Temporal structure and enablement representation for mutual wills: A Petri net approach

Those temporal formalisms that are sporadically found nowadays in the literature of AI & Law are based on temporal logic. We claim a revived role for another major class of temporal representation: Petri nets. This formalism, popular in computing from the 1970s, had its potential recognized on occasion in the literature of legal computing as well, but apparently the discipline has lost sight of it, and its practitioners on average need be tutored into this kind of representation. Asynchronous, concurrent processes—for which the approach is well‐suited—are found in the legal domain, in disparate contexts. We develop an example for Mutual Wills.

Adaptive decision-making in buildingEXODUS

Given the importance of occupant behaviour on evacuation efficiency, a new behavioural feature has been implemented into buildingEXODUS. This feature concerns the response of occupants to exit selection and re-direction. This behaviour is not simply pre-determined by the user as part of the initialisation process, but involves the occupant taking decisions based on their previous experiences and the information available to them. This information concerns the occupants prior knowledge of the enclosure and line-of-sight information concerning queues at neighbouring exits. This new feature is demonstrated and reviewed through several examples.

Adaptive decision-making in response to crowd formations in building EXODUS

Given the importance of occupant behavior on evacuation efficiency, a new behavioral feature has been developed and implemented into buildingEXODUS. This feature concerns the response of occupants to exit selection and re-direction. This behavior is not simply pre-determined by the user as part of the initialization process, but involves the occupant taking decisions based on their previous experiences and the information available to them. This information concerns the occupants prior knowledge of the enclosure and line-of-sight information concerning queues at neighboring exits. This new feature is demonstrated and reviewed through several examples.

Adaptive decision-making in buildingEXODUS in response to exit congestion

Given the importance of occupant behavior on evacuation efficiency, a new behavioral feature has been implemented into building EXODUS. This feature concerns the response of occupants to exit selection and re-direction, given that the occupant is queuing at an external exit. This behavior is not simply pre-determined by the user as part of the initialization process, but involves the occupant taking decisions based on their previous experiences with the enclosure and the information available to them. This information concerns the occupant's prior knowledge of the enclosure and line-of-sight information concerning queues at neighboring exits. This new feature is demonstrated and reviewed through several examples.

Self-adaptability and man-in-the-loop: a dilemma in autonomic computing systems

This paper addresses some controversial issues relating to two main questions. Firstly, we discuss 'man-in-the loop' issues in SAACS. Some people advocate this must always be so that man's decisions can override autonomic components. In this case, the system has two subsystems - man and machine. Can we, however, have a fully autonomic machine - with no man in sight; even for short periods of time? What kinds of systems require man to always be in the loop? What is the optimum balance in self-to-human control? How do we determine the optimum? How far can we go in describing self-behaviour? How does a SAACS system handle unexpected behaviour? Secondly, what are the challenges/obstacles in testing SAACS in the context of self/human dilemma? Are there any lesson to be learned from other programmes e.g. Star-wars, aviation and space explorations? What role human factors and behavioural models play whilst in interacting with SAACS?.

Review of the technology and reliability issues arising as optical interconnects migrate onto the circuit board

Light has the greatest information carrying potential of all the perceivable interconnect mediums; consequently, optical fiber interconnects rapidly replaced copper in telecommunications networks, providing bandwidth capacity far in excess of its predecessors. As a result the modern telecommunications infrastructure has evolved into a global mesh of optical networks with VCSEL’s (Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers) dominating the short-link markets, predominately due to their low-cost. This cost benefit of VCSELs has allowed optical interconnects to again replace bandwidth limited copper as bottlenecks appear on VSR (Very Short Reach) interconnects between co-located equipment inside the CO (Central-Office). Spurred by the successful deployment in the VSR domain and in response to both intra-board backplane applications and inter-board requirements to extend the bandwidth between IC’s (Integrated Circuits), current research is migrating optical links toward board level USR (Ultra Short Reach) interconnects. Whilst reconfigurable Free Space Optical Interconnect (FSOI) are an option, they are complicated by precise line-of-sight alignment conditions hence benefits exist in developing guided wave technologies, which have been classified into three generations. First and second generation technologies are based upon optical fibers and are both capable of providing a suitable platform for intra-board applications. However, to allow component assembly, an integral requirement for inter-board applications, 3rd generation Opto-Electrical Circuit Boards (OECB’s) containing embedded waveguides are desirable. Currently, the greatest challenge preventing the deployment of OECB’s is achieving the out-of-plane coupling to SMT devices. With the most suitable low-cost platform being to integrate the optics into the OECB manufacturing process, several research avenues are being explored although none to date have demonstrated sufficient coupling performance. Once in place, the OECB assemblies will generate new reliability issues such as assembly configurations, manufacturing tolerances, and hermetic requirements that will also require development before total off-chip photonic interconnection can truly be achieved

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

Water operators need to be efficient, accountable, honest public institutions providing a universal service. Many water services however lack the institutional strength, the human resources, the technical expertise and equipment, or the financial or managerial capacity to provide these services. They need support to develop these capacities. The vast majority of water operators in the world are in the public sector – 90% of all major cities are served by such bodies. This means that the largest pool of experience and expertise, and the great majority of examples of good practice and sound institutions, are to be found in existing public sector water operators. Because they are public sector, however, they do not have any natural commercial incentive to provide international support. Their incentive stems from solidarity, not profit. Since 1990, however, the policies of donors and development banks have focussed on the private companies and their incentives. The vast resources of the public sector have been overlooked, even blocked by pro-private policies. Out of sight of these global policy-makers, however, a growing number of public sector water companies have been engaged, in a great variety of ways, in helping others develop the capacity to be effective and accountable public services. These supportive arrangements are now called 'public-public partnerships' (PUPs). A public-public partnership (PUP) is simply a collaboration between two or more public authorities or organisations, based on solidarity, to improve the capacity and effectiveness of one partner in providing public water or sanitation services. They have been described as: “a peer relationship forged around common values and objectives, which exclude profit-seeking”.1 Neither partner expects a commercial profit, directly or indirectly. This makes PUPs very different from the public–private partnerships (PPPs) which have been promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank. The problems of PPPs have been examined in a number of reports. A great advantage of PUPs is that they avoid the risks of such partnerships: transaction costs, contract failure, renegotiation, the complexities of regulation, commercial opportunism, monopoly pricing, commercial secrecy, currency risk, and lack of public legitimacy.2 PUPs are not merely an abstract concept. The list in the annexe to this paper includes over 130 PUPs in around 70 countries. This means that far more countries have hosted PUPs than host PPPs in water – according to a report from PPIAF in December 2008, there are only 44 countries with private participation in water. These PUPs cover a period of over 20 years, and been used in all regions of the world. The earliest date to the 1980s, when the Yokohama Waterworks Bureau first started partnerships to help train staff in other Asian countries. Many of the PUP projects have been initiated in the last few years, a result of the growing recognition of PUPs as a tool for achieving improvements in public water management. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the typical objectives of PUPs; the different forms of PUPs and partners involved; a series of case studies of actual PUPs; and an examination of the recent WOPs initiative. It then offers recommendations for future development of PUPs.