Exploiting OSGi capabilities from MHP applications

In this paper we introduce a cooperative environment between the Interactive Digital TV (IDTV) and home networking with the aim of allowing the interaction between interactive TV applications and the controllers of the in-home appliances in a natural way. More specifically, our proposal consists of merging MHP (Multimedia Home Platform), one of the main standard frameworks for IDTV, with OSGi (Open Service Gateway Initiative), the most widely used open platform to set up Residential Gateways. To overcome the radically different nature of these specifications the function-oriented MHP middleware and the service-oriented OSGi framework , we define a new kind of application, coined as XbundLET. Although this software bridge is suitable to enable the interaction between MHP and OSGi applications in both directions, we concretely focus on exposing our implementation experience in only one direction: from MHP to the OSGi world.

Capabilities and Education

This paper provides an outline about the basic ideas of the capability approach. It will be argued that the capability approach is able to provide an appropriate approach in order to evaluate educational and social human services. As an egalitarian approach to social justice, the capability approach has particular strengths when issues concerning the actual life-conduct of tangible human beings come to the fore. In particular educational aspects of welfare and well-being might thus be well grounded on the Aristotelian reasoning of the capability approach. The paper focuses on the potentially fruitful relations of the capability approach and the philosophy and practice of ‘just’ education referring to the idea of the autonomy of life-practice.

Approaching Migrant Youth Marginalization through the Capabilities Approach: Methodological Proposals

Adopting the capabilities approach and the terminology that has been respectively developed, we could assume that Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” consist in the actual living that people manage to achieve (“functionings”) as a result of actual free will. Sen’s freedom does not “only [depend on the] mere degree of the presence or absence of coercion or interference (from others)” (Otto and Ziegler 2006) but also on “the range of options a person has in deciding what kind of life to lead” (Dreze and Sen 1995, 10). In his book, Identity and Violence, Sen, without explicitly connecting the capabilities approach with his views on “genuine multiculturalis” (Sen 2007), in fact, introduces this extended conception of freedom in the way we examine identity matters. Since freedom becomes perceptible as the range of options a person has, concerning the kind of life he wishes to live, cultural freedom can be defined through the concept of the multiplicity of belonging. In other words, cultural freedom constitutes itself a capability, which is realized when nothing and no one, not even myself, can tie me down to a kind of cultural rigidity that tends to exclude and marginalize me. This latent connection of “capabilities” with “multiple identities” (Sen 2007) challenges us to search for the contribution Sen’s approach could have in the understanding and confrontation of issues concerning migrants, away from theoretical patterns that overemphasize the cultural otherness as an impediment to inclusion. Besides, Sen himself, without of course focusing exclusively on migrants, has already approached the matter of social exclusion with terms of his capabilities approach (Sen 2000).