Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words - 2

Law - Essay Example 2001). Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines an employee as someone working under a contract of employment. However, the statute does not clearly define the essential elements of the contract of employment. This deficiency thus resulted into constructions of various tests for determining whether someone is an employee or not. Amongst the outlined essential elements to be satisfied before categorizing a worker as either an independent contractor or an employee is whether the particular worker has to sign a contract of employment with the employer prior to the commencement of the contract. In cases whereby the individual begins to execute the contract without legally recognized documentations (contract of employment), handling of cases such as breach of contract, becomes much difficult, especially when either party presents the case in a court of law (Lord, M. 2009). It is also worth noting that some employees or independent contractors like working on a personal level but this depends on the nature of the work involved. Additionally, it has to be determined whether there has to be a mutuality of obligation between the two parties. A mutuality of obligation refers to a well-set procedure of work or relationship between the employee and the employer or between the contractor and his or her client (Smith, J. D., 2003). An employer should avail work to the employee at all the times, as specified by their contract of employment. Consequently, the employee should complete any work assigned to him or her by the employer at the specified period of the contract. This thus, forms a mutual obligation between the employer and the employee. On the other hand, mutual obligation occurs between a contractor and his or her client when the client supplies exactly the amount of work specified by the contract of employment and the contractor finishes the work within the specified (Welker, R. F., 2002).

Multi-faceted role of the teacher Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Multi-faceted role of the teacher - Essay Example Educators design curriculum to help them set learning paths for their students. This noble task has been attempted repeatedly and in various contexts in the hopes of improving curriculum. It can be said that educators always work towards a curriculum that empowers the learner. It would greatly benefit him and future generations to come. Curriculum comprises the whole school programme. It covers a broad spectrum - from how the physical environment is designed, which skills are targeted to be developed in the children, which concepts and activities are appropriate for the age group, what are the routines to be included and how one transitions from one activity to another. Marsh (2004) defines curriculum as a variety of learning experiences where students gain general skills and obtain knowledge in different learning sites. This definition concentrates more on learning and learning skills rather than teaching. It also values the practical skills gained from other learning sites other than from school alone. Grundy (1987) in his definition describes curriculum as ‘A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives’ (Grundy, 1987, p.11). It is evident that any curriculum definition one way or another puts emphasis on the learning process, gained knowledge and skills, subject content and students’ comprehensive learning experience. In designing an appropriate course curriculum, an essential process needs to be considered including which curriculum model is most suitable for the needs of the learner. The process of learning is as important as the content learned (Newby 2005). Constructivist theory is gaining more attention, recognition and acceptance in many educational institutions. Its curriculum premises on the belief that learners â€Å"construct† their own

Trends Executive Memo Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Trends Executive Memo - Essay Example Further, technology will assist in the collection of evidence for use in courts, and in surveillance of correction centers to reduce the breakout incidences that have been on the rise. This is a major step into the future which ought to happen soon. However, serious planning and strategizing is necessary before taking the steps (NRC-US, 2002). Partnership between the state and private security agencies will be enhanced. This will ensure that security information is shared as received from the public and actions taken in a team fashion. The correction department in the country has experienced a number of challenges. Besides the increased breakouts, it has been noted that many inmates get connected to the outside ‘friends’ through the help of the wardens (Gingrich & Worthington, 2013. Pg. 365). This has to stop. Every correction center must have installed surveillance system to monitor activities within (Priest & Arkin, 2011, pg. 76). These systems, from all centers, will be channeled to the head office surveillance department in real-time. The future of the security is that collaborative units will work together to ensure that the public is secure. Further, technological innovations will replace the manual entries and surveillance making the work easier to execute and monitor (Evans, Martin & Poatsy, 2005. pg. 245). Each of the departments will, therefore, perform their mandate with connectivity and collaboration rather than

Analysis of Unified Modelling Language

Analysis of Unified Modelling Language Chapter 1: Introduction Context of the Problem The Unified Modeling Language is a graphical modeling language used for the visualization, specification, construction, and documentation of object-oriented software systems. It has been adopted by the Object Management Group (OMG) and is widely accepted as a standard in industry and research. The UML provides thirteen types of diagrams for different purpose. This thesis focuses on sequence and class diagram known as structure diagram and behavior diagram. Sequence forms concentrate on the presentation of dynamic aspects of a software system, and class forms the structural view of software system. Sequence diagrams stress time ordering while Class focus on static. In Model-driven Architecture (MDA), class diagram is the source for code generation in object-oriented development (Pender, 2003), so how to map what we find in the interaction diagram back to class diagram become an important subject if we want to develop system from behavior aspect initially. There are some existing relatively modest tool supports exploiting the logical dependencies of UML diagrams. Some systems maintain method lists across class diagrams and sequence diagrams and the transformation between sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams. However, nowadays, the two diagrams that sequence and Class are draw divided and can not be transformed between each other. And there is no comprehensive framework that would support such mechanisms throughout these two diagram types in a systematic way (Selonen et al., 2003). That waste much time to maintain system and often make the system development documents should rewrite again and again. To solve these problems, a transformation theorem which proposed by Selonen et al. (2003) is cited in this paper. Selonen et al. (2003) propose a framework and categorize meaningful transformation operations between different diagram types in UML. These operations can be used, for example, for model checking, merging, slicing and synthesis (Selonen et al., 2003). The transformation operation can be used as a basis of tool support in UML-based modeling tools. With these operations, we can get the benefits as follows: Class Diagram becomes easier and faster to create because they can be achieved as results of automated operations. Class Diagram becomes more consistent and correct because they are either produced or updated automatically, or checked against each other exploiting the transformation operations. Improve the software development process. The process of agile modeling become from use case to sequence diagram and then translated to class diagram. It will be more simply and efficiency. Research Question and sub-questions How does the transformation between sequence and Class diagrams make systems easier to develop and maintain and avoid system development documents to be rewritten all the time? What are meta-modeling, Meta Object Facility and Object Constraint language? How to operate the transformation? How does the transformation work in the real world (Examples)? Significance of the Study Sequence diagrams provide a natural and easy medium for designing the examples of typical dynamic interactions of objects, often as refined representations of use cases. After modeling examples of interactions, the designer should add the information implied by the sequence diagrams to the static view (class diagrams), or check that the static view conforms to the sequence diagrams (Selonen et al., 2000). The sequence diagram and class diagram derived from the same use case and can not be transformed between each other. This paper discusses a particular UML transformation operation mentioned in (Selonen et al., 2003), which transforms from a sequence diagram into a class diagram. The transformation operation is based on the UML 2.0 Specification (OMG, 2003), which defines the syntax and semantics of UML. The thesis defines the rules on the phases of this transformation operation and gives a transformation example to show the result of transformation. This paper will concentrate on the conceptual research of UML semantics, and do not concentrate on any development tool. However, OCL will be used to describe the transformation rules and hoped can be used in UML-based modeling tools development. I hope that the steps of modeling will improve; Support for synthesizing a new class diagram from an existing sequence diagram can provide significant help for the designer. Such synthesis operation helps the designer keep the two diagrams consistent because the synthesized class diagram can be compared with existing class diagram. The transformation operation also speeds up the design process, and to decrease the risk of human errors. In UML CASE tool vendors can implement this transformation operation in their tools to get the benefits described above. Research Design and Methodology The protocol for this research project is mostly using qualitative by design. A Case study will be used as the most important a strategy of research methodology in the study. The research process consists of six steps. It collects and analysis the documents and papers which are corresponding to the UML transformation thesis, OCL and MDA transformation theory. Then proposing a transformation framework for transformation from sequence diagram to class diagram and concluding transformation mapping rules. This paper will testify and revise the transformation mapping rules via implement a real case of agile modeling development process. And finally proposing the research result, and discuss the conclusion and future work. Organization of the Study Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter one introduces the research. This chapter will present the context of the problem, the problem statement, the main research question, the significance of the study, and the research methodology used to address the main research question. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature Chapter two gives an overview of the background literature for the thesis. Chapter 3: Meta-modeling, Meta Object Facility and Object Constraint language Chapter three will give the brief introduction of UML, MDA, meta-model, transformation and OCL are described at first, followed are the separate meta-models of sequence and class diagram. Chapter 4: Operation of the Transformation Chapter four will propose a framework of transformation from Sequence diagram to Class diagram. Also, a rule will be defined on every phase of transformation, using OCL to describe transformation rules. Chapter 5: Example of the Translations Chapter five will be working on a Case Study, and demonstrating the transformation for a true case in the real world. Chapter 6: Conclusion Chapter six will present the summery and conclusion. Chapter 2: Review of Literature 2.1 UML The complexity in software development process of getting from a set of requirements to a proper abstraction of the solution leads people to develop models. A model is a simplification of something so we can view, manipulate, and reason about it, and so help us understand the complexity inherent in the subject under study (Mellor et al., 2004). The UML is a family of graphical notations, backed by single meta-model, that help in describing and designing software systems, particularly software systems built using the object-oriented (OO) style (Fowler, 2003). The Unified Modeling Language (UML), since adopted as a standard (UML 1.1) by OMG in 1997, has become a widely accepted as standard for modeling a software system. The latest UML version 2.0 has been formally adopted in June 2003, and it will be applied throughout this thesis. UML 2 describes 13 official diagram types which fall in two categories depending on whether they describe structural or behavioral aspects of a software system. The UML can capture an array of processes and structures which related to business and software. UML has such power that a modeler can use it for the general architecture of any construction that has both a static structure and dynamic behavior. A project can rely on UML as the standard language to express requirements, system design, deployment instructions, and code structure (Eriksson et al., 2004). 2.2 Agile Modeling Test case modeling and an evolutionary approach are two major and strongly related techniques to model transformation (Rumpe, 2004). UML nowadays has become popular modeling language for software intensive systems used. Models can be used for a variety of purposes. One advantage of using models for test case description is the application specific parts which are modeled with UML-diagrams, such as connection to frameworks, error handling, persistence, or communication are handled by the parameterized code generator (Rumpe, 2004). This allows us to develop models which can be independent of any technology or platform, such as PIM. When the technology changes, we only need to update the generator, and the application defining models can directly be reused. This concept also directly supports the above mentioned MDA-Approach (OMG, 2005) of the OMG. Another important merit is that both of the production code and automatically executable tests are modeled by the same UML diagrams. Therefore developers could use a single homogeneous language to describe implementation and tests. This will enhance the availability of tests at the beginning of the coding activities. Analogously to the â€Å"test first approach† (Beck, 2001), sequence diagrams are used for test cases and can be taken from the previously modeled requirements. When we start software modeling by drawing classes in a class diagram does not mean we are developing a class model. Instead, we are developing a software model by defining static aspects through a static view. If we start our development by drawing a dynamic diagram, like the state or sequence diagram, we are developing a software model by defining dynamic aspects through a dynamic view. The class and sequence diagrams could better be called structural and dynamic views. They are all written in the same language: UML (Kleppe et al, 2003). In Agile modeling (Ambler, 2002), we develop an Information system in following steps by using UML. System Use Case Models UI Prototypes UML Class Diagrams UML Sequence Diagrams UML Activity Diagrams Use case diagram shows a number of external actors and their connection to the use cases that the system provides. A use case is a description of a functionality (a specific usage of the system) that the system provides. The description of the actual use case is normally done in plain text or as a document linked to the use case. The functionality and flow can also be described using an activity diagram. The use case description only views the system behavior as the user perceives it and does not describe how the functionality is provided inside the system. Use cases define the functional requirements of the system. Sequence diagrams address an interaction and may be used to model flows within use cases (Booch et al., 1999). They show how the objects interact to execute operations, emphasis on the time ordering of the messages. Class diagrams shows a collection of declarative (static) model elements, such as classes, types, and their contents and relationships. Once we have the use cases, the next step is to create the class diagram. This is the heart of the object-oriented model. This paper concentrates on the steps of modeling from Use Case Models to Class Diagrams and sequence Diagrams. 2.3 MDA The MDA is a new software engineering approach developed and published by the Object Management Group (OMG). One fundamental observation in the evolution of living software systems over the years is that their basic design models are mostly unchanged. Most changes to evolving software systems take place only at engineering level, forced by the introduction of new technologies and platforms (BAohme et al., 2005). MDA promotes simply the usage of models for the whole software system development. To capture the problem of technology evolution MDA defines two categories of models. The first one is for abstract modeling of the software systems at the design level. This model class is called Platform Independent Model (PIM). The second category is related to specific platforms and technologies. It contains mainly engineering aspects of the software system and is called Platform Specific Model (PSM). Between these two classes of models, MDA defines a relation in the form of several transformations, which ensure the structural equivalence of PIM and PSM. Another key issue of MDA is a technology framework for different kinds of model handling (storage, exchange, mapping of models, etc.). The Meta Object Facility (MOF) (OMG, 2000) is convenient for this purpose. Historically modeling languages were defined by abstract grammars. MOF instead defines modeling languages on the base of so-called Meta-Models. Meta-Models are models (instances) of built-in MOF concepts. Using this framework the developer can focus more on the definition of mappings between models rather than having to struggle with ordinary model handling. This is due to the fact that MOF comes with a method for the definition of model classes (Meta-Models) and for the exchange of models using the XML Metadata Interchange (XMI). In addition, MOF provides mappings of Meta-Models to repository interfaces as well. Such a repository holds all necessary information about model instances. The above argument is correct for most of todays component technology. To show the real application we have to choose concrete Meta-Models for PIM and PSM. This also leads to the selection of appropriate Meta-Models and notations for PIM and PSM. One requirement for both is the support of the component concept as a first class concept. Moreover, the Meta-Model for the PSM should be part of a well-defined and established component technology. Because the spread industrial usage is a process consuming several years, the suitable technologies have traditional syntax based languages for component definition. MDA exploits the emergence of a class of tools, which support model translation and allow meta-model manipulation. Meta-models are models of the formalism used to build models. They define the various kinds of contained model elements and the way they are arranged, related and constrained. The process of developing a model results in the creation of instances of the model elements defined in the meta-model – the meta-model is â€Å"populated† with instance data. Model transformation is the process of converting a model expressed in one formalism to another model of the same system expressed using a different formalism. This can be achieved by building a meta-model of each of the source and target model representations and then defining a mapping between them. The meta-model of the source model is populated with instance data of the specific source model to be transformed. The mapping rules are applied as a set of operations invoked on the source meta-model, which results in a meta-model of the target model populated with instance data. This populated target meta-model is then used to generate the target model (or possibly the target text in the case of code generation. (Bloomfield, 2005) 2.4 Models, modeling, and MDA Models and model-driven software development are at the heart of the MDA approach. So it is appropriate to start by looking at what is being practiced when enterprise application developers take advantage of modeling. In the software engineering world, modeling has a rich tradition from the earliest days of programming. The most recent innovations have focused on notations and tools that allow users to express system perspectives of value to software architects and developers in ways that are readily mapped into the programming language code that can be compiled for a particular operating system platform. The current state of this practice employs the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as the primary modeling notation (Rumbaugh et al.,1999). The UML allows development teams to capture a variety of important characteristics of a system in corresponding models. Transformations among these models are primarily manual, with tool support for managing traceability and dependency relationships among modeling elements, supported by best practice guidance on how to maintain synchronized models as part of a large-scale development effort. One useful way to characterize current practice is to look at the different ways in which the models are synchronized with the source code. Each category identifies a particular use of models in assisting software practitioners to create running applications (code) for a specific runtime platform, and the relationship between the models and the code. Today, most of software developers still take a code-only approach, and do not use separately defined models at all. They rely almost entirely on the code they write, and they express their model of the system they are building directly in a 3rd generation programming language such as Java, C++, or C# within an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) such as IBM WebSphere Studio, Eclipse, and Microsoft VisualStudio. Any â€Å"modeling† they do is in the form of programming abstractions embedded in the code (e.g., packages, modules, interfaces, etc.), which are managed through mechanisms such as program libraries and object hierarchies. Any separate modeling of architectural designs is informal and intuitive, and lives on whiteboards, in PowerPoint sides, or in the developers’ heads. While this may be adequate for individuals and very small teams, this approach makes it difficult to understand key characteristics of the system among the details of the implementation of the business logic. Furthermore, it becomes much more difficult to manage the evolution of these solutions as their scale and complexity increases, as the system evolves over time, or when the original members of the design team are not directly accessible to the team maintaining the system. An addition is to provide code visualizations in some appropriate modeling notation. As developers create or analyze an application, they often want to visualize the code through some graphical notation that aids their understanding of the code’s structure or behavior. It may also be possible to manipulate the graphical notation as an alternative to editing the text based code, so that the visual rendering becomes a direct representation of the code. Such rendering is sometimes called a code model, or an implementation model, although many feel it more appropriate to call these artifacts â€Å"diagrams† and reserve the use of â€Å"model† for higher levels of abstraction. Some tools that allow such diagrams (e.g., IBM Web Sphere Studio and Borland Together/J), the code view and the model view can be displayed simultaneously; as the developer manipulates either view the other is immediately synchronized with it. In this approach, the diagrams are tightly coupled representations of the code and provide an alternative way to view and possibly edit at the code level. Further advantage of the models can be taken through roundtrip engineering (RTE) between an abstract model of the system describing the system architecture or design, and the code. The developer typically elaborates the system design to some level of detail, then creating a first-pass implementation from the code generated by applying model-to-code transformations, usually manually. For instance, one team working on the high level design provides design models to the team working on the implementation (perhaps simply by printing out model diagrams, or providing the implementation team some files containing the models). The implementation team converts this abstract, high-level design into a detailed set of design models and the programming language implementation. Iterations of these representations will occur as errors and their corrections are made in either the design or the code. Consequently, without considerable discipline, the abstract models and the implementation models usually and quickly – end up out of step. Tools can automate the initial transformation, and can help to keep the design and implementation models in step as they evolve. Typically the tools generate code stubs from the design models that the user has to further refine. As changes are made to the code they must at some point be reconciled with the original model. To achieve this some approach to recognize generated versus user defined code is used such as placing markers in the code. Tools adopting this approach, such as IBM Rational Rose, can offer multiple transformation services supporting RTE between models and different implementation languages. In a model-centric approach, models of the system are established in sufficient detail that the full implementation of the system can be generated from the models themselves. To achieve this, the models may include, for example, representations of the persistent and non persistent data, business logic, and presentation elements. Any integration to legacy data and services may require that the interfaces to those elements are also modeled. In some cases much more than code stubs can be generated depending on the fidelity of the models of patterns to transform the models to code, frequently allowing the developer some choice in the patterns that are applied (e.g., among various deployment topologies). To further assist in the code generation, this approach frequently makes use of standard or proprietary application frameworks and runtime services that ease the code generation task by constraining the styles of applications that can be generated. Hence, tools using this approach typically specialize in the generation of particular styles of applications (e.g., IBM Rational Rose Technical Developer for real-time embedded systems). However, in all cases the models are the primary artifact created and manipulated by developers. A model-only approach is at the far-right end of the modeling spectrum. In this approach developers use models purely as thought aids in understanding the business or solution domain, or for analyzing the architecture of a proposed solution. Models are frequently used as the basis for discussion, communication, and analysis among teams within a single organization, or across multi-organizational projects. These models frequently appear in proposals for new work, or adorn the walls of offices and cubes in software labs everywhere as a way of understanding some complex domain of interest, and establishing a shared vocabulary and set of concepts among disparate teams. In practice the implementation of a system, whether from scratch or updating an existing solution, may be practically disconnected from the models. An interesting example of this approach can be seen in the growing number of organizations who outsource implementation and maintenance of their systems while maintaining contr ol of the overall enterprise architecture. 2.5 Transformations between UML diagrams UML provides different diagram types supporting the development process from requirements specification to implementation (Selonen et al., 2001). The models presented by different diagrams view a system from different perspectives or from different abstraction levels. Therefore, the various UML models of the same system are not independent specifications but strongly overlapping: they depend on each other in many ways. For Instance, changes in one model may imply changes in another, and a large portion of one model may be synthesized on the basis of another model. So far there exists relatively modest tool support exploiting the logical dependencies of UML models. Some systems (e.g. Rational Rose) maintain, for instance, method lists across class diagrams and sequence diagrams: adding a call of a new method in a sequence diagram automatically causes the corresponding updating of the class symbol in a class diagram. Another example is the transformation between sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams, also supported by Rational Rose. However, there is no comprehensive framework that would support such mechanisms throughout Class diagram and Sequence diagram in a systematic way. This paper studies the relationships of Class diagram and Sequence diagram in UML, and transformation operations that are based on those relationships. A transformation operation takes a UML diagram as its operand (the source diagram), and produces another diagram of another type as its result (the target diagram). It considers such transformation operations as an essential part of a UML- based software design environment. The transformation operations can be used for example in the following ways: Model checking:Are two diagrams consistent with each other? It is much easier to find inconsistencies between two diagrams of the same type than between two diagrams of different types. If the diagrams are of different types, transformation operations can be first applied to obtain two diagrams of the same type, which are then compared for consistency. Model merging:Add the information contained in one diagram to another diagram. Merging the modeling information of two diagrams is much easier when the diagrams are of the same type (Alanen and Porres, 2003). If the diagrams are of different types, transformation operations can be first applied to obtain two diagrams of the same type, which are then merged. Model slicing:Create a partial view of a diagram showing only a particular aspect. Often the aspect can be presented in the form of another diagram (of some other type). For example, one may want to see a dynamic slice of a static diagram. The diagram representing the slicing criterion (for example, a dynamic diagram) can be first transformed into the type of the target diagram (for example, a static diagram). An intersection of the two diagrams of the same type then shows the desired slice. Model synthesis:Produce a diagram on the basis of an existing diagram of another type. This is the most straightforward usage of transformation operations. Such synthesis can be useful for two purposes: to obtain automatically an initial form of a diagram needed in a subsequent phase of the software development process, or to obtain a different view of the information contained by a diagram. The latter may be used just as a transient view on a model, rather than as a persistent design artifact. 2.6 Phase of Transformation Operation Selonen et al. (2003) use the UML meta-model to define the transformation between UML diagrams. Since diagram types are only very loosely defined (the same notation may represent different meaning on different diagrams), we need to establish a precise mapping from a graphical view representing a diagram type to a model; i.e. we must define a model that corresponds to a given diagram. This model contains exactly the logical information exposed by the diagram, needed by the transformation operations. We will call this model the minimal model of the diagram. As we do this for all diagram types, we are able to define transformations between diagram types as functions from the meta-model of a diagram type to the meta-model of another diagram type. Such a function takes the minimal model of the source diagram as its argument, and produces the minimal model of the target diagram. They call the transformation rules the interpretation of the transformation. Assuming that the mappings from the source diagram into its minimal model, from this minimal model into the minimal model of the target diagram, and finally into the target diagram, are all defined uniquely, the transformation between two diagram types becomes fully defined (Selonen et al.,2003). First, take a given sequence diagram and map the sequence diagram to its minimal model. Then transform this minimal model to a minimal model of a class diagram. Finally, this minimal model is mapping to a class diagram in model level. This thesis will base on this process to introduce a definite transformation operation. Reference Tom Pender. (2003). UML Bible (1st edition). Wiley, ISBN: 0764526049 Martin Fowler. (2004). UML Distilled (3rd edition), Wesley, ISBN: 0321193687 Hans-Erik Eriksson, Magnus Penker, Brain Lyons, and David Fado. (2004). UML 2 Toolkit, Wiley, ISBN: 0471463612 Ambler. (2002). Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process, Wiley, ISBN: 0471202827 Jos Warmer, Anneke Kleppe.(2003). The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA (2nd Edition), Wesley, ISBN: 0321179366 Grzegorz Rozenberg.(1997). Handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Foundations (1st edition), World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN: 9810228848 James Rumbaugh, Grady Booch, and Ivar Jacobson. (1999). The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Wesley, ISBN: 020130998X Jams R Rumbaugh, Michael R. Blaha, William Lorensen, Frederick Eddy. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall; United States Ed edition, ISBN: 0136298419 Rumpe, B.(2004). Agile Modeling with the UML, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Petri Selonen, Kai Koskimies and Markku Sakkinen. (2001). How to Make Apples from Oranges in UML. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from: http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2001/0981/03/09813054.pdf Petri Selonen, Kai Koskimies and Markku Sakkinen. (2003). Transformations between UML diagrams. Journal of Database Management. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23439697_ITM Petri Selonen (2000). Scenario-based Synthesis of Annotated Class Diagrams in UML. Tampere University of Technology, Retrieved February 21, 2008, from: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/462963.html Mellor, S. J., Scott, K., Uhl, A., and Weise,D., MD. (2004). a Distilled: Principles of Model-Driven. Wesley, Retrieved February 22, 2008, From: http://www.metamodel.com/,2005 OMG. (2003). UML 2.0 OCL Specification, Retrieved February 22, 2008, from: http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-10-14.pdf,2003 Tony Bloomfield. (2005). MDA,Meta-Modelling,and Model Transformation: introduction New Technology into the Defence Industry, Retrieved February 22, 2008, from: http://www.enabler.com/en/skills/ecmda/PAPER_Bloomfield.pdf

Music in Twelfth Night Essay -- Literary Analysis, Shakespeare

Critics call Twelfth Night one of William Shakespeare’s most poetic and musical plays. Shakespeare writes poetic lines for the major characters, Viola, Orsino, and Olivia, and gives the Fool, and other minor characters, songs to sing throughout the play. The particularly romantic lines of the play make it seem as if the characters are professional poets themselves. Shakespeare also uses the music and poetry in Twelfth Night to foreshadow what is going to happen for the rest of the performance and to reveal major themes in the play. Music and poetry become major characters in the play themselves. The opening soliloquy of Act I Scene I, given by Duke Orsino, is another perfect example of Shakespeare using music to show the upcoming storyline of the play. At first, Orsino is using music as a metaphor that feeds the appetite of love. He speaks for a minute about his love for the music playing, and then changes abruptly by saying, â€Å"Enough; no more† (7). Already Shakespeare is foreshadowing Orsino’s fickleness when it comes to music which in turn stands for love. Of course, further into the play, it is shown that Orsino truly is fickle when it comes to love. As soon as he finds out that Cesario is in fact the woman Viola, he instantly forgets all the passion he had for Olivia and marries Viola. Another part of Orsino’s opening speech that shows a piece of the future plot is the part where he talks about love being â€Å"receiveth as the sea† (11). This can be taken to show that love will come by the sea. In the very next scene, Viola appears in Illyria from a shipwreck. Sebastian, although Shakespeare does not say so at the time, also comes onto the scene because of the same shipwreck. Shakespeare forecasts, very subtly, that these are t... ...one of the antics at the start play to woo Olivia succeed for Orsino and Viola’s initial plan in the beginning does not blossom. This line concludes the part of Feste’s song in which he is giving a synopsis of the play. The last two stanzas are addressed to the audience and Feste thanks them. Shakespeare craftily uses music and poetry to guide the audience through the play and give them an inkling of what is to come, if the audience chooses to play close attention. However, it is not always clear what the song means and, depending on the character delivering the song or poem, comes off as more comedic than meaningful to the performance. By the end of the play, the audience has accepted that music and poetry are just as much themes in the play as disguise and love, but are blended so painstakingly that neither poetry or love overshadow anything in the performance.

A Deviant Act That Is Not Criminal in Nature Essay

The text gave an example of a deviant act that is not criminal in nature. What other types of deviant acts can you think of that do not violate criminal laws? Many deviant acts are acts that depart from are social norms. Every society has its basic social norms; it may vary a bit, because of so many different multi-cultural societies. Even so I can safely say that most societies have the same universal belief when it comes to social norms. Social norms are very serious if an individual commits a deviant act, the community will automatically demand punishment. In some cases the individual will be punished by the society but will not face a criminal charge by the government. Many deviant acts do not violate written laws; therefore individual cannot be charge with a criminal violation. There are so many different perspectives to social norms that makes the United State vary in what is legal and what is not. A great example is polygamy, this act is outside of our social norms, but in Nevada there is no criminal charge for plural marriage even though it is not legal in most states. Another example would be cross-dressing it is considered to be a deviant act in most parts of the world not because it is criminal in nature; but because of the act itself is outside the boundaries of our social norms. Homosexuality is also another big controversy in regards to our social norms today, it is considered to be a deviant act nevertheless it is not a criminal violation. There are many act that I would consider to be deviant acts but are not punishable by law. A disowning of a child, giving up a child up for adoption, or simply not taking responsibility for a child, that can be and should be considered deviant act with criminal punishment; unfortunately, it is not a criminal violation. Divorce can also be looked at as a deviant act in some societies because when one joins in marriage it is for the rest of their lives, there is no petitioning for a divorce; that would just be departing from our social norms. In many cases there are little things that can be considered outside the social norms like: A male with long hair, a female with no hair on her head, or a child taking a small amount of money from parents purse or wallet without his/her permission is a bad act but is not punishable by law. Here I wrote many examples I could think of that can be considered a deviant acts but them actually becoming a criminal violation is not near. Our society today is leaning away from our social norms to the point that we the people are ignoring what we were thought by our elders of what the basic social norms should be.

Faith and Diplomacy

Katherine Donado Writing III October 5, 2012 Technology Technology is valuable because it is used in every day. As Mandana Mohsenzadega states in, â€Å"OMG: Tweeting, Trending, and Texting† people feel incomplete without technology (448). Technology was intended to bring people closer and increase communication. To be able to stay in contact more in a faster way when is impossible to see a family member. Maybe they might live in a different country and for many reasons not being able to travel.Technology is very important and useful, because it provides a lot of information, it makes businesses more efficient and it is a faster way to protect people in dangerous occasions. Technology is often used to find out information. It is a faster, quicker and easier way to get answers from Websites. Mohsenzadega refers to this (448), â€Å"†¦. with just the click of a button on our handy-dandy little gadgets. † Everything is there, with no need to struggle or go out to get things done. Some people do not need the doctor for check-ups. They can get the information from Medline. om which allows people to self-diagnose (448). Computers help us stay up to date with everything, whether it is the weather, or a family member that lives far. It is cheaper to communicate now over Facebook, Twitter, Facetime or Oovoo because it’s free, instead of buying a phone card every time they need to keep in contact with a relative. It has also brought people together from all over the world. They meet new people find out about them and most of the time fall in love and end up together. The internet is very useful and good.Some people feel better behind screens and are able to express themselves better and open up more to people, when they are not face to face. People get to know them better on the internet and get a lot of information from there. Just the simple fact of entertainment, of having memories with friends, photos, meaningful texts or listening to music, which is known to calm people and lets them get away from everything when they’re in their zone. Technology is known for something most people can’t live without, â€Å"Cannot imagine living a week without my laptop. Since I grew up in this culture, it would be exceedingly senseless. (450) Businesses have also become more efficient because of technology. Due to the self-service cashiers, have become defunct. Fewer employees need to be hired because machines do their jobs. One can go pay for their groceries with just a swipe of their card. Technology has also influenced many other businesses. There is no reason to wait for a conference and waste time, when they can call each other at any time and connect all lines so everyone can be in a conference call without having to be running late or being taken out of their house, office, or even state.Some businesses have jobs and meeting out of state to make it more comfortable for people that are far away in the same busines s. It is better to have everyone meet up in a place where they can all feel fair when it comes to traveling. Also can be very useful when people aren’t on time or running late, they can just send their work with a simple text or e-mail without having to waste time when certain paper work hs to be done at a certain time or wait to see the person to give them the work. Another reason why technology is important is because it keeps us safe.Many phones have a GPS system in them that helps law enforcement track and locate the subject. Cameras were invented to watch, there put just about in every store and place. With the phones, people are more likely to call the police in case of an emergency, with less difficulties. With just a push of a button, it connects you to help. Also alarm systems, to keep peoples home safe when they’re away. Technology prevents accidents from happening. Making it possible for crimes to be solved faster and more accurately. In conclusion, technolo gy would be known to be very useful in life.It has brought many people together and most importantly kept them safe. It has made people’s lives a lot easier and faster, without any difficulties or struggles. Everything can be done with just a push of a button. No need to get up or go out because everything in within reach. It has made life a lot more valuable and understanding when you have an object that gives you answers to any problems you may have with no solution. People have to understand that technology was made for the better, to be able to make life easier and make us feel comfortable knowing that there is answers to what we seek in life.