Domain-Specific Language for Coordination patterns

The integration and composition of software systems requires a good architectural design phase to speed up communications between (remote) components. However, during implementation phase, the code to coordinate such components often ends up mixed in the main business code. This leads to maintenance problems, raising the need for, on the one hand, separating the coordination code from the business code, and on the other hand, providing mechanisms for analysis and comprehension of the architectural decisions once made. In this context our aim is at developing a domain-specific language, CoordL, to describe typical coordination patterns. From our point of view, coordination patterns are abstractions, in a graph form, over the composition of coordination statements from the system code. These patterns would allow us to identify, by means of pattern-based graph search strategies, the code responsible for the coordination of the several components in a system. The recovering and separation of the architectural decisions for a better comprehension of the software is the main purpose of this pattern language

Criminal Liability of Organizations, Corporations, Legal Persons, and Similar Entities on Law of Portuguese Cybercrime: A Brief Discussion on the Issue of Crimes of “False Information,” the “Damage on Other Programs or Computer Data,” the “Computer-Software Sabotage,” the “Illegitimate Access,” the “Unlawful Interception,” and “Illegitimate Reproduction of the Protected Program”

Abstract: in Portugal, and in much of the legal systems of Europe, «legal persons» are likely to be criminally responsibilities also for cybercrimes. Like for example the following crimes: «false information»; «damage on other programs or computer data»; «computer-software sabotage»; «illegitimate access»; «unlawful interception» and «illegitimate reproduction of protected program». However, in Portugal, have many exceptions. Exceptions to the «question of criminal liability» of «legal persons». Some «legal persons» can not be blamed for cybercrime. The legislature did not leave! These «legal persons» are v.g. the following («public entities»): legal persons under public law, which include the public business entities; entities utilities, regardless of ownership; or other legal persons exercising public powers. In other words, and again as an example, a Portuguese public university or a private concessionaire of a public service in Portugal, can not commit (in Portugal) any one of cybercrime pointed. Fair? Unfair. All laws should provide that all legal persons can commit cybercrimes. PS: resumo do artigo em inglês.