INTEGRATION D’UN OBSERVATOIRE URBAIN SUR GOOGLE MAPS : Cas des infrastructures de la santé de la ville de Douala Cameroun

The spectacular advances computer science applied to geographic information systems (GIS) in recent times has favored the emergence of several technological solutions. These developments have given rise to enormous opportunities for digital management of the territory. Among the technological solutions, the most famous Google Maps offers free online mapping dynamic exhaustive of the Maps. In addition to meet the enormous needs of urban indicators geotagged information, we did work on this project “Integration of an urban observatory on Google Maps.” The problem of geolocation in the urban observatory is particularly relevant in the sense that there is currently no data (descriptive and geographical) reliable on the urban sector; we must stick to extrapolate from data old and obsolete. This helps to curb the effectiveness of urban management to make difficult investment programming and to prevent the acquisition of knowledge to make cities engines of growth. The use of a geolocation tool coupled to the data would allow better monitoring of indicators Our project's objective is to develop an interactive map server (WebMapping) which map layer is formed from the resources of the Google Maps servers and match information from the field to produce maps of urban equipment and infrastructure of a city data to the client's request To achieve this goal, we will participate in a study of a GPS location of strategic sites in our core sector (health facilities), on the other hand, using information from the field, we will build a postgresql database that will link the information from the field to map from Google Maps via KML scripts and PHP appropriate. We will limit ourselves in our work to the city of Douala Cameroon with the sectors of health facilities with the possibility of extension to other areas and other cities. Keywords: Geographic Information System (GIS), Thematic Mapping, Web Mapping, data mining, Google API.

The Sociolinguistics of Hungarian Outside Hungary

This study describes the sociolinguistic situation of the indigenous Hungarian national minorities in Slovakia (c. 600,000), Ukraine (c. 180,000), Romania (c. 2,000,000), Yugoslavia (c. 300,000), Slovenia (c. 8,000) and Austria (c. 6,000). Following the guidelines of Hans Goebl et al, the historical sociolinguistic portrait of each minority is presented from 1920 through to the mid-1990s. Each country's report includes sections on geography and demography, history, politics, economy, culture and religion, language policy and planning, and language use (domains of minority and/or majority language use, proficiency, attitudes, etc.). The team's findings were presented in the form of 374 pages of manuscripts, articles and tables, written in Hungarian and English. The core of the team's research results lies in the results of an empirical survey designed to study the social characteristics of Hungarian-minority bilingualism in the six project countries, and the linguistic similarities and differences between the six contact varieties of Hungarian and Hungarian in Hungary. The respondents were divided by age, education, and settlement group - city vs. village and local majority vs. local minority. The first thing to be observed is that Hungarian is tending to be spoken less to children than to parents and grandparents, a familiar pattern of language shift. In contact varieties of Hungarian, analytic constructions may be used where monolingual Hungarians would use a more synthetic form. Mr Kontra gives as an example the compound tagdij, which in Standard Hungarian means "membership fee" but which is replaced in contact Hungarian by the two-word phrase tagsagi dij. Another similar example concerns the synthetic verb hegedult "played the violin" and the analytic expression hegedun jatszott. The contrast is especially striking between the Hungarians in the northern Slavic countries, who use the synthetic form frequently, and those in the southern Slavic countries, who mainly use the analytic form. Mr. Kontra notes that from a structural point of view, there is no immediate explanation for this, since Slovak or Ukrainian are as likely to cause interference as is Serbian. He postulates instead that the difference may be attributable to some sociohistoric cause, and points out that the Turkish occupation of what is today Voivodina caused a discontinuity of the Hungarian presence in the region, with the result that Hungarians were resettled in the area only two and a half centuries ago. However, the Hungarians in today's Slovakia and Ukraine have lived together with Slavic peoples continuously for over a millennium. It may be, he suggests, that 250 years of interethnic coexistence is less than is needed for such a contact-induced change to run its course. Next Mr. Kontra moved on to what he terms "mental maps and morphology". In Hungarian, the names of cities and villages take the surface case (eg. Budapest-en "in Budapest") whereas some names denoting Hungarian settlements and all names of foreign cities take the interior case (eg. Tihany-ban "in Tihany" and Boston-ban "in Boston). The role of the semantic feature "foreign" in suffix-choice can be illustrated by such minimal pairs as Velence-n "in Velence, a village in Hungary" versus Velence-ben "in Velence [=Venice], a city in Italy", and Pecs-en "in Pecs, a city in Hungary" vs. Becs-ben "in Becs, ie. Vienna". This Hungarian vs. foreign distinction is often interpreted as "belonging to historical (pre-1920) Hungary" vs. "outside historical Hungary". The distinction is also expressed in the dichotomy "home" vs. "abroad'. The 1920 border changes have had an impact on both majority and minority Hungarians' mental maps, the maps which govern the choice of surface vs. interior cases with placenames. As there is a growing divergence between the mental maps of majority and minority Hungarians, so there will be a growing divergence in their use of the placename suffixes. Two placenames were chosen to scratch the surface of this complex problem: Craiova (a city in Oltenia, Romania) and Kosovo (Hungarian Koszovo) an autonomous region in southeast Yugoslavia. The assumption to be tested was that both placenames would be used with the inessive (interior) suffixes categorically by Hungarians in Hungary, but that the superessive suffix (showing "home") would be used near-categorically by Hungarians in Romania and Yugoslavia (Voivodina). Minority Hungarians in countries other than Romania and Yugoslavia would show no difference from majority Hungarians in Hungary. In fact, the data show that, contrary to expectation, there is considerable variation within Hungary. And although Koszovo is used, as expected, with the "home" suffix by 61% of the informants in Yugoslavia, the same suffix is used by an even higher percentage of the subjects in Slovenia. Mr. Kontra's team suggests that one factor playing a role in this might be the continuance of the former Yugoslav mentality in the Hungarians of Slovenia, at least from the geographical point of view. The contact varieties of Hungarian show important grammatical differences from Hungarian in Hungary. One of these concerns the variable use of Null subjects (the inclusion or exclusion of the subject of the verb). When informants were asked to insert either megkertem or megkertem ot - "I asked her" - into a test sentence, 54.9% of the respondents in the Ukraine inserted the second phrase as opposed to only 27.4% in Hungary. Although Mr. Kontra and his team concentrated more on the differences between Contact Hungarian and Standard Hungarian, they also discovered a number of similarities. One such similarity is demonstrable in the distribution of what Mr. Kontra calls an ongoing syntactic merger in Hungarian in Hungary. This change means effectively that two possibilities merge to form a third. For instance, the two sentences Valoszinuleg kulfoldre fognak koltozni and Valoszinu, hogy kulfoldre fognak koltozni merge to form the new construction Valszinuleg, hogy kulfoldre fognak koltozni ("Probably they will move abroad."). When asked to choose "the most natural" of the sentences, one in four chose the new construction, and a chi-square test shows homogeneity in the sample. In other words, this syntactic change is spreading across the entire Hungarian-speaking region in the Carpathian Basin Mr. Kontra believes that politicians, educators, and other interested parties now have reliable and up-to-date information about each Hungarian minority. An awareness of Hungarian as a pluricentric language is being developed which elevates the status of contact varieties of Hungarian used by the minorities, an essential process, he believes, if minority languages are to be maintained.

The mutation causing the black-and-tan pigmentation phenotype of Mangalitza pigs maps to the porcine ASIP locus but does not affect its coding sequence

The gene for agouti signaling protein (ASIP) is centrally involved in the expression of coat color traits in animals. The Mangalitza pig breed is characterized by a black-and-tan phenotype with black dorsal pigmentation and yellow or white ventral pigmentation. We investigated a Mangalitza x Piétrain cross and observed a coat color segregation pattern in the F2 generation that can be explained by virtue of two alleles at the MC1R locus and two alleles at the ASIP locus. Complete linkage of the black-and-tan phenotype to microsatellite alleles at the ASIP locus on SSC 17q21 was observed. Corroborated by the knowledge of similar mouse coat color mutants, it seems therefore conceivable that the black-and-tan pigmentation of Mangalitza pigs is caused by an ASIP allele a(t), which is recessive to the wild-type allele A. Toward positional cloning of the a(t) mutation, a 200-kb genomic BAC/PAC contig of this chromosomal region has been constructed and subsequently sequenced. Full-length ASIP cDNAs obtained by RACE differed in their 5' untranslated regions, whereas they shared a common open reading frame. Comparative sequencing of all ASIP exons and ASIP cDNAs between Mangalitza and Piétrain pigs did not reveal any differences associated with the coat color phenotype. Relative qRT-PCR analyses showed different dorsoventral skin expression intensities of the five ASIP transcripts in black-and-tan Mangalitza. The a(t) mutation is therefore probably a regulatory ASIP mutation that alters its dorsoventral expression pattern.