} is a finite set of general roles. The concept of general role refers to a group of users owning the same set of responsibilities and privileges inside LEICA; Rlk = (Rlidk , Rlatk). Rlidk is a unique role identifier; and Rlatk is a list of attributes characterizing this general role. This list provides details like roles description, membership and administration rights. Regarding the membership, it defines how the role is associated with users: it may be either (i) a static association (there is a membership list), (ii) an automatic association (there is a predicate function based on users parameters and SuperSession state) or (iii) a users choice (password protected or not).); U = {Ul } | l ÃŽ [1,L]} is a finite set of connected users; Ul = (Uidl, URlidl, Mbl, Uatl) represent a user, where Uidl is a unique identifier; URlidl is one general role associated with the user; Mbl is a finite set of membership relations; Uatl is a list of attributes (name, email, IP address, network connection, device type, etc.); Mbl.n = (mCAidl.n , mSidl.n , msRlidl.n) is a membership relation, where mCAidl.n is an application identifier; mSidl.n is a specificSession identifier; msRlidl.n is a finite set of specific roles identifiers. Thus, each membership relation indicates the participation of a connected user to a specificSession of a collaborative application (once connected to the SuperSession, a user can concurrently take part in none, one or more specificSessions of different collaborative applications); SSat is a list of attributes characterizing the SuperSession. These attributes describe information like session context (name, purpose, etc.), scheduling (if scheduled or not, duration, etc.), accessibility type (open or closed), role association type (how users are associated to a general role) and maximum number of connected users. A specificSession regards a conventional collaborative session of a collaborative application. The role of the specificSession entity (spSi.m), wich is formally represented by the tuple: spSi.m = (Sidi.m, sRli.m, pUidi.m, Rsi.m, spSati.m) is not to precisely describe each aspect of a collaborative task. Instead, it captures relevant elements like the specific roles defined for this session (sRli.m), the users participating to this session (pUidi.m.) and the shared resources accessed by these users (Rsi.m). A specific role is a tuple, sRli.m.o = (sRlidi.m.o, sRlati.m.o), where sRlidi.m.o is a specific role identifier and sRlati.m.o is a list of attributes characterizing the specific role (description and maximum number of simultaneous users). A resource is also a tuple Rsi.m.p= (urli.m.p, Rsati.m.p ), where urli.m.p is a resource locator and Rsati.m.p is a list of attributes characterizing the resource. The purpose of the resource element is simply to allow the implementation of an inter-application access control mechanism. LEICA will not need to keep the state of each resource. Thus, resources attributes just describe its type (file, device, virtual object, interface widget, etc.) and the read/write access type (exclusive or concurrent). SuperSession Configuration In order to create a SuperSession, a two step configuration process is carried out: (i) Session Management configuration and (ii) Collaboration Policy configuration. In the first configuration step, two groups of information should be specified: General Session Management information (GSMinfo): It carries management information such as scheduling, membership and general user roles.; Integrated Applications information (IAinfo): It defines the list of integrated applications to be used during this SuperSession; for each collaborative application, a list of specificSessions is defined, where specific data required by this application for creating sessions is provided (e.g. a videoconference application will be provided with an IP multicast address). Once Session Management configuration is completed, the Collaboration Polic

Edgar Allan Poe Essay -- Biography

Edgar Allan Poe was a 19th century American poet, author, and critic. Poe is often described as a rebel against society and art-for-art's sake supporter who experimented in making his poems without didacticism and devoid of any meaning, but he is also respected as a genius in terms of his commitment to art and his ability to experiment with various forms of expressions (Fromm 304). In my opinion, Poe was not a rebel because he remained true to himself. Although he was influenced by traditional artists, he adapted this tradition to his personal being. Although he might have been perceived as a rebel against society because of his innovative views on the world, human beings, and poetry, I believe his work remains popular and influential today because he remained true to his style and personality. However, I agree that he was dedicated to art for art's sake because his main intention was to express himself through his work. Poe did not bother with popular styles and techniques, but he w as a master poet when it comes to adapting to different styles to convey his emotions appropriately. Overall, Poe's poetry displays sentimentalism because he puts all emphasis on emotions and no emphasis on logic, but it is not limited to optimism because he displays both positive and negative emotions, and he displays them often together using both extremes in a single poem. According to Poe's values, the only productive thinkers were both educated and imaginative, and he described poets as people who do not understand the mechanics behind the Universe's laws, but they can obtain these principles intuition (Osipova 25). Poe wrote his poetry according to his beliefs, and every poem he wrote was a reflection on his intuition's insights and his state o... ...riences in form of divine beauty, I believe the main limitation was his experiences through intuition because translating intuition into intellect cannot be complete. However, his sentimentalism and the ability to display the same situations and points from completely opposite emotional contexts remains one of his best qualities as a poet. It is still difficult to say if Poe was influenced by his emotions completely, or if his emotions were out of control, or if he could observe all experiences objectively. My personal impression is that Poe was an objective observer who could view the same object, person, situation, or experience from several viewpoints and express his impressions and insights through poetry. Although his alcoholism points out emotional difficulties in life, when it comes to poetry, Poe could completely control and express all emotions objectively.

Hickey Fate Versus Free Will Oedipus Rex

The downfall of Oedipus was due to free will rather than fate shown in his De minding of information and his immediate, irrational actions. Oedipus being the arrogant king he is, was constantly looking for information when others had informed him that it would not be useful, even damaging to Oedipal use's current life and well being. In an exchange between Oedipus and Tires, Oedipus had deem need Tires to him palace to tell him his prophecy and who was the one who had killed Alias and plagued the and.Tires responded to these demands with â€Å"l will cause neither me nor y o distress. Why do you vainly question me like this? You will not learn a thing from me,†. Tires clearly tells Oedipus there is no benefit to this knowledge giving Oedipus the opportunity to stop questioning the blind prophet but it was Oedipus choice to continue to pester the old ma n until the devastating truth was revealed to him and in his ignorance questioned â€Å"Who t old you to say this? Rather tha n face the truth he had demanded.Oedipus later seeded inform nation to whether e killed his father and who his birth father truly was. His wife, and later to be discovered mother, stated â€Å"In the name of the gods, no! If you have some concern for you our own life, then stop! Do not keep investigating this. I will suffer that will be enough†. Though J coasts begs him, he continues to freely search for information that would bring him no be unfit when he could have ended his search right then. Due to his choosing, Oedipus looked for info urination when he could have listened to those around him and lived out a nice, yet ignorant life to the truth.Though Oedipus could defeat the sphinx with his intelligence, intelligence coo old not stop him from the irrational actions he chose. Once the pieces of information had finally matched up and he revealed the truth he had searched for, Oedipus and his mother took t heir fates into their own hands. Oedipus found his mother hung in th eir bedroom, dead and then decided to take her jewelry and stabbed his own eyes out. Though the news was devastating, these e actions were overly dramatic, considering both beings had known their prophecy but it was their choice to sake such harsh actions.Though it was fate who had propelled Oedipus to sat b his eyes out, it was Oedipus choice to do so rather than think rationally about how to go ABA out such a horrid situation. Oedipus had known his fate from the beginning but it was his choice to contain u to look for the information he had been warned not to find and stab out the eyes that t had blinded him from the truth all along. Fate is something that is inevitable but it is the choice of the one whose fate is determined to how they go about the destined events that will occur.

Twelve Angry Men

According to Rose, the jury system is flawed; discuss Rose Kealy A jury is a body of people who are sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them. This is shown and demonstrated in the play, Twelve Angry men, written by Reginald Rose. However, in the play, the jury system can be seen as flawed and imperfect. The faults in the play are displayed by the twelve juries that were selected to represent the case presented. The lack of knowledge, prejudice and the personality clashes are all examples of the flaws in the jury system that are shown in the Twelve Angry Men. Rose was able to express that in the play During the play Twelve Angry Men, Rose finds the flaws in the personality chosen for the jury case. Rose demonstrates to the audience that the 12 juror members have very different personalties which in some circumstances work together but most of the time they create incidences and commotion. The personality clashes are mostly seen between the 3rd juror and the 8th juror â€Å"God damn it! I'll kill him! I'll kill him† and â€Å"Shut up, you son of a bitch! † shows the tension, suspense and displeasure between these two jurors. The two jurors are a huge part in the play and it is their personalities that clash the most. The tension however is not just shown between these two jurors. â€Å"Do you know you're a sick man? † â€Å"who the hell is he to tell me that? † is examples from the 9th and 10th jurors. These remarks are found throughout the play and underline the importance of needing to work together. Rose is able to point out the flaws in the jury system by not having each juror analysed before the case to learn their personalties and traits. These incidents however can relate and intertwine with the prejudice and discrimination found in the jury rooms. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose highlights the potential flaws that can be found in the jury system, where prejudice interferes and the pursuit of justice. This is shown mostly by the 3rd Juror in his unwillingness to change his initial ‘guilty' verdict and the manner in which he characterises, ‘kids†¦ owadays. Angry! Hostile! ‘. This view is held because the 3rd Juror relates to his troubled and tense relationship with his son as it corresponds to the defendants relationship with his father. It is displayed that the 3rd juror wants to punish the young boy for the pain that the jurors on pain put on him. The 3rd juror isn't look for the facts or details of the case, he is just acting on his own emotions. This then leads to a fault in the jury system as the personality of one jury impacts the ability for the jurors to make a logical verdict on the case. The 10th juror also makes some assumptions in deciding the boy's guilt or innocence rather than looking at the actually facts. â€Å"It's those people! I'm tellin' you they let the kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves em' right†¦ † In the play, Rose was able to point out that the flaws of the jury system and that not knowing the twelve people chosen can result in prejudiced and discrimination and not the truth that surrounds the case and defendant. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose highlights the importance of knowing and understanding the jury system and what it involves. There is a range of different jurors who have different knowledge and expectations of what is expected of the jury room and role. â€Å"I never knew they locked the door† is a prime example of the awareness and insight of the jury system. Whereas Juror 11, the immigrant watchmaker seemed to be more interested and fascinated by the juror system then those who are from America. â€Å"I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other†¦ † demonstrates the 11th jurors judgement and appreciation for the system and the case. Rose is able to explain the importance of understanding and the importance of the jury system and the case that is presented in front of the 12 jurors. According to Rose, the jury system is flawed and this can be demonstrated through the play of Twelve Angry Men. The play is based around the personality clashes of each of the jurors, the prejudiced and discrimination found by some of the men and the lack of knowledge and interest in the jury system by all the jurors. All these contribute to a jury system that can be seen as faulty and imperfect by Rose. Twelve Angry Men According to Rose, the jury system is flawed; discuss Rose Kealy A jury is a body of people who are sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them. This is shown and demonstrated in the play, Twelve Angry men, written by Reginald Rose. However, in the play, the jury system can be seen as flawed and imperfect. The faults in the play are displayed by the twelve juries that were selected to represent the case presented. The lack of knowledge, prejudice and the personality clashes are all examples of the flaws in the jury system that are shown in the Twelve Angry Men. Rose was able to express that in the play During the play Twelve Angry Men, Rose finds the flaws in the personality chosen for the jury case. Rose demonstrates to the audience that the 12 juror members have very different personalties which in some circumstances work together but most of the time they create incidences and commotion. The personality clashes are mostly seen between the 3rd juror and the 8th juror â€Å"God damn it! I'll kill him! I'll kill him† and â€Å"Shut up, you son of a bitch! † shows the tension, suspense and displeasure between these two jurors. The two jurors are a huge part in the play and it is their personalities that clash the most. The tension however is not just shown between these two jurors. â€Å"Do you know you're a sick man? † â€Å"who the hell is he to tell me that? † is examples from the 9th and 10th jurors. These remarks are found throughout the play and underline the importance of needing to work together. Rose is able to point out the flaws in the jury system by not having each juror analysed before the case to learn their personalties and traits. These incidents however can relate and intertwine with the prejudice and discrimination found in the jury rooms. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose highlights the potential flaws that can be found in the jury system, where prejudice interferes and the pursuit of justice. This is shown mostly by the 3rd Juror in his unwillingness to change his initial ‘guilty' verdict and the manner in which he characterises, ‘kids†¦ owadays. Angry! Hostile! ‘. This view is held because the 3rd Juror relates to his troubled and tense relationship with his son as it corresponds to the defendants relationship with his father. It is displayed that the 3rd juror wants to punish the young boy for the pain that the jurors on pain put on him. The 3rd juror isn't look for the facts or details of the case, he is just acting on his own emotions. This then leads to a fault in the jury system as the personality of one jury impacts the ability for the jurors to make a logical verdict on the case. The 10th juror also makes some assumptions in deciding the boy's guilt or innocence rather than looking at the actually facts. â€Å"It's those people! I'm tellin' you they let the kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves em' right†¦ † In the play, Rose was able to point out that the flaws of the jury system and that not knowing the twelve people chosen can result in prejudiced and discrimination and not the truth that surrounds the case and defendant. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose highlights the importance of knowing and understanding the jury system and what it involves. There is a range of different jurors who have different knowledge and expectations of what is expected of the jury room and role. â€Å"I never knew they locked the door† is a prime example of the awareness and insight of the jury system. Whereas Juror 11, the immigrant watchmaker seemed to be more interested and fascinated by the juror system then those who are from America. â€Å"I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other†¦ † demonstrates the 11th jurors judgement and appreciation for the system and the case. Rose is able to explain the importance of understanding and the importance of the jury system and the case that is presented in front of the 12 jurors. According to Rose, the jury system is flawed and this can be demonstrated through the play of Twelve Angry Men. The play is based around the personality clashes of each of the jurors, the prejudiced and discrimination found by some of the men and the lack of knowledge and interest in the jury system by all the jurors. All these contribute to a jury system that can be seen as faulty and imperfect by Rose.

Names Epicene and Otherwise

Names Epicene and Otherwise Names Epicene and Otherwise Names Epicene and Otherwise By Maeve Maddox Until very recently, the only context I knew for the word epicene was a T. S. Eliot poem: Along the garden-wall the bees†¨ With hairy bellies pass between†¨ The staminate and pistilate,†¨ Blest office of the epicene. T.S. Eliot’s Mr. Eliot’s Sunday Morning Service I thought the word was just one of Eliots intriguing but impractically arcane terms until I came across it in a mainstream context: a Wikipedia article about naming practices: A unisex name, also known as an epicene name, is a given name that is often given to either a boy or a girl. Cody, Cory, Jodan, and Morgan are epicene names. Epicene entered English around 1450 as a grammatical term for nouns that can denote either masculine or feminine gender. An example in English would be horse, as contrasted with gender-specific stallion or mare. The meaning expanded to mean characteristic of both sexes (1601). It is sometimes used with the meaning of effeminate. It would seem that naming ones child would be a choice left to parents, but some countries have or had until recently, laws to limit names to an approved list. France had such a law until 1992 and that countrys current naming laws make it difficult for people to change a given name once they have it. Since banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves at school, French authorities find themselves having to deal with a surge in requests from young people with North African roots to change European names like Nadine and Jacques to names like Zoubida and Abdel. French authorities see these requests as a rejection of French culture. Germany requires parents to give children a gender-specific name. If the child has two given names, one may be gender-neutral, but the other must be gender-specific. A girl may not be given a boys name, and vice versa. The only exception is the name Maria which may be used with boys, ex. Rainer Maria Rilke. The name must not be a product name, the name of an object, or any other name perceived as absurd or degrading. In September 2007 Venezuelan lawmakers were considering a law to limit parents to an approved list of 100 or so government-chosen names. Exceptions would be made for Venezuelan Indians and foreigners. Of particular concern was the banning of names that generate doubt about the bearers gender. New Zealand has a law that bans names that may cause offence or lead to bullying, but it doesnt seem to be too stringently enforced. One child got to be eleven years old before a judge stepped in and changed her name. Her parents had named her Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii (ABA Journal). The law did prevent another New Zealand couple from naming their baby 4real. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Dialogue Dos and Don'ts41 Words That Are Better Than GoodHow to Punctuate Introductory Phrases

Indie media and popular cultural Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Indie media and popular cultural - Assignment Example The Cleveland Show was developed out of Family Guy. Reflexivity as intertexuality illustrates certain grand meaning. Cleveland Jr. is illustrated as obese, to show the dieting challenges or poor eating habits in America. Reflexivity as nostalgia reevaluates the past in terms of the present. Cleveland Brown gets a new wife called Donna Tubbs, after the previous marriage failed. Parody illustrates making fun at original work through humor. The show creates fun out of the two dysfunctional families illustrated in Family Guy. Flaneur illustrates the strolling act and related associations (Shaya 109). I have engaged in Flandeur by idling in the park; thus I was able to observe the colors of the birds as they perched on trees. I have also strolled in the streets, and hence meet a high school friend entering the office. Through leisure in a club, I managed to observe the behaviors of drunken patrons. Postmodernism illustrates significant transformations in the political, economic, and social aspects of modernity. It is a political movement because it illustrates changes in ideas. One example is the development of the popular culture in the American

Cybersecurity Best Practices Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Cybersecurity Best Practices - Assignment Example The safety of one’s computer, network or personal information need to be protected by viruses, identity thieves, malware and any other form of threat. The steps to be taken to protect the above and safeguard personal systems shall be addressed in relation to two case studies analysed herein. Upon receiving a new computer for the home environment, it is necessary to ensure this system is as secure as possible. Both the computer and the home network need to be protected from viruses, hackers and malware. The home network should be guarded from external threats because it is used to perform sensitive transactions such as online banking services, online shopping among others that may require one to share private information. It is this information that hackers seek access to, in order to attempt to steal a person’s identity and use their credit card information or bank details, for example, to access the victim’s finances. In addition to numerous security tools and programs that one can install into their computer and use to keep the system secure, it is advisable to take an interest in hacking methods, so that one knows when their system is under threat. It is due to this type of negligence that many victims fail to prepare themselves properly in case of an attack. This lack of preparedness has also seen efforts to recover from cyber-attacks rendered ineffective. Such information can be found online in trusted websites, with training on the latest hacking methods and scams being identified and addressed. It is therefore important for individuals to take up some time and learn about hacking and methods of countering the same. In order to secure this type of network, the following steps should be undertaken. The setting up of a home network has the advantage that an individual can have access to the internet from any point within the premises either