Domain-Specific Multi-Modeling of Security Concerns in Service-Oriented Architectures

As a common reference for many in-development standards and execution frameworks, special attention is being paid to Service-Oriented Architectures. SOAs modeling, however, is an area in which a consensus has not being achieved. Currently, standardization organizations are defining proposals to offer a solution to this problem. Nevertheless, until very recently, non-functional aspects of services have not been considered for standardization processes. In particular, there exists a lack of a design solution that permits an independent development of the functional and non-functional concerns of SOAs, allowing that each concern be addressed in a convenient manner in early stages of the development, in a way that could guarantee the quality of this type of systems. This paper, leveraging on previous work, presents an approach to integrate security-related non-functional aspects (such as confidentiality, integrity, and access control) in the development of services.

Multi Domain-Specific Modeling of the Security Concerns of Service-Oriented Architectures

Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA), and Web Services (WS), the technology generally used to implement them, achieve the integration of heterogeneous technologies, providing interoperability, and yielding the reutilization of pre-existent systems. Model-driven development methodologies provide inherent benefits such as increased productivity, greater reuse, and better maintainability, to name a few. Efforts on achieving model-driven development of SOAs already exist, but there is currently no standard solution that addresses non-functional aspects of these services as well. This paper presents an approach to integrate these non-functional aspects in the development of web services, with an emphasis on security.

From Secondary School To University: Attracting Young Students Towards A Career In Nuclear

From its creation, Spanish Young Generation in Nuclear (Jóvenes Nucleares, JJNN), a non-profit organization that depends on the Spanish Nuclear Society (SNE), has as an important scope to help spread knowledge about nuclear energy, not only pointing out its advantages and its role in our society, but also trying to correct some of the ideas that are due to the biased information and to the lack of knowledge. To try to have success in that goal, some high school lectures were taught and it has been organized regularly a Basic Course on Nuclear Science and Technology

Motivating Young Students to Start a Career in Nuclear: The Basic Course of Science and Nuclear Technology, An Educational Activity of Spanish Young Generation in Nuclear (JÓVENES NUCLEARES)

The main objective of this course, conducted by Jóvenes Nucleares (Spanish Young Generation in Nuclear, JJNN), a non-profit organization that depends on the Spanish Nuclear Society (SNE) is to pass on basic knowledge about Science and Nuclear Technology to the general public, mostly students and introduce them to its most relevant points. The purposes of this course are to provide general information, to answer the most common questions about Nuclear Energy and to motivate the young students to start a career in nuclear. Therefore, it is directed mainly to high school and university students, but also to general people that wants to learn about the key issues of such an important matter in our society. Anybody could attend the course, as no specific scientific education is required. The course is done at least once a year, during the Annual Meeting of the Spanish Nuclear Society, which takes place in a different Spanish city each time. The course is done also to whichever university or institution that asks for it to JJNN, with the only limit of the presenter´s availability. The course is divided into the following chapters: Physical nuclear and radiation principles, Nuclear power plants, Nuclear safety, Nuclear fuel, Radioactive waste, Decommission of nuclear facilities, Future nuclear power plants, Other uses of nuclear technology, Nuclear energy, climate change and sustainable development. The course is divided into 15 minutes lessons on the above topics, imparted by young professionals, experts in the field that belongs either to the Spanish Young Generation in Nuclear, either to companies and institutions related with nuclear energy. At the end of the course, a 200 pages book with the contents of the course is handed to every member of the audience. This book is also distributed in other course editions at high schools and universities in order to promote the scientific dissemination of the Nuclear Technology. As an extra motivation, JJNN delivers a course certificate to the assistants. At the end of the last edition course, in Santiago de Compostela, the assistants were asked to provide a feedback about it. Some really interesting lessons were learned, that will be very useful to improve next editions of the course. As a general conclusion of the courses it can be said that many of the students that have assisted to the course have increased their motivation in the nuclear field, and hopefully it will help the young talents to choose the nuclear field to develop their careers

Peter Celsing en el complejo de Sergels Torg : la Casa de la Cultura de Estocolmo

La tesis ≪Peter Celsing en el complejo de Sergels torg. La Casa de la Cultura de Estocolmo ≫ intenta profundizar en la obra de este autor, en sus conexiones con otras arquitecturas y arquitectos de su entorno físico y temporal, que constituye uno de los episodios más interesantes y menos conocidos de la arquitectura nórdica. El objeto particular de estudio es la Casa de la Cultura dentro del complejo de Sergels torg como pieza clave que marca un antes y un después en su trayectoria. Se observa un proceso de desarrollo constante, que se fue gestando paulatinamente, y que en este ejercicio alcanza su punto álgido. Además, los proyectos que coexistieron con su evolución, y los posteriores, filtraron las inquietudes latentes del mayor reto al que se había enfrentado, dando pie a resultados novedosos en su producción. La investigación se estructura en tres capítulos. El primero, ≪Aprendizaje≫, examina sus experiencias de juventud, viajes de estudios y lecciones de sus maestros; así como sus inicios profesionales en el proyecto de restauración de la Catedral de Uppsala y en sus iglesias junto a Lewerentz. En ese periodo prima lo formal y escultórico, el hormigón y el ladrillo artesanal, y como referencia Le Corbusier y la capilla de Ronchamp. El segundo capítulo, ≪Obra≫, estudia el concurso que da origen a la Casa de la Cultura, su proceso de gestación y diseño, y las modificaciones posteriores durante su construcción. De repente emergen las cualidades espaciales y los sistemas estructurales aprendidos de Mies en el Crown Hall de Chicago, la gran escala de la metrópoli y las soluciones industriales ligeras. El tercer capítulo, ≪Madurez≫, sirve de cierre, y revisa su trayectoria posterior con relación a la obra referida. Tras este edificio, el diseño de las propuestas coetáneas se vuelve más abstracto y sencillo, gana en autonomía, rotundidad, atrevimiento y carácter. Las conclusiones verifican el cambio de actitud y de paradigmas. Hay elementos como las distorsiones, los contrastes y las manipulaciones, aprendidas en sus primeros años de formación y junto a Lewerentz, si bien es cierto que ahora han aumentado proporcionalmente a la escala de sus intervenciones e incluso se observan en el detalle, como sucede en el encuentro de los materiales y su montaje. Su visión, su punto de vista se eleva, y la pieza adopta una volumetría compacta y unitaria. Cada nuevo trabajo sintetiza un enfoque más universal y abierto en conceptos y metodología operativa. Sus preocupaciones nos hablan de un arquitecto consciente de su tiempo y cuya arquitectura final mira ya al siglo XXI. ABSTRACT The thesis ≪Peter Celsing in the complex of Sergels torg. The House of Culture in Stockholm ≫ delves deeper into the work of this author, in his connections with other architectures and architects of his physical and temporal surroundings, which is one of the most interesting and least known episodes of Nordic architecture. The particular focus of this study is how the House of Culture, a key point within the complex of Sergels torg, marks a before and after in his career. There is an observable process of constant development, which was growing steadily, and reaches its critical point in this exercise. In addition, the projects that coexisted during his evolution and those that came before, reveal latent concerns leading up to the biggest challenge he would face, ultimately giving way to new developments in his work. The study is divided into three chapters. The first, ≪Learning≫, examines his experiences as a youth, academic trips and lessons from his masters; as well as his professional beginnings alongside Lewerentz in the restoration project of Uppsala Cathedral and his churches. In that period the formal and sculptural were given preference, also concrete and handmade brick. And as reference, there is Le Corbusier and the chapel at Ronchamp. The second chapter, ≪Work≫, studies the competition that gives rise to the House of Culture, the gestation process and design and subsequent amendments during its construction. Suddenly the spatial qualities and structural systems learned from Mies in Crown Hall of Chicago emerge, the large scale of the metropolis and light industrial solutions. The third chapter, ≪Maturity≫, serves as the closure and examines his subsequent career in relation to said work. After this building, the design of coetaneous proposals become more abstract and simple, gaining autonomy, firmness, boldness and character. The conclusions verify the change in attitudes and paradigms. There are elements such as distortions, contrasts and manipulations, learned in his early years of training and with Lewerentz, that have now undeniably increased in proportion to the scale of their involvement and can even be observed in detail, as so happens in the joining of materials and assembly. His vision, his point of view is heightened, and the piece adopts a single and compact volume. Each new work synthesizes a more universal and open focus in concepts and operational methodology. His concerns speak of an architect aware of his time and whose final architecture now looks toward the 21st century.

La silla de la discordia : la pequeña escala como campo de experimentación en la modernidad : Breuer, Mies y Stam

El siglo XIX fue un siglo dedicado a los grandes edificios públicos. Los teatros, las academias, los museos. Sin embargo la arquitectura durante el siglo XX se dedicará al estudio de la casa. Todos los usos y tipologías se verán fuertemente revisados pero el núcleo de todos los esfuerzos y verdadero inicio de la arquitectura moderna será la vivienda. A partir de ella todos los preceptos modernos se irán aplicando a los distintos programas. Nikolaus Pevsner señala a William Morris como el primer arquitecto moderno porque precisamente entendió que un arte verdaderamente social, en consonancia con su tiempo y la sociedad a la que sirve, ha de ocuparse de aquello que preocupe a la gente. Con la nueva situación de la vivienda en el centro de las motivaciones disciplinares el mueble adopta un nuevo protagonismo. En un momento avanzado de su carrera Marcel Breuer observa entre curioso e irónico cómo el mueble moderno había sido promocionado paradójicamente no por los diseñadores de muebles sino por los arquitectos1. La respuesta la da Le Corbusier en una de sus conferencias de 1931 recogida en Precisiones 2 cuando señala la reformulación del mobiliario como el "nudo gordiano" de cuya resolución pendía la renovación de la planta moderna. El Movimiento Moderno se había visto obligado a atacar este tema para poder avanzar en sus propuestas domésticas. El Movimiento Moderno se propuso solucionar los problemas de la vivienda y de una Europa en reconstrucción pero se exigía además ser capaz de aportar una visión propositiva de la vida moderna. No se trataba únicamente de resolver los problemas ya existentes sino que además había la necesidad autoimpuesta de anticipar la domesticidad del futuro. Para ello sus viviendas al completo, mueble e inmueble, debían de presentarse bajo esa nueva imagen. El manifiesto fundacional de la Deustcher Werkbund extendía el radio de acción del nuevo arquitecto desde la construcción de las ciudades a los cojines del sofá. Este mobiliario tenía la compleja misión de condensar sintéticamente todos esos ideales que la modernidad había traído consigo: abstracción, higiene, fascinación maquínica, confianza positivista en la ciencia o la expresión material optimizada. Objetos de la vida moderna, en palabras de Le Corbusier, susceptibles de suscitar un estado de vida moderno. Pocas sillas en la historia del diseño habrán acarreado tanta polémica y tanta disputa por su autoría como la sillas voladas de tubo de acero en sus diferentes versiones. Para entenderlo situémonos en el año 1927 a las puertas de la exposición "Die Wohnung" ("La vivienda") organizada por los maestros de la Bauhaus y dirigida por Mies van der Rohe en la ladera Weissenhof de Stuttgart. Muchos nombres célebres de la arquitectura mostraron en esa ocasión su personal propuesta para la vivienda moderna y los objetos que la habitan. Entre ellos los muebles con tubo de acero fueron una presencia constante en la exposición pero hubo una pieza que destacó sobre todas las demás por su novedad y audacia. La pieza en cuestión era el modelo de silla volada, esto es, sin apoyos posteriores y cuya rigidez estaba conferida al esfuerzo solidario de la estructura continua de tubo de acero y que terminaría por convertirse en el cruce de caminos de tres figuras de la disciplina arquitectónica: Marcel Breuer, Mies van der Rohe y Mart Stam. Cada uno de ellos desarrolló su propio modelo de silla volada en sus versiones MR por parte de Mies, L&C Arnold de Stam y el posterior modelo BR 33 de Marcel Breuer. Los tres, en algún momento de su vida reclamaron de uno u otro modo su autoría como objetos que les pertenecían intelectualmente. Estas sillas se convirtieron en la expresión máxima de uno de los ansiados anhelos de la modernidad, la propia materialidad del acero, en su versión optimizada, era la que había derivado en una forma completamente nueva de un objeto cotidiano y cuyo tipo estaba ya totalmente asumido. Los nuevos materiales y las nuevas formas de hacer habían irrumpido hasta en los utensilios domésticos, y habían sido capaces de reformularlos. El punto de partida para esta investigación es precisamente esa coincidencia de tres figuras de la arquitectura moderna, los tres de formación artesanal, en un mismo modelo de silla y en una misma fecha. Tres arquitectos que se habían encargado de asegurar que el movimiento moderno no reconocía problemas formales sino solamente de construcción, iban a coincidir en el mismo tiempo y lugar, precisamente en una misma forma, como si tal coincidencia hubiera sido producto de una voluntad de época. Sin embargo el interés de este estudio no radica en una indagación sobre la autoría sino sobre cómo un mismo objeto resulta ser propositivo e interesante en campos muy diversos y la forma en que cada uno lo hace suyo incorporándolo a su propia investigación proyectual. La silla, más allá de ser un objeto de diseño exclusivamente, trasciende su propia escala para situarse inmersa en un proceso de búsqueda y exploración a nivel conceptual, formal, constructivo y estructural en la arquitectura cada uno de ellos. En un momento en que el oficio del arquitecto está siendo intensamente redefinido considero especialmente pertinente esta investigación, que en definitiva versa sobre la forma distintiva en que el pensamiento arquitectónico es capaz de proyectarse sobre cualquier disciplina para reformularla. ABSTRACT The nineteenth century was a century dedicated to the great public buildings; theaters, schools or museums. However the architecture in the twentieth century was devoted to the study of housing. All uses and typologies were heavily revised but the focus of all efforts and true beginning of modern architecture was housing. From these beginnings all modern precepts were applied to the various programs. Nikolaus Pevsner points to William Morris as the first modern architect precisely because he understood that a truly social art in line with its time and the society it serves must deal with social concerns at that time. With the new housing situation at the center of disciplinary concerns furniture took on a new prominence. At an advanced stage of his career Marcel Breuer observed partly with curiosity, partly with irony how modern furniture had been promoted not by furniture designers but by architects. The answer is given by Le Corbusier in one of his lectures of 1931 collected in Precisions when he pointed the reformulation of furniture as the "Gordian knot" for the renewal of modern plan resolution. Modernism had been forced to confront this issue in order to advance their domestic approaches. Modernism not only put forward a solution to the problems of housing and a Europe under reconstruction but is also needed to be able to contribute to an exciting vision of modern life. Not only did solve existing problems but also it had the self-imposed necessity of anticipating future domesticity and to do their houses full, movable and immovable, they should be submitted under this new image. The founding manifesto of the Deutsche Werkbund extended the scope of the new architect from building cities to the couch cushions. This furniture had the complex mission of synthetically condensing all the ideals of modernity had brought with it: abstraction, hygiene, mechanization, positivist confidence in science or material expression. Objects of modern life, in words of Le Corbusier, were likely to give rise a state of modern life. Few chairs in design history have resulted in so much controversy and so much dispute over their invention as the various versions of cantilevered tubular steel chairs. To understand this let us place ourselves in 1927 at the gates of the exhibition "Die Wohnung" ("Housing") organized by the teachers of the Bauhaus and directed by Mies van der Rohe in Stuttgart Weissenhoflung. Many famous names in architecture at that time showed their personal proposals for modern housing and the objects that inhabit them. Amongst these objects, the steel tube furniture was a constant presence at the exhibition but there was a piece so audacious that it stood out from all the others. This piece in question was the cantilever model chair, that is, which had no further rear support and whose rigidity was attributed to the solidity of its continues structure of steel tube. This piece would eventually become the crossroads of three very different personalities: Mart Stam, Marcel Breuer and Mies van der Rohe. Each of them developed their own model of cantilevered chair in different versions; The MR model developed by Mies van der Rohe, the L&C by Arnold Stam and a later model BR 33 by Marcel Breuer, and the three, at some point in their lives demanded the authorship of its invention as objects that belonged to them intellectually. These chairs epitomized one of the coveted objects of modernity, steel material in its optimized version, was what had led to a completely new form of an everyday object whose this type was fully adopted on board in design. New materials and production methods had burst into world of household objects, and had been able to reformulate their design. The bold design then became a dark object of controversy. The starting point for this doctoral thesis is the concurrent invention of the same model of chair by three different figures of modern architecture. These three architects, who were responsible for ensuring that the modern movement considered construction rather than form as the main design consideration, were working in the same place and at the same point in time. It was almost as if these three architects were shaped by the culture of the time (Zeitgeist). However the focus of this study lies not in an investigation of responsibility of ownership but in the investigation fo how the same object can turn out to be purposeful and interesting in many different fields and the way in which each researcher makes it his own by developing his own project research. 1927, the year of their meeting, was a initiatory year in the career of our players. The chair, beyond being only a design object transcended its own scale and became immersed in a process of research and development on a conceptual, formal, structural and constructive level in the architectural approach of each of the architects. At a time when the role of the architect is being redefined intensely I consider this research, which ultimately concerns the distinctive way the architectural thought can be projected onto and reformulate any discipline, to be particularly relevant.