Case Study Jane

After reading about Jane I have learned she associates fear with love due to events earlier in her life. No matter how hard Jane tried to impress her father she was never good enough. As Jane grows older her father no longer hits her but instead uses money as his form of abuse. As you read you learn that she later marries a man who displays the same behaviors as her father. Jane forgives him because she associates this behavior as love. Unless Jane recalls what her aunt tried to associate love with she will continue to let herself be preyed on by both her father and her husband. As a result if Jane continues to live the way she is Jane’s unborn child will most likely be a submissive woman or an abusive man. Through the cognitive perspective we see that Jane thinks of the behaviors displayed by her father as love. As time goes on she appears makes little to no effort to change her thought. Because for so long she has thought that these actions are displays of love. Which in turns Jane allows her husband to do the same things as her father did through out her life, because she believes it to be a display of love. Through the behavioral perspective we see that Jane’s likely to continue to forgive her father and husband for there abuse. In turn she is rewarded with money in most cases. This could be the cause of her behavioral actions following the abuse, because she knows she will continue to receive money from her abusers. Through the psychodynamic perspective we learn that Jane’s childhood greatly impacted her life as an adult allowing the same situations to continue even after she has moved away from her father. This causing her to allow her husband to display the same behaviors and she does nothing to change them. The motivation of allowing the acts to continue could possibly be the money that is received after the abuse which she also considers a display of love.

The defining feature of Modern culture

Modern culture is a direct derivative of and at the same time antithesis of co-existence with nature. The defining feature of Modern culture (adopting the Herder’s definition as â€Å"the practices and beliefs which form the self-identity of a tribe† and not the Humboldt’s version of distinguishing common and high cultures)(Scruton 2) is its increasing distance from the nature and its attempts to understand and divulge the secrets or facets of nature, hither to left unappreciated or not understood.In the history of human civilization (ironically, Civilization means the history of city dwelling population) the pace at which technology improved has grown exponentially since the late 19th century. This growth in technology has spurred the redefining of central values attached to human life. The beneficiaries of the technological advances, the huge sections of societies, seldom bother themselves with the philosophical depths of questions that the increasing use of te chnology and the alienation form nature poses to their central core.However, the tension that resonates between nature and technology is a legacy of inherited historical human values pitted against the negation of the basis of these values in technology. Technology seeks to explore and lay bare while a co-existence with nature demands a certain amount of surrender. Since these two approaches have to be combined in the modern life, there is ambivalence in the approach people are forced to take to their existence.As George Simmel mentions in his work â€Å"The Metropolis and Mental Life†, the deepest problems of modern life are because of the attempts of man to maintain his individuality in the face of changing historic and technological perspectives. (Simmel 11) One basic shift in the modern life to the other forms of society which had a greater correlation with nature is the change in approach to Life in general. Modern life, with it increasing use of technology aims to quant ify everything while co-existence with nature left a lot of qualitative and subjective parameters in place.The resultant void is generally seen as the force that generates the tension between nature and technology. (The dismantling of the religious structure by socialist countries without placing an alternate belief system in place, which saw a huge spurt in religious activity once the socialist structures themselves, crumbled, is an example of a void based on qualitative beliefs and necessity of such beliefs).Modern culture instills a sense of measurement to everything involved in daily life, while co-existence with nature demands suspension of reason to a certain extent. There is an Indian Proverb which roughly translates to â€Å"Plucking the petals of the Rose will not reveal where its beauty lies†. Same is the case with the stimuli caused by nature where suspension of reason is a primary requisite to respond to them. A magnificient sunset is a visual pleasure accorded by nature which cannot be deciphered by any technological quantification measures.â€Å"Whilst Man involuntarily moulds his Life according to the notions he has gathered from his arbitrary views of Nature, and embalms their intuitive expression in Religion: these notions become for him in Science the subject of conscious, intentional review and scrutiny. † (Richard Wagner, 73). In trying to explain the basic differences between Nature and technology Wagner also indicates almost accurately at the reasons for conflict. When viewed in the light of Simmel’s description of man’s emotional responses as he says â€Å"Man is a creature whose existence is dependent on differences, i.e. his mind is stimulated by the difference between present impressions and those that have preceded. † (Simmel 325). But the rapidity with which a person part of the modern culture is accosted by such stimuli is what differentiates his responses. The increasing proximity to his species and in a way that would not have been possible to any of his preceding generations creates a sense of detachment from most stimuli and prevents him from reacting with the same intensity compared to only a few generations earlier. In short, modern culture forces man to react with his head than his heart.This, Simmel argues creates a blase attitude – a defining characteristic of modern culture. â€Å"†¦incapacity to react to new stimulations with the required amount of energy constitutes in fact that blase attitude which every child of a large city evinces hen compared with the products of the more peaceful and more stable milieu† Simmel 14 Advancement in technology creates increased urbanization where people are removed from nature and so closely compressed with one another that their nervous stimulation is hyper excited to become blase.This leads to a state of denial to all other impulses accorded by nature, which are inherently non-quantifiable. Wagner articulate s this alienation of Science and nature in more vocal and less scientific terms. Technology, as mentioned earlier is a result of efforts to understand and harness the energies available in nature, acquires arrogance through its practitioners that it tries to rob the soul of all human interactions with nature. â€Å"And truly Science, in her overweening arrogance, has dreamed of such a triumph; as witness our tight-reined State and modern Art, the sexless, barren children of this dream.† This tension between nature and its instincts as expressed in human emotions and the increasing needs of rational responses conditioned by a technology-driven society are reflected in the probing questions of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century literature and art forms. Kafkaesque depictions of society not recognizing its traditional pains and bonds due to the demands of the modern culture are common in most art forms. To drive the point home, in his novella â€Å"Metamorphosi s† Kafka paints a picture of the emptiness of modern existence.Seen by many as the gateway to modern literature, it justifies Simmel’s views that the values of modern culture create certain bluntness to responses to stimuli. While it is important to acknowledge the tension between technology (or the changes in life due to technology) and nature as an essential part of the modern cultural set up, it is a learning to understand how this disparity or tension is dealt with. The creation of the modern idiom is largely an effect of the interplay between nature and technology. Additionally, the increased integration of technology has made people more used to viewing their renewed values in a different light.In fact most surviving sensibilities are modern in nature and the exotic feel accorded to romantic art of the previous generations is precisely the result of the contrast. Besides, modern art does adopt the modern life and especially urban living aspect of modern life more readily than was anticipated by the early proponents of modernism. As Wagner argues, Art as an expression of man’s interaction with nature and the resultant emotions – awe or aversion, hope or despair, love or revulsion, harmony or agitation- has in fact been aided by the modern culture. In his typically poetic prose Wagner describes,â€Å" This did the life-force, the life-need, of telluric Nature nurture once those baleful forces – or rather the potentiality of those alliances and, offspring of the elements – which blocked her way in giving true and fitting utterance to the fullness of her vital energy†(Wagner 9) He also seems to say that the potential for abundance brought on by the revolutionary availability of technology affords the luxury of pursuing art for art’s sake for people pf the modern era – all the while remembering that art is the truest form of depicting or connecting with Nature, both internal and external.Besides, a fuller and more complete appreciation of Nature as a separate entity and an ally has blossomed after the initial years of tension with Technology. Though initial years of modern culture and civilization were alarming in the fact that the alienation with nature was at once complete and seemingly irreparable, yet the situation has changed. As with everything and as Darwin would have proudly pointed out, mankind has adapted quite well to this dichotomy of Nature and Technology and has realized the necessity to keep both these aspects of his existence in good humor – all the time.Though it can be argued that most ailments of modern society, like the environmental degradation, lack of trust in human interactions, increasing and pointless violence, or the break down of civilized society in some pockets are essentially the manifestations of the tension between a nature-embracing living and Technology dependent living, it is the way forward. As Man has learnt continuously from all h is endeavors both successful and perilously unsuccessful, modern culture has given a unique perspective to watch Nature in all its glory and make it an ally in pursuing higher spiritual goals.Works Cited Wagner, Richard. The Art Work of the Future. Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004 Simmel, Georg & Kurt Wolff. The sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated by kurt Wolff Washington DC: Free Press, 1950 Scruton, Roger. Modern Culture. NewYork: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007

Satan in paradise lost

Satan Satan is the first major character introduced in the poem. Formerly called Lucifer, the most beautiful of all angels in Heaven, he's a tragic fgure who describes himself with the now-famous quote â€Å"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n. † He is introduced to Hell after he leads a failed rebellion to wrestle control of Heaven from God. Satan's desire to rebel against his creator stems from his unwillingness to be subjugated by God and his Son, claiming that angels are â€Å"self-begot, self-raised†,[4] thereby denyingGod's authority over them as their creator. Satan is deeply arrogant, albeit powerful and charismatic. Satan's persuasive powers are evident throughout the book; not only is he cunning and deceptive, but he also is able to rally the angels to continue in the rebellion after their agonising defeat in the Angelic War. He argues that God rules as a tyrant and that all the angels ought to rule as gods. [5] Satan is comparable in many ways to th e tragic heroes of classic Greek literature, but Satan's hubris far surpasses those of previous tragedies.Though at times he plays the narrative role of an anti-hero, he is still commonly understood to be the antagonist of the epic. However, the true nature of his role in the poem has been the subject of much notoriety and scholarly debate. While some scholars, like the critic and writer C. S. Lewis, interpret the poem as a genuine Christian morality tale, other critics, like William Empson, view it as a more ambiguous work, with Milton's complex characterisation of Satan playing a large part in that perceived ambiguity. [6]

Needs Analysis Survey Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Needs Analysis Survey - Research Paper Example The Job to be analyzed is the customer service representative. The procedure to be used in collecting job data is questionnaire survey. Some of the questions to be asked during analysis include:†¢Ã‚  What are the formal qualifications of this job combined with the relevant field experience needed in this job?†¢Ã‚  What technical skills are needed in this job such as skills in computers or word processors? †¢Ã‚  Apart from the formal education, what other skills are needed for additional training in this job?†¢Ã‚  What special skills in reading and writing are needed in this job?†¢Ã‚  How long does the training of the specific skills necessary in this job take to perform the job satisfactory?†¢Ã‚  After how long should be skills be updated through training?†¢Ã‚  What is the level of decision making required by this position?†¢Ã‚  How will the training help in the positions the customer service representative oversees or directs?Individual analys isThe individual to be analyzed in this case are the customer service representatives.   The method to be used in collecting the individual analysis information is interviews.   Some of the questions to be asked during this analysis:†¢Ã‚  Do you think you need training in your job?†¢Ã‚  How often should you be trained and why?†¢Ã‚  Do you encounter problems which are difficult to solve?†¢Ã‚  Do you think they can be solved through training?†¢Ã‚  How many days a week do you think are sufficient for your training and for how long?†¢Ã‚  What are your strengths in this job?†¢Ã‚  What are the weaknesses you have in this job?

History of East Asia 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

History of East Asia 2 - Essay Example The Yamato clan conquered large part of Japan, especially Honshu and Kyushu islands. As mentioned earlier, there were many clans and families that ruled sections of the country. The biggest threat that a king faced during those times were uprising from these local rulers. By mid 500 AD Buddhism has been established and its peace message ensured that the country did not face too much of internal and external threats for around four hundred years. Even so, there was the possible threat of uprising from some ambitious head of the local clans. The Heian Empire sought the help of the Fujwara clan in maintaining peace and even allowed them regency rule. This powerful clan helped to see that other clans accepted the rule of the Heian Empire. King Kotoku used another tactic through land and policy reforms to weaken the aristocratic families during the middle of the sixth century AD. He made a rule that all agriculture property in his domain become the property of the emperor which will be leased out to people for cultivation. During later periods, hundreds of Buddhist Templ es were built and these were under the control of priests or monks. Their sheer number and influence began to rise and king feared that his own influence and power may be overshadowed. In 794 AD the current capital was moved to what is today known as Kyoto to reduce the meddling of priests in national affairs. A law was also passed at that time allowing no more than two Buddhist temples to be built within the city premises. So, the popularity and growth of Buddhism gave rise to one more type of threat apart from those that came from the local clans and families. The Fujiwara clan began to have more influence with the king by the second half of 800 AD. The far sighted head of the clan married off the daughters to emperors ensured that the son born out the liaison would become the king in the future. The head of the Fujiwara clan then would proclaim himself as the regent to

Buisness Economics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Buisness Economics - Essay Example It is argued that cost has played a major role in the emergence of the outsourcing business world over. Companies in the western world have been outsourcing jobs from their land to low cost areas such as India, China and Philippines. In the early part of 1990's companies in India recognized importance of cost factor and introduced a good strategy to increase their business. There are instances that a particular company is giving shape to an industry. Though during mid twentieth century there was a number of United Kingdom based business groups, who have outsourced high cost works to India, it was in the late part of the century that this has emerged as a major service industry. The emergence of service industry has also helped India to become global powerhouse of knowledge based industrial activity. Infosys Technologies is a major Indian company working in the field of information technology. They are considered as pioneers of business process outsourcing in the country. Understanding big opportunity in the sector they had laid out clean strategy to win over others. Today Infosys has emerged as one of the most respect IT companies in India. Their share prices are soared tremendously during the last two decades.

Is there a connection between mortality and religion Research Paper

Is there a connection between mortality and religion - Research Paper Example But does religiosity translate into biological mechanisms which affect the rates of survival?—this is the moot question that remains to be answered by the researchers. The popular belief is the healthy body goes with the healthy mind. Only a moral/religious/spiritual individual can have a healthy mind. Religious practices are meant to combat the negative thoughts. In spiritual texts of all religions, one comes across parables related to long-life and such people adopted healthy practices in their day to day living. Physical wellbeing and religious belief is like the scale of justice. Both arms of the scale are equally important to get at the equilibrium. In one’s life, they must run like a train that speeds on two parallel tracks. Ralph W. Hood, Jr., et.al (2009, p.181) writes, â€Å"Some impressive research has examined the relationship between mortality and religious involvement†¦..The results showed that frequent attendees lived longer than infrequent attendees. Apparently, the former were more likely to cease smoking, engage in exercise, remain married, and maintain their social connections.† To put it in the terms of a laym an, a well-disciplined individual will live longer than a man with negative tendencies and habits. Brian Thomas in article â€Å"New Study Makes Connection Between Religion and Lower Mortality,† concludes that women performing religious service with regularity lived 20 percent longer than those who did not, as per the recent study. Some of the specific revelations in support of connection between mortality and religion are: Exodus 20:12: â€Å"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.† To explain this further, one who adheres to this commandment lives the disciplined life. Principle of God-fearing is a positive approach to life-situations and such positivity contributes to peace which is conducive to long span of life. Proverbs

Assignment requires you to perform a strategic review of Asda Essay

Assignment requires you to perform a strategic review of Asda - Essay Example The system also tracks individual customer’s consumption pattern and offers them suggestions and special offers and discounts on products that they often buy. Asda realises that its major work force is dependent on human resources, so they provide extensive training to their employees. Acquisition by Walmart has enhanced its presence in the non-food retail market. Within five years, Asda’s non-food retail chain has increased its offering to more than 12,000 merchandize. 5 Asda is one of the leading supermarket chains in Europe, which was acquired by Walmart in 1999. It operates as one of the largest grocery store and it also sells a variety of products including apparels, household items, books, etc. After its acquisition by Walmart, Asda is supported financially and also in its operations by providing cheaper resources. Asda has its core competence in food retail, but it has now expanded in to the non-food sector as well. The company faces steep competition from fellow companies like Tesco, Sainsbury and Morrison’s. The product offering in the retail sector is highly standardized, so the companies try new ways to differentiate themselves on the basis of service quality and brand valuation. Market environmental factors like tax imposition and business regulations often pose hindrance on retail business. Asda Stores Ltd., headquartered in Leeds, West Yorkshire, is a British retail supermarket chain which caters in sections like food, clothing, toys, general merchandise and financial services. In 1999, Walmart wanted to penetrate into the British market, so they lobbied with the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and acquired Asda for  £ 6.7 billion, winning a bid from rival Kingfisher plc. The main competitors of Asda are J Sainsbury plc, Tesco plc and WM Morrison Supermarket plc. Over the years, Asda has managed to position itself as UK’s cheapest retail supermarket. As of 2012, Asda’s operating profit increased by  £51 million to  £857

Othello setting act5, scene 1 & 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Othello setting act5, scene 1 & 2 - Essay Example The effect of the setting is that, it has made it possible for evil to be committed without the ability to determine who is committing the evil against the others. On the other hand, Act V scene II is in a bedroom setting within the castle, where Desdemona finally meets her death (Shakespeare, ‎187). As opposed to the setting full of darkness in Scene I, the setting in Scene II is one where the acts of each character are recognizable. Thus under this setting, the evils deeds of the characters now come to the open, where the villains who have been hurting each other are known. It is now possible to tell what who has been holding a grudge against the other, and what reasons inform the sweet revenge (Shakespeare, ‎195). Therefore, there is a contrast in the setting of Scene I and Scene II in Act V, and the effect of the settings contrast is to hide the evils of different characters under Scene I, but their evils are disclosed in Scene

Dantes Inferno Essay Example for Free

Dantes Inferno Essay On the evening of Good Friday in the year 1300, Dante is travelling through a forest, when he gets lost. In the morning, he finds a mountain and tries to climb it, but is stopped by a lion, a wolf, and a leopard. The spirit of the poet Virgil appears and offers to take him to the top of the mountain to Heaven when his love, Beatrice, is, but the way first leads through Hell. Virgil and Dante enter through the gates of Hell and see a crowd of people along the banks of the river. Virgil tells Dante these are the souls who neither sinned nor worshipped God, and are therefore rejected by both Heaven and Hell. Charon takes them across the river. The Second Circle is guarded by Minos and is the first of four rings in which souls are punished. In the Second Circle, the souls of the lustful are blown about by never-ending winds. In the Third Circle, the souls of the gluttons are soaked by heavy rain and clawed by the three-headed dog, Cerberus. Continuing downwards, they meet the entrance to the Fourth Circle, which holds the greedy. These souls must charge at each other with boulders repeatedly. Virgil and Dante next proceed to f the city of Dis. Dis is a city within the larger region of Hell, however the demon guards refuse to open the gates. A messenger arrives from Heaven to force the gates open for Dante and Virgil. The Sixth Circle of Hell holds the Heretics, and in this circle that Dante encounters Farinata, a rival political leader. A deep valley leads into the First Ring of the Seventh Circle of Hell, where there are three inner rings. The first is where those who were violent toward others spend eternity in a river of boiling blood. The second ring is for those who were violent toward themselves, and the third ring is for those who were violent toward God. The monster Geryon transports Virgil and Dante across a great abyss to the Eighth Circle of Hell, known as Malebolge, Here, there are also many layers. The first is for the panderers and seducers, who receive lashings from whips. The second is where the flatterers must lie in a river of human feces. The simoniacs in the third layer hang upside down in baptismal fonts while their feet burn with fire. The fourth layer is for the astrologists and diviners, who are forced to walk with their heads on backward. In the fifth layer, those who have accepted bribes are torn apart by demons. In the sixth layer, the hypocrites must walk in circles for eternity while wearing robes of lead. In the seventh layer, thieves sit in a pit of vipers and turn to vipers when bitten, and then regain their human form when they bite  another thief. In the eighth layer, Dante speaks to Ulysses who will spend forever with those guilty of Spiritual Theft. In the ninth layer, those of scandal walk in a circle with wounds that open and close repeatedly. In the tenth and final layer, falsifiers suffer from plagues and diseases of all kinds. Through the Giants’ Well, Virgil and Dante proceed to the Ninth Circle of Hell, which leads to a great frozen lake named Cocytus. Virgil and Dante are picked up and placed in the lowest region of Hell by the giant Antaeus. Like the previous Circles, the Ninth Circle of Hell also contains numerous different inner Rings. In the First Ring, those who betrayed their kin stand frozen to their necks in the lake. In the Second Ring, those who betrayed their country stand frozen to their heads. However, those who betrayed their guest are destined to spend eternity lying on their back in the frozen lake in the Third Ring. In the Fourth and final ring of the Ninth Circle of Hell, an eternity in complete icy submersion is given to those who betrayed their friends. In the center of this circle is the three-headed Lucifer. His body comes from the center of the Earth where he fell when God sent him down from Heaven. In each of Lucifer’s mouths are Judas, Cassius, and Brutus. Virgil instructs Dante to climb down Lucifer, and travel out of Hell and back onto Earth. They return to Earth on Easter morning. Analysis In the first canto, Dante uses the dark forest to express the flaws he saw in the world around him at the time Inferno was written. Also, when Dante encounters the leopard, the lion, and the she-wolf. The leopard represents fraud, the lion represents pride, and the she-wolf represents incontinence. Dante is most affected by the presence of the she-wolf because, while incontinence is the least severe category of sin, it is the one to which he is most susceptible. Christian symbolism is extremely prevalent throughout Inferno, and it is first introduced in the second canto. Hell is not just described as the underworld, but a place where sinners are punished for eternity. In the inscription on the gates into Hell, each part of the Trinity is represented. The â€Å"potency divine† represents God the Father, the â€Å"wisdom supreme† is Christ, and the â€Å"primal love† is the Holy Spirit. Along these same lines, the use of the Trinity is also used in the last canto, when we are  introduced to the three-headed Lucifer. The three heads could represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as well. In the fourth canto, Dante explains that Limbo is for those who have not been baptized, thus addressing one of the great moral problems of Christianity. Baptism is considered necessary to go to Heaven, but it does not seem fair that people who do not know of Christianity should suffer for something they have no control over. Dante takes care of this problem by keeping those who are not Christian in Hell, but giving them a much less painful fate by giving them eternity in Limbo. The timeframe of Dante’s Inferno is extremely relevant in terms of Christianity. Dante begins his journey through Hell on Good Friday and emerges and returns to Earth on Easter day. This means that he was â€Å"dead† for the time period following the crucifixion of Christ, and he has risen with him. To look further into the other religions represented in Inferno, the tower in the city of Dis that Dante refers to is a mosque, to further emphasize that anyone who does not believe in Christianity is a nonbeliever and should be in Hell. It is also interesting to look at the role Dante plays throughout Inferno. Throughout, it is clear that Beatrice has kept a careful eye on Dante’s progress and is prepared to intervene when necessary to ensure that he gets to her. In the first canto, when Dante is lost, Beatrice sends Virgil to guide him, and when Virgil and Dante are not admitted into Dis, Beatrice sent a messenger to let them in. Without Beatrice, Dante would be lost. She is the only reason he has a chance at making it to Heaven. Dante faints and weeps numerous times, further indicating his weakness and his reliance on Beatrice and Virgil. He expresses fear of the wild beasts in the first canto and of many of the other demons in the other circles. These weaknesses emphasize how little he does for himself. He follows the path that is laid out for him by Beatrice and Virgil, and does nothing more than that. In many contexts, Dante is held as a hero, but he is really just relying on others.

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

Determination of Gravitational Acceleration

Determination of Gravitational Acceleration Introduction Pendulums can be defined as a body suspended from a fixed support so that it swings freely back and forth under the influence of gravity, commonly used to regulate various devices, especially clocks. Worth (2008) states that pendulums have been used for thousands of years. The ancient Chinese used the pendulum principle to try and help predict earthquakes. Hundreds years ago the famous Italian scientist Galileo was the first European to really study pendulums and he discovered that their regularity could be used for keeping time, leading to the first clocks. Worth (2008) goes on to explain that in 1656, the Dutch inventor and mathematician, Huygens, was the first man to successfully build an accurate clock. It was the first time pendulums were used for humans everyday life. There are four basic laws of a pendulum: Van Albert (1995) explain that firstly the time it takes for a pendulum to complete a swing is related to the square root of the length of string of the pendulum. Secondly the time it takes for the pendulum to swing is related to the square root of the gravitational acceleration. Gravitational acceleration can be defined as the force that attracts objects in space towards each other, and that on the earth pulls them towards the centre of the planet, so that things fall to the ground when they are dropped (Wikipedia 2010). Thirdly the time it takes for the pendulum to swing is not related to the mass and material of the small ball at the end of the pendulum. Finally the time is independent of the greatest distance that a wave provided the greatest distance that a wave is small. The principles of a pendulum can be proven. This experiment is going to show the effect changing gravitational acceleration has on a pendulum, and will determine gravitational acceleration using a simple pendulum Methods Equipment of determination of gravitational acceleration using a simple pendulum A long piece of string A wooden block A small ball A one meter long ruler A protractor Vernier caliper A stop-watch This experiment is talking about determination of gravitational acceleration using a simple pendulum fig 1 was showed that the simple pendulum was used in this experiment. Procedure The long piece of string and the small ball were connected. The small ball was suspended from the wooden block with the long piece of stringÃÆ' ¯Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¼Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢such as in figure 1 The length of the long piece of string L was measured using the ruler. Then the diameter of the small ball was measured using the vernier caliper. The long piece of string was not stretched. It was measured to the centre of the small ball. The small ball was raised up about 15 degrees using the protractor, and then released so that oscillations were executed. The time it took for the pendulum to complete a swing T was measured using the stop-watch to time 50 oscillations. Steps 1 to 5 were repeated for five more values of L, and each part was done twice to verify the correct answer. Experiment 1 the length of the long piece of string was measured to 0.4 m Experiment 2 the length of the long piece of string was measured to 0.6 m Experiment 3 the length of the long piece of string was measured to 0.8 m Experiment 4 the length of the long piece of string was measured to 1.0 m Experiment 5 the length of the long piece of string was measured to 1.2 m. Result Calculation Below is a table to show the results recorded from trails 1 to 5. Experiment of determination of gravitational acceleration using a simple pendulum Trail one Trail two The time taken t for 50 oscillation The square of period T The time taken t for 50 oscillation The square of period T Experiment 1 length of string 0.4 m; 64 s 1.64 65 s 1.69 Experiment 2 length of string 0.6 m; 78.6 s 2.47 78.4 s 2.46 Experiment 3 length of string 0.8 m; 90.8 s 3.30 91 s 3.31 Experiment 4 length of string 1.0 m; 101.25 s 4.10 101.2 s 4.09 Experiment 5 length of string 1.2 m 110.7 s 4.90 110.8 s 4.91 The average time was calculated using the formula The square of period T was calculated using T times T. The information in this table can be plotted in a line graph see graph 1. The vertical axis shows that the time takenthe square of period T for 50 oscillation. The horizontal axis shows that the different lengths of the piece of string. The gradient of the line shows the gravitational acceleration. Discussion In this experiment there were controlled variables. Controlled variable can be defined as one which is not allowed to change unpredictably during an experiment Answers Corporation (2010). The first controlled variable was the number of swings. Second was the angle of the swing. The last one is mass of the bob, we all kept their same. In addition, there was one experimental variable. The experimental variable can be defined as some values in experiment we change on purpose. In my experiment, the experimental variable was the length of swings. Error is an experiment word means that mistake, especially one that causes problems or affects the result of some thing. The error can be caused when the small ball was not raised up about 15 degrees, location, the total number of oscillation are not 50. I compared with the data of my classmate, the square period T was proportional to the length of string s. All the points of the graph lie on a straight line so the conclusion is very reliable over this range. It seems likely that the same trend would continue if the string was made longer. I solve the equation and get the acceleration of gravity is 9.78m/s, its not really correct. I think the biggest problem was that the small ball was not raised up about 15 degrees; location and the total number of oscillation are not 50 Conclusion This experiment is talking about determination of gravitational acceleration using a simple pendulum. Firstly I used five steps to finish this experiment first I connected the long piece of string and the small ball. Second I Suspended The small ball from the wooden block with the long piece of stringÃÆ' ¯Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¼Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢such as in figure 1. Third I measured the length of the long piece of string L using the ruler and measured the diameter of the small ball using the vernier caliper. Forth I raised up the small ball about 15 degrees using the protractor. Fifth I unclasped the small and using the stop-watch to measure the time it took for the pendulum to complete a swing T. Secondly I made a graph to show my data about this experiment. Thirdly I used these data to calculate the value of gravitational acceleration. Finally I compared my result with my classmate to find mistake In my results, the first two purposes were proving. I measured that the gravitational acceleration is 9.78m/s, it smaller than 9.8m/s. I think one of the most important problem is the total number of oscillation are not 50. Measuring the total number of oscillation about 1.20m is easier than short lengths. Because of the speed of the length is 1.2m is lower than the speed of the length is 0.4m In addition, I think my experiment is good even have some mistake. I will carefully to measure total number of oscillation I am going to try my best to let my data much exact.