Tactics A Step Toward Methodical Architectural Design, 2003.

合集下载

祝2A习题答案-新视野4

• 丰田是世界上最大的汽车制造商之一，在日本以外的全球拥有50多家工厂。
exercises 5.Word building
• 10. He sent his parents some of his recent news articles in a （n）binder, arranged according to their publication dates.
• 军方坚持在许多领域保持一致，例如服装和发型，主要目的是促进群体团结。
• 6. My daughter used to play with the dog by taking a（n） strand of its hair and then spending a long time rubbing, combing and twisting it.
• 一项对中层管理人员职业取向的研究表明，这些管理人员中的许多人认为他们目前的职位是在向上的道路上迈出的临时一步。
exercises 5.Word building
• 7. The idea that the United States is a melting pot implies that racial differences are to be erased and that immigrants should give up their own cultural traditions.
• 普通员工与企业高管之间的薪酬差距，已引发公众的愤怒，因为尽管股价不断下跌，高管们仍能拿到巨额薪酬。
exercises 3. Words in use
• 4. The delicious meal appeased our hunger and made us feel warm again after having walked in the snow all day.

管理学英语试题及答案

管理学英语试题及答案一、选择题（每题2分，共20分）1. The term "management" refers to the process of:A. Making decisionsB. Organizing resourcesC. Directing and controlling activitiesD. All of the above答案：D2. Which of the following is NOT a function of management?A. PlanningB. StaffingC. MotivatingD. Selling答案：D3. The process of setting goals and deciding on actions to achieve these goals is known as:A. OrganizingB. LeadingC. PlanningD. Controlling答案：C4. Which of the following is an example of a managementprinciple?A. Division of laborB. CentralizationC. DelegationD. All of the above答案：D5. In the context of management, "controlling" refers to:A. The process of ensuring that things are done as plannedB. The process of making plansC. The process of organizing resourcesD. The process of motivating employees答案：A6. The concept of "span of control" is related to:A. The number of employees a manager can effectively superviseB. The range of activities a manager is responsible forC. The level of authority a manager hasD. The type of control systems a manager uses答案：A7. The management function that involves influencing people to work towards organizational goals is:A. OrganizingB. LeadingC. PlanningD. Controlling答案：B8. Which of the following is a characteristic of effective communication?A. ClarityB. AmbiguityC. DisorganizationD. Lack of feedback答案：A9. The "scientific management" theory was developed by:A. Henri FayolB. Max WeberC. Frederick TaylorD. Abraham Maslow答案：C10. In the context of management, "empowerment" means:A. Giving employees the authority to make decisionsB. Centralizing all decision-making powerC. Reducing the role of employees in decision-makingD. Ignoring employee input in decision-making答案：A二、填空题（每题1分，共10分）1. The four basic functions of management are planning, organizing, leading, and ________.答案：controlling2. The management principle that suggests that there is an optimal span of control for each manager is known as ________.答案：span of control3. The management approach that focuses on the social needsof employees is known as the ________ approach.答案：human relations4. The process of identifying, selecting, orienting, training, and compensating employees is known as ________.答案：staffing5. A management style that involves a high level of task orientation and a low level of relationship orientation is known as ________ leadership.答案：autocratic6. The concept of "management by objectives" was developed by ________.答案：Peter Drucker7. The "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" theory suggests that people are motivated by a series of needs, starting with physiological needs and ending with ________ needs.答案：self-actualization8. In a ________ structure, there is a clear chain of command and a narrow span of control.答案：hierarchical9. The process of comparing actual performance with planned performance is known as ________.答案：budgeting10. The management function that involves setting goals and determining the sequence of actions needed to achieve them is known as ________.答案：strategic planning三、简答题（每题5分，共30分）1. What are the three key characteristics of an effective organizational structure?答案：An effective organizational structure should havethe following characteristics: clarity of roles and responsibilities, a clear chain of command, and a balance between centralization and decentralization.2. Explain the difference between leadership and management.答案：Leadership is the process of influencing, motivating, and directing individuals towards the achievement of organizational goals. Management, on the other hand, is a broader concept that includes planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources to achieve goals.3. What are the main principles of scientific management according to Frederick Taylor?答案：The main principles of scientific management includethe scientific selection and training of workers, the scientific selection of tasks and tools, the scientific determination of work methods, and the scientific scheduling of work and rest periods.4. Describe the four stages of the control process.。

Automotive chassis

INTRODUCTION TO PART ITheﬁrst part of this book is dedicated to the study of the often complex subsys-tems(such as suspensions)that constitute the chassis.Their primary function is to mediate the exchange of force with the ground,thus obtaining the desired vehicle speed and path.With reference to the system of coordinates that will be deﬁned in part four, the forces exchanged with the ground can be classiﬁed as:•Forces perpendicular to the ground(vertical for the motion on a plane road);in steady state conditions these forces can be considered constant, but because of obstacles on the road,they are variable;they are a factor in passenger comfort.•Longitudinal forces;these are primarily due to propulsion(engine and transmission)and braking systems;they are relevant to vehicle speed con-trol.•Transversal forces;these are due to wheel steering angles,and they are relevant to road holding and stability.All these forces act on tires that because of their deformable structure,make the dynamic behavior of the vehicle more like aﬂoating orﬂying vehicle than a rail vehicle.Although chassis technologies can be deﬁned as mature,we should not un-derestimate the ongoing evolution of controlled or active systems based upon electronic and informatic technologies.34INTRODUCTION TO PART IIn fact the rapid development of automotive electronics,in terms of perfor-mance and cost has had and will continue to have a big inﬂuence on improving the active safety and comfort of vehicles.Nor it should be forgotten that in many markets the development and pro-duction of chassis systems is being outsourced by car manufacturers to parts manufacturers,who are becoming specialists in their business.This has been true for many years of brake systems,steering systems and tires;it is now becoming true for suspensions.Given this situation,it is important for those who will address their career to car or parts manufacturing to develop a good understanding of these systems;the development of these components is virtually impossible if separated from that of the vehicle.As we will see,chassis components have evolved quickly in recent years: today almost all cars feature radial tires with low aspect ratios(the radial di-mension is much smaller than transverse dimension)and need suspensions with precise elasto-kinematic behavior.Mc Pherson and double wishbone suspensions share the market as far as front axles are concerned,while a signiﬁcant percent-age of rear axles feature multilink suspensions.It is unlikely that the kinematic conﬁguration will see new innovations;the same can be said for the steering system,where the wide diﬀusion of power systems has almost standardized the rack and pinion conﬁguration.A similar situation can be seen for car brake systems,where disc brakes are widely diﬀused with the exception of the rear axle of economy cars that preserve the drum solution.New developments are,however,expected for electronic control systems and the relatedﬁelds of sensors and actuators,where electromechanical actuators oﬀer more opportunities for performance improvements.Electronic control systems have initially entered the marked as add-on devices.The case of the brake antilock system(ABS)is typical:It made signiﬁcant performance improvements to the brake system at the cost of new and sophis-ticated components(the electronic control system,wheel speed sensors,a valve group able to regulate the pressure on the brake actuators of the wheel indepen-dent of the pedal pressure).Although the introduction of this system was gradual,it later reached high volumes with consistent cost reduction and now,as a consequence,its diﬀusion is nearly total.At the same time system performance was improved,oﬀering new possibilities,either in terms of cost reduction(i.e.oﬀering the possibility of incorporating the brake distribution valve function at no cost),or in terms of functions where,with the addition of various sensors vehicle dynamic control has been obtained.A similar story can be told for power steering systems,initially totally hy-draulic;the addition of electronic controls allowed better regulation of the power assistance pressure,reducing the sensitivity of the steering wheel torque to the vehicle speed.INTRODUCTION TO PART I5 The present trend consists in substituting an electric electronic system for the hydraulic electronic system:Power assistance comes from a controlled electric motor.This oﬀers the possibility of having an active steering system that can improve vehicle performance while avoiding sudden obstacles.It is likely that all actuators will become electric in the future,with cost reductions and increased performance;the next step could be to avoid any me-chanical linkage between pilot controls(pedal,steering wheel,etc.)and actuators.This goal has already been reached for the engine,where throttle position or fuel injection quantity are no longer controlled mechanically by the accelerator pedal,but through a drive-by-wire system.We can easily foresee for the future a brake-by-wire system or a steer-by-wire system.The next step,now a topic of discussion in many technical congresses,is the corner-by-wire that is a wheel-suspension group(corner)with total electric actuation(driving,braking and steering functions);a system like this could have a signiﬁcant impact on vehicle performance and architecture.Similar evolutionary processes are present in the suspensionﬁeld;aﬁrst step is the application of electronic controls to the damping properties of shock absorbers and to the position of the body relative to the ground while the vehicle is standing still(trim);this could lead to a suspension where the body position is also controlled dynamically.Such an achievement would simplify the elasto-kinematic requirements of the suspension.We think that these and other examples oﬀer a view of the possible paths of chassis evolution.After a chapter dedicated to the historical evolution of the chassis,the most widely used conﬁgurations for chassis components will be described.The follow-ing components will be considered.Wheels and tiresTires will not be studied from the stand point of their product and process design techniques,which are useful in determining their performance.They will be studied almost as a black-box,examining their static and dynamic response which is the basis of vehicle static and dynamic response.A good knowledge of tire performance is fundamental for eﬀective commu-nication between vehicle and tire specialists.SuspensionsWhile studying suspensions,the main kinematic schemes will be considered along with their inﬂuence on the working angles of the tires,on vehicle roll and pitch. The most important suspension components will be described,such as the pri-mary elastic elements,the secondary elastic elements and the damping elements.6INTRODUCTION TO PART ISteering systemThe primary mechanisms of the steering system will be studied along with their mechanical properties;the primary components will be described,such as the steering box and the most important power assistance systems.Brake systemThe most important brake types will be introduced along with their actuation and power assistance systems.Industrial vehicle brake systems will be described separately because they use a diﬀerent actuation system(pneumatic instead of hydraulic power).Control systemsAs far as chassis control systems are concerned,this volume will describe sensors and actuators in use and the technical target these systems should reach in terms of vehicle dynamics;the most diﬀused control strategies that the diﬀerent sys-tems adopt will be also described,while the interaction between control system and dynamic behavior of the vehicle will be examined in the second volume. Chassis structuresAlthough this topic could be better tackled in a book dedicated to body design, this chapter will outline the integration of the chassis functions into the body structure and will oﬀer a short description of the primary types of auxiliary frameworks in use on unitized bodies.A short description of industrial vehicle frameworks is also oﬀered.。

德国-波兰-捷克跨境空间规划

Cross-Border Spatial Planning:Understanding,Designing andManaging Cooperation Processes in theGerman–Polish–Czech BorderlandROBERT KNIPPSCHILD ∗,∗∗∗Chair of Regional Planning,Brandenburgische Technische Universita¨t Cottbus,Germany,∗∗Chair of Spatial Planning,Technische Universita¨t Dresden,Germany (Received March 2008;accepted February 2010)A BSTRACT Seven years after the accession of Poland and the Czech Republic into the European Union(EU)the intensity and the quality of cross-border cooperation along the new internal borders are stilllagging behind.The physical barriers have been removed with the Schengen Agreement coming intoforce in 2007.However,the legal,institutional and mental barriers of cross-border cooperation stillpersist.Cross-border cooperation in spatial planning is often discontinuous and does not meet theexpectations of the concerned parties.At the same time,the political pressure to cooperate is highand considerable ﬁnancial means are available for territorial cooperation in the EU StructuralFunds period of 2007–2013.On the basis of three case studies in the area of the German–Polishborder,the paper illustrates that there is a lack of knowledge and deﬁcient competences for cross-border cooperation in municipalities and regional administrations.Impeding and supporting factorsfor cooperation have been identiﬁed.It has been proven that institutional capacity among thecooperating partners is crucial.The paper presents recommendations on how to design and managecross-border communications to achieve transboundary strategy development for efﬁcient andsustainable regional development in Central Europe’s border regions.1.Border Regions,Cross-Border Cooperation and Territorial CohesionBorder regions have an increasing importance within the process of European integration.This is particularly the case when fully integrating Central and Eastern European countriesinto the European Union.Since the EU enlargements of 2004and 2007the length of theEuropean Union (EU)internal borders has almost tripled,with 174%(ESPON,2006,p.59).More than 30%of the EU population lives in border regions (BBR,2009,p.4).Regional disparities along “old”and “new”EU borders are still signiﬁcant,although theyCorrespondence Address :Robert Knippschild,Chair of Spatial Planning,Technische Universita¨t Dresden,Germany.Email:robert.knippschild@mailbox.tu-dresden.deEuropean Planning Studies Vol.19,No.4,April2011ISSN 0965-4313Print /ISSN 1469-5944Online /11/040629–17#2011Taylor &FrancisDOI:10.1080/09654313.2011.548464630R.Knippschildare decreasing.Areas in the“new”external border regions are still lagging behind in econ-omic development and the value of the Gross Domestic Product(GDP)per head(EC,2008, p.8).Additionally,these regions in Central Europe are struggling with institutional asym-metries,and with limitedﬁnancial and human resources in public administrations.Further problems are different mentalities and clashing cultures,along with severe language bar-riers.But also historic reasons have created a“backlog of cooperation”;compared to Western European border regions,these areas require to catch up(EC,2008,p.8).The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion by the European Commission(2008)states that,“territorial cohesion is about ensuring the harmonious development of all[...] places and about making sure that their citizens are able to make the most of inherent fea-tures of these territories.As such,it is a means of transforming diversity into an asset that contributes to sustainable development of the entire EU”(EC,2008,p.3).This comprises implications for the border regions in Europe.Especially here are clash-ing diversities of European regions,however,the potential beneﬁt is high.The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion furthermore asserts that“increasingly,competitiveness and prosperity depend on the capacity of the people and businesses located there to make the best use of all of territorial assets.[...]Many of the problems faced by territories cut across sectors and effective solutions require an integrated approach and cooperation between the various authorities and stakeholders involved”(EC,2008,p.3).This is a request for enhanced cross-border governance,which needs support particularly in the border regions of Central Europe.The EU’s Territorial Agenda,which had been agreed on in May2007,identiﬁes the need for cross-border cooperation in supporting innovative clusters.These clusters may consist of business,science communities and administrations or transport management as well as in supporting cross-border rail and road connections for enhanced accessibility, in addition to risk management and climate change(BMVBS,2007,p.6ff.). Exceeding these particular issues,cross-border cooperation is required when tackling all types of policyﬁelds in border regions.In addition to this,these regions are recognized as areas with speciﬁc geographical features.To summarize,border regions are of high impor-tance to support Territorial Cohesion,that is why this topic continues to be a signiﬁcant European policyﬁeld.Therefore,this paper addresses the following questions:What can cross-border cooperation achieve for spatial development in border regions?Which factors can be identiﬁed for successful cooperation?How does cross-border cooperation evolve with growing experience in theﬁeld?This paper highlights that cross-border cooperation is in a dilemma at present,particularly along the“new”EU internal borders and that cross-border cooperation in spatial planning is generally a difﬁcult task.It draws upon an empirical investigation carried out in three cases of exemplary cooperation processes in the German–Polish–Czech border region with the aim to indentify major inﬂuencing factors of cross-border cooperation.The paper concludes with practical recommendations on how to design and manage cross-border cooperation processes and with theoretical implications on the evolution of cross-border cooperation.2.Cross-Border Cooperation in a DilemmaCross-border cooperation in theﬁeld of spatial development between Germany,Poland and the Czech Republic faces a dilemma.The policy conditions for cooperation areCross-Border Spatial Planning631 better than ever,and cross-border coordination—as shown above—is urgently needed. However,not many cooperation processes are successful and there is a lack of knowledge about cross-border communication especially in public administrations.In the current EU Structural Funds period(2007–2013),large amounts of funding are available for territorial cooperation.The Objective3:Cross-border cooperation funding programmes(follow-up programme of INTERREG III A)will be better funded(E8.7 billon)than the prior programmes INTERREG I(E1billion),II(E3.6billion),and III (E5.8billion).At the same time,requirements for calling these funds have been tightened. The lead-partner principle will apply for Cross-border cooperation funding programmes according to Objective3.This means that one project partner is in charge of the project leadership and the administration of the subsidies.Evidently,this requires experience in cross-border cooperation,trust between the cooperating partners,and joint administrative structures and institutions.However,in comparison with other border areas,the German–Polish–Czech border region—for instance—shows so far a relatively low concentration of INTERREG III A funded projects(Council Regulation(EC),2006b;ESPON,2007). Furthermore,new legal framework now allows easier cross-border cooperation.The European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation(EGTC)do not apply only to the implementation of Objective3—Territorial Cooperation Programmes.EGTC allows the establishment of cross-border legal bodies,for instance special purpose associations (Council Regulation(EC),2006a).Although no in-depth empirical assessment has been carried out yet evaluating the EGTC,simpliﬁcation of cross-border cooperation can be expected.Despite the framework conditions are being good,and a need for cooperation being evident,there are still barriers to cross-border cooperation,and a certain“cooperation fatigue”among the participants has become evident.There are various reasons for this. At the moment there is a high level of political pressure for cooperation,while at the same time,a lack of worked-up experiences,competence,knowledge of cross-border cooperation and communication can be observed.Many of the initiatives and projects that have been initiated are not continuous and are not pursued after funding runs out. The results often do not achieve the initial high expectations or the involved actors have different expectations again resulting in frustration(Johnson,2009,p.186).3.Cross-Border Cooperation—A Difﬁcult TaskCross-border cooperation in spatial planning is a difﬁcult task not only in Central Europe. Diverse research activities have been carried out in thisﬁeld with outcomes that are also relevant for the German–Polish–Czech border region.The most relevant approaches for explaining inﬂuencing factors that make cross-border cooperation difﬁcult will be dis-cussed shortly in the following:1.The size of a cooperation area inﬂuences the communication process signiﬁcantly.Thewider the cooperation space,the less the experience in cooperation,and the more abstract the tackled issues.This is another dilemma since abstract and complex issues require a certain experience in cross-border cooperation(Blatter,2004;Docherty et al.,2004;Go¨ssling,2004).2.The need for cooperation inﬂuences cross-border processes.Especially in widercooperation spaces,joint problems and the need for cooperation are neither clear nor632R.Knippschilddeﬁned.The less obvious the need for cooperation is,the more difﬁcult the communi-cation process will be.That is why an initial agenda-setting phase is signiﬁcant to the whole process(Davy,2004;Perkmann,1998).3.The structure of the cooperating public administrations signiﬁcantly inﬂuences theprogress and success of cross-border cooperation processes.The bigger institutional asymmetries within cooperating municipalities and regional administrations are,the less experience they have.That implies a more difﬁcult coordination between the coop-erating administrative units(Knieling,2003;Sinning,2002)(see Figure1).4.Established transnational organizations and existing legal framework inﬂuence cross-border cooperation.Scharpf(1997)ascertained the more basic the institutional frame-work is and the less established transnational organisations there are,trust becomes more important between the cooperating actors.nguage barriers,cultural differences and prejudices amongst nations have a nega-tive effect on cooperation processes along the new EU internal borders.Face-to-face contacts are rare and hinder trust-building(Fu¨rst,2001;Knieling,2003;Mu¨ller et al.,2000).The knowledge of foreign languages is low in the German–Polish–Czech border region.This is particularly the case with Polish and Czech and yet English is likewise not yet a common language(see Figure2).6.Transaction costs of cross-border cooperation are high.Therefore,theﬁnancialresources of the cooperating partners and subsidies for compensating transaction costs are important.Hauser(1991),Healey(1997)and Davy(2004)also stated that the higher the expectations are for a justiﬁcation of the transaction costs,the greater is the danger of overambitious objectives and expectations.This again can result in the failure of the overall cooperation process.7.The objectives and expectations of the involved participants and the set agenda have asigniﬁcant impact on the success of cross-border cooperation processes.Objectives, expectations as well as issues have to apply to the initial situation(experience in cooperation,trust between the participants)and to the constellation of the relevant parties.A clear need for cooperation and issues that match routine tasks have positive impacts on cooperation within public administrations.This is mostly the case in small cooperation areas where interdependencies are high amongst the cooperating partners (Blatter,2004;Scharpf,1997).8.The involved parties,their competences and human resources have an impact on cross-border cooperation.The less the employees are bound to hierarchies in public admin-istrations,and the better their access is to decision-makers and relevant information,the better is the situation for a successful cooperation process.Additional important aspects are the authority of employees to set strategic topics on the agenda,and continuity among the partners;also,the involvement of leaders and key actors is important (Fu¨rst,2001;Healey,1997;Mu¨ller et al.,2000).9.Fu¨rst(2001)and Mu¨ller et al.(2000,2002)recognized that the more deliberately across-border cooperation process is designed,managed and facilitated,the better the chances of success and achievement of the objectives and expectations.Important are clearly the set objectives and the agenda situation at the beginning.Frequent face-to-face contacts between the involved actors,political legitimation,a clear process design,professional translation and interpreting,ﬂat hierarchies and transpar-ent decision-making are also highly signiﬁcant.4.An Empirical Investigation in Three Case StudiesThese ﬁndings have been the framework for an empirical investigation in the German–Polish–Czech border region.The following three projects carried out in cooperationareas of various scale have been chosen as cases for an in-depth analysis:.The binational city of Go¨rlitz (D)-Zgorzelec (PL),project:“Stadt 2030”—StrategyDevelopment,Figure 1.Different administrative levels concerned with spatial development in Germany,Polandand the CzechRepublicFigure 2.Knowledge of foreign languages within the project ENLARGE-NET (survey carried out inspring 2005;n ¼73)Source :Leibenath and Knippschild,2005,p.11.Cross-Border Spatial Planning 633.The cities Zittau (D),Bogatynia (PL),Hra ´dek nad Nisou (CZ),project:“Small Triangle City Network”and .Border regions of Saxony (D),Lower Silesia (PL)and Northern Bohemia (CZ),project:“ENLARGE-NET”—Cross-Border Networks Between Cities and Regions in Prep-aration for EU Enlargement (see Figure 3).These three cases have been chosen since they are comparable in terms of their locationalong Germany’s border towards Poland and the Czech Republic and their cross-sectoralapproach.In all three instances they face similar challenges in urban and regional devel-opment.However,the cities and regions are characterized by speciﬁc distinctions that arethe focal point of the investigation.These differences are:the size of the cooperation area,experience in cooperating,their objectives and the duration of a cooperation,as well as thetype of management,funding and ﬁnancing (external or internal)and the level of institu-tionalization (see Table 1).The data were collected through 16semi-standardized interviews with selectedexperts who were familiar with cross-border cooperation issues and processes.A ques-tionnaire was deduced from theoretical assumptions (outlined in Chapter 3).The inquiryschedule consisted of questions on the most important challenges of cooperation,on thebeneﬁt of the particular cooperation process and on the most important inﬂuencingfactors for successful cooperation.The interviews were conducted between June andSeptember 2006.Additional data were collected through an extensive literature researchand by participating and observating in two of the three case study processes (Knipp-schild,2008).Figure 3.The location of the three projects in the German–Polish–Czech border region (Cartogra-phy:Knippschild,Witschas,IOER)634R.KnippschildTable1.Major characteristics and distinctions of the three casesProject Stadt2030Go¨rlitz-Zgorzelec:Strategy development in a border city Project Small Triangle CityNetwork Zittau,Bogatynia,Hra´dek nad NisouProject ENLARGE-NET:Cross-BorderNetworks between Cities and Regions inSaxony,Lower Silesia and Northern BohemiaSize of the cooperation area and distance between cooperating partners Divided border city Urban-regional context wider regional context Proximate neighbour cities5–10km Up to350kmExperience in cross-bordercoopertionLong term Long term Almost noneObjective/orientation of the cooperation process Development of joint long-termstrategiesDevelopment of a cross-bordereconomic areaNetworkingTrust-building Joint problem solving Exchange of informationJoint project developmentEstablishing a joint regional identityDuration Limited(2years)Unlimited(since2001)Limited(2years) Funding/ﬁnancing External funding Internalﬁnancing External fundingManagement Internal management,externalfacilitation and scientiﬁcsupport Temporary externalmanagement,currentlyinternal managementInternal management,external facilitation andscientiﬁc supportInstitutionalization Joint council meetings Joint council meetings Steering groupSteering group Steering groupWorking groups Working groupsBudget for joint activities Cross-Border Spatial Planning 635636R.Knippschild5.Institutional Capacity Matters:Inﬂuencing Factors on Cross-Border Cooperation in the German–Polish–Czech Border RegionThe empirical analysis in the German–Polish–Czech border region highlighted that the theoretical assumptions relating to cross-border cooperation compiled in Chapter3 are relevant for cooperation in the studied region.However,it was identiﬁed that these factors vary in their extent as well as in their implementation.Therefore,some of the assumptions require modiﬁcation.To summarize,the most important factor for successful and continuous cooperation is distinguished as the institutional capacity among the coop-erating municipal and regional administrations.Table2gives an overview of theﬁndings from the three case studies as well as a summary related to the nine theoretical assumptions in Chapter3.The“size of the cooperation area”has an impact on cross-border cooperation processes in the German–Polish–Czech border region.The greater the distance between cooperat-ing partners the more abstract are the addressed issues and the more costly and time-con-suming is the cooperation process.The cooperation area grows in size as experience in cooperation increases.In the investigated border region the“need to cooperate”is often unclear in spite of obvious spatial development challenges.Intensive phases to identify the need for cooperation have proven their value in the investigated case studies.Differences in“administrative structures”inhibit the co-operational process,but the resulting problems can be overcome.More of an obstacle are differences in the human resources available in local authorities within the German–Polish–Czech triangle. Large municipalities appear complex and opaque to employees in smaller administrations. Collaborators simply do not know which department and employees to address with speciﬁc concerns.There is a strong division of work in large administrations combined with narrow competences of each employee.This seems to impede cross-border cooperation,which is often characterized by cross-sectoral approaches and issues. Small administrative units are better able to reactﬂexibly and quickly.However,very small municipalities and administrations are often affected by shortages of personnel resources—in particular in Poland and the Czech Republic(see Table3).Lack of“transnational organizations”and“legal frameworks”hinder cooperation.The more tangible cooperation becomes the more of a barrier a missing legal framework becomes.The EU enlargement in2004created a positive atmosphere for cooperation, but expectations have been disappointed,and resignation has spread since.Many problems of cross-border cooperation were traced back to the previously external borders before the enlargement.After the accession of Poland and the Czech Republic into the EU it emerged that many barriers to cooperation persisted within the administrations,and that the former external border was often an excuse for non-cooperative behaviour.The Euroregions as cross-border institutions along the German–Polish and German–Czech borders have done little to support cooperation.So far there is hardly any experience with the new legal instrument for cross-border cooperation EGTC.Different“languages,prejudices and cultural differences”also inﬂuence cooperation—but to a lesser extent than assumed in theory.As experience with cooperation progresses, however,different languages and cultural variations come to be increasingly appreciated as an enrichment to the investigated region.Prejudices are declining with progressing cooperation in the German–Polish–Czech triangle.Table2.Findings from the case studies related to the theoretical assumptionsStadt2030Go¨rlitz/Zgorzelec Small Triangle City Network ENLARGE-NET Summarizedﬁndings1.Size of cooperation area,experience in cooperation Functional dependenciesProximity allows frequentface-to-facecommunicationExperience in cooperationpositiveHeterogeneous interestsCommunication difﬁcultdue to large distancesLacking experience incooperation difﬁcultCooperation in small cooperationareas more bindingProximity between cooperationpartners makes communicationeasierExperience in cooperationhelpful2.Need for cooperation Despite clear challenges needfor cooperation remainedunclear Despite clear challenges,need for cooperationremained unclearNo need for cooperationobviousCommon need ofDespite obvious challenges needfor cooperation remainsunclear and needs commonidentiﬁcationDiffuse agenda Diffuse agenda cooperation only supposed Externally initiated phase ofagenda-setting positive3.Administrative structures and capacities Different resources morehindering thanadministrative differencesAdministrative system inGermany often inﬂexible;inPoland and Czech Republicoften understaffedDifferent administrativestructures overestimatedDifferent resourcesunderestimatedBig administrations unﬂexibleand confusingPolish and Czechadministrative systemsmore centralized andstronger hierarchies(Continued)Cross-BorderSpatialPlanning637Table2.ContinuedStadt2030Go¨rlitz/Zgorzelec Small Triangle City Network ENLARGE-NET Summarizedﬁndings4.Transational organizations and legal framework Lacking legal frameworkhinders cooperationExpectations in EUenlargement have beendisappointedEU enlargement asmotivationThe more tangible thecooperation issues the more ofa barrier becomes a missinglegal frameworkExpectations in EU enlargementhave been disappointed,butenthusiasm beforeRole of Euroregions and othertransnational organizationsmarginalnguage barriers, cultural differences and prejuicies Language barriers can beovercome with professionaltranslating/interpretingLanguage barriers can beovercome with professionaltranslating/interpretingLanguage barriers can beovercome withprofessional translating/interpretingLanguage barriers can beovercomeDifferent mentalitiescharacterize cooperationDifferent mentalities areperceived as a chance forcooperationAt the beginningreservations,fear ofsounding each other out,lack of trustDifferent mentalities areperceived with progressingcooperation more as anenrichmentDifﬁcult historical backgroundstill present but decliningprejudices6.Transaction costs,ﬁnancial resources and subsidies Without subsidies projectwould not have beenpossibleWithout subsidies projectwould not have beenpossibleWithout subsidies projectwould not have beenpossibleAt the beginning compensation oftransaction costs throughsubsidies necessaryJoint fund supports bindingnessand continuity,but externalfunding still necessaryHigh transaction costs due tolong distances638R.Knippschild7.Objectives and expectaions Despite of long experience incooperation diffuseobjectives and expectationsJoint objectives,expectationsand issues through earlierstrategic developmentprocessesUnclear objectives and highexpectationsIdentiﬁcation of commoninterest difﬁcultDiffuse and heterogeneousobjectives also in smallcooperation areasHigh expectations dangerous Externally initiated phase ofagenda-setting positiveIntensive phase of agenda-settingimportant8.Involved parties, their competences and resources Key actors important at thebeginningProblems with resourcesDespite institutionalizedcooperation key actorsnecessaryLack of key actorsLacking continuity ofparticipants in workingKey actors necessary also ininstitutionalized cooperationActors in public administrations and competences incooperatingadministrationsPublic administrations hardlyopen for innovation andcreativitygroups difﬁcultInvolvement of non-administrative actorsnot fully skilled and endowedfor cooperationInvolvement of non-Involvement of non-administrative actorsdifﬁcultInvolvement of non-administrative actorsdifﬁcultdifﬁcult administrative actors difﬁcult9.Design and management of cooperation process Tight communication processwith frequent meetingspositiveFrequent meetings in workinggroups positiveContinuous involvement ofWorkshops lasting severaldays positive for trust-buildingCommunication processesrequire deliberate design andmanagementInvolvement of politics toolatepolitics positiveCoordination at the beginningLacking involvement ofpoliticsInvolvement of politics importantfor legitimisationOfﬁce for coordinationsuccessfulNeutral moderators positiveexternal,later internalExternal moderator at thebeginning positiveOfﬁce for coordination notequally staffed,problemsof communicationExperienced and equalcoordination importantExternal moderation helpfulModerators and scientiﬁcsupport not equally staffedCross-BorderSpatialPlanning639640R.KnippschildTable3.Different resources available to municipalities in the German–Polish–Czechborder regionNumber of staff in municipalities a Inhabitants per employee GermanyDresden625080 Chemnitz395062Go¨rlitz88065PolandWrocław1400453 Zgorzelec95350 Bogatynia120213Czech RepublikU´stı´nad Labem350266Hra´dek nad Nisou27271Source:personal communication,reference from the data.a Concerns only the core administration without municipal enterprises and employment programmes.“Transaction costs,ﬁnancial resources and funding”play a major role in cooperation. The transaction costs of cooperation are generally high in a cross-border context—especially in large areas.Therefore,funding is important in order to compensate these costs,particularly in the initial stages.However,it is essential that cooperating partners contribute their own resources if they are to gain the commitment of the others.Further-more,the equitable distribution of funding proved important in the studied region.“Objectives,expectations and issues in cooperation”need to be deliberately deﬁned.When the process commences,objectives and expectations are vague and diverse,even in small cooperation areas.The case study of ENLARGE-NET highlighted that overdrawn objectives and expectations can result from this—with harmful consequences.Intensive phases of goal deﬁnition and agenda-setting have proven to be useful in the other two case studies.The“participants,their competencies and human resources”play a major role in cross-border cooperation.This is also the case for the German–Polish–Czech triangle.Even in well-institutionalized cooperation processes,key actors are necessary.Cross-border cooperation is never going to be an automatic success.Administrative staff is poorly equipped for such processes,which requireﬂexibility,a readiness to assume risk and creativity.Early and constant involvement by political decision-makers turned out to be important.Extending cooperation to include non-administrative actors has proved to be difﬁcult in all case studies.To conclude,the empirical study has shown that“institutional capacity and deliberate design,management and moderation of communication processes”are crucial.Cross-border cooperation requires careful design and professional management.Coordination ofﬁces on an equal foundation in order to ensure continuous communication have been useful as well as external moderation.6.The“Shadow of Future”and the Evolution of Cross-Border Cooperation Which theoretical implications emerge from this study?Theseﬁndings are of concern for the time of cooperation,the role of public administrations,the evolution of cross-border。

审美是科学进步的密钥作文

审美是科学进步的密钥作文英文回答：Aesthetics, the study of beauty and taste, plays a crucial role in scientific progress. It is through the lens of aesthetics that we are able to appreciate and evaluate the advancements made in various scientific fields. The connection between aesthetics and scientific progress liesin the fact that aesthetics provides us with the ability to discern and appreciate the beauty and elegance ofscientific discoveries and innovations.For example, consider the field of architecture. Architects not only focus on the functionality andstructural integrity of a building, but also on itsaesthetic appeal. The design of a building can greatly impact how people perceive and interact with it. Aesthetically pleasing buildings can enhance the overall experience of individuals, whether they are working, living, or visiting. In this way, aesthetics plays a key role inthe advancement of architecture, as it drives architects to create innovative and visually appealing structures.Similarly, in the field of technology, aesthetics is crucial for the development of user-friendly and visually appealing products. Take smartphones as an example. The design and aesthetics of a smartphone greatly influence its marketability and user experience. A visually appealing and well-designed smartphone can attract more users and enhance their overall satisfaction. Therefore, aesthetics serves as a driving force for technological advancements, as it pushes designers to create products that are not only functional but also aesthetically pleasing.Furthermore, aesthetics also plays a significant role in the field of art and creativity. Artists, whether they are painters, musicians, or writers, rely on aesthetics to create works that evoke emotions and resonate with audiences. The aesthetics of a painting, for instance, can greatly impact how it is perceived and appreciated by viewers. Similarly, the aesthetics of a piece of music can evoke different emotions and create a unique experience forlisteners. Therefore, aesthetics is essential for artistic and creative progress, as it enables artists to create works that are visually and emotionally captivating.In conclusion, aesthetics is indeed the key to scientific progress. It provides us with the ability to appreciate and evaluate the beauty and elegance of scientific advancements. Whether it is in the fields of architecture, technology, or art, aesthetics plays a crucial role in driving innovation and enhancing the overall experience of individuals. By incorporating aesthetics into scientific endeavors, we can foster creativity, inspire new ideas, and ultimately push the boundaries of scientific progress.中文回答：审美，即对美和品味的研究，在科学进步中扮演着至关重要的角色。

Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Programming Techniques to Tactical Guidance for

APPLICATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) PROGRAMMINGTECHNIQUES TO TACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR FIGHTER AIRCRAFTJohn W. McManusandKenneth H. GoodrichNASA Langley Research CenterMail Stop 489Hampton, Virginia 23665-5225(804)864-4037/(804)864-4009AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control ConferenceAugust 14-16, 1989Boston, MassachusettsAutonomous Systems and Mission PlanningABSTRACTA research program investigating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques to aid in the development of a Tactical Decision Generator (TDG) for Within-Visual-Range (WVR) air combat engagements is discussed. The application of AI methods for development and implementation of the TDG is presented. The history of the Adaptive Maneuvering Logic (AML) program is traced and current versions of the AML program are compared and contrasted with the TDG system. The Knowledge-Based Systems (KBS) used by the TDG to aid in the decision-making process are outlined in detail and example rules are presented. The results of tests to evaluate the performance of the TDG versus a version of AML and versus human pilots in the Langley Differential Maneuvering Simulator (DMS) are presented. To date, these results have shown significant performance gains in one-versus-one air combat engagements, and the AI-based TDG software has proven to be much easier to modify than the updated FORTRAN AML programs.INTRODUCTIONThe development of all-aspect and "fire and forget" weapons has increased the complexity of the air-to-air combat environment. Modern sensors provide critical tactical information to the aircraft a range and precision that were impossible 20 years ago. This increased complexity, combined with the expanded capabilities of high performance aircraft, has changed the future of air combat engagements. The need for a modern, realistic air combat simulation that can be used to evaluate the current and future air combat environment has been well documented [Burgin 1975, 1986, 1988; Hankins 1979]. Existing tools such as the Adaptive Maneuvering Logic program (AML) [Burgin 1975, 1986, 1988], TAC Brawler [Kerchner 1985], and AASPEM have generally centered their efforts on the development and refinement of high-fidelity aircraft dynamics modeling techniques and not on the developmentand refinement of tactical decision generation logic for WVR engagements. In support of the study of superagile aircraft at Langley Research Center (LaRC) a Tactical Guidance Research and Evaluation System (TGRES, pronounced "tigress") is being developed [Goodrich 1989].Figure 1. TGRES SYSTEM.TGRES DESCRIPTIONThe TGRES system, shown in figure 1, provides a means by which researchers can develop and evaluate, in a tactically significant environment, various systems for high performance aircraft. While TGRES is aimed specifically at the development and evaluation of maneuvering strategies and advanced guidance/control systems for superagile aircraft, TGRES's modularity will make it easily adaptable to the analysis of other types of aircraft systems. TGRES is composed of three main elements--the TDG, the Tactical Maneuver Simulator (TMS) , and the DMS.The TDG is a knowledge-based guidance system designed to provide insight into the tactical benefits and costs of enhanced aircraft controllability and maneuverability throughout an expanded flight envelope (i.e. superagility). The two remaining elements of TGRES, the TMS and the DMS, provide simulation environments in which the TDG is exercised. The TMS simulation environment was developed using conventional computer languages on a VAXStation 3200. The TDG was developed on a Symbolics 3650 workstation. The separation of the aircraft simulation and decision logic components allows each module to be developed using hardware and programming techniques specifically designed for its function. This separation of tasks also increases the efficiency of the simulation by allowing some parallel processing. The two processes are executed as co-tasks and communicate via an EtherNet connection. (See fig. 2.)Figure 2. CURRENT HARDWARE CONFIGURATION.The user interface system consists of a color graphics package designed to replayboth TMS and DMS engagements, and a mouse sensitive representation of the TDG aircraft and its basic systems that allows the user to interact with the TDG aircraft during the execution of TMS runs. The Engagement Replay System (ERS) software is available for a VAX color workstation and a Symbolics color workstation. The ERS display, shown in figure 3, displays the two aircraft on a three-dimensional axis and has dedicated windows used to display several aircraft variables including the thrust, Mach number, and deviation angles of the two aircraft. The viewing angle for each engagement can be rotated 360°around both the X and Z axis to provide the most information to the user. The interactive TMS display includes a graphical representation of the TDG aircraft's major systems suchas engines, offensive and defensive systems, and a system status display. During the simulation run the user can enable and/or disable the aircraft's systems using the mouse sensitive display and evaluate how the changes effect the TDG's decision generation process.Figure 3. ERS DISPLAY.The final element of TGRES is the Differential Maneuvering Simulator. The DMS consistsof two 40' diameter domes located at Langley. The facility is intended for the real-time simulation of engagements between piloted aircraft. By using the TDG to drive one of the airplanes, it is possible to test the TDG against a human opponent. This feature allows the guidance logic to be evaluated against an unpredictable and adaptive opponent. A thirddome (20' in diameter) is being added to the DMS facility. This addition will allow the guidance logic to be evaluated in one-versus-two or two-versus-one scenarios, further enhancing the tactical capability of the DMS environment.THE AML PROGRAMThe TDG is being developed as a KBS incorporating some of the features first outlined in the AML program [Burgin 1975, Hankins 1979]. The AML program was selected as a baseline for several reasons, including its past performance as a real-time WVR tactical adversary in the Langley DMS and the modular design of the FORTRAN source code. The tactical decision generation method developed for the original AML program, outlined in figure 4, is a unique approach that attempts to model the goal-seeking behavior of a pilot by mapping the physical situation between the two aircraft into a finite, abstract situation space. A set of the three basic control variables (bank angle, load factor, and thrust) can be determined to maximize some performance index in the situation space [Burgin 76]. Each triplet of controlvariables defines an "elemental maneuver," and a sequence of these elemental maneuvers may form classical or "text book" air combat maneuvers.Figure 4. HOW AML WORKS.Although the logic and geometry used by AML to make tactical decisions is complex,the basic concepts it uses are simple. At each decision interval, the "attacking" aircraft predicts the future position and velocity of its opponent using a curve-fitting algorithm and past known positions of the opponent. The attacker then uses a set of elemental maneuvers (described above) to predict a set of positions that it can reach from its current state.The AML program forms a "situation state vector" for each trial maneuver evaluated.The vector is used to represent the responses to a set of questions about the current situation.Figure 5 shows the binary scoring method (0 = NO, 1 = YES) used to determine the value of each each cell in the vector.This vector is multiplied by a "scoring weight" vector to form a scalar product that represents the situation space value for the current maneuver. A detailed description of the trial maneuver generation and scoring process and an explanation of how the scoring weights have evolved can be found in [Burgin 1988]. The questions used to form the situation state vector were obtained from several sources including air combat maneuvering manuals, interviews with fighter pilots, and detailed analysis of the original DMS engagements. In the original version of AML, each question had a positive, non-zero weight. The questions were formulated so that a "YES" answer reflects a favorable condition, increasing the score for the maneuver. It is important to note that in the original AML research "no systematic investigation was made to optimize these weight factors; they were usually all set to one." The early AML versions [Burgin 1975; Hankins 1979] were designed to perform as a conservative opponent. The scoring rules rated offense and defense evenly and risked giving up some positional advantage to the opponent only when there was reasonable assurance the attacker would gain at least as much offsetting advantage. This conservative approach may be the product of a philosophy stated in [Burgin 1988],"The objective of the decision-making process is to derive maneuvers which will bring one's own weapons to bear on the target while at the same time minimizing exposure to the other side's weapons."This is a one-dimensional approach to the problem. It outlines a logic that handles only the neutral and aggressive cases effectively and does not recognize that there are several Modes of Operation (MO), outlined in figure 6, that a pilot may use during an engagement. In many situations when the opponent has a distinct positional advantage, the AML aircraft will perform "kamikaze" maneuvers, giving up one or more clear shots to the opponent while it maneuvers to a position of "advantage." In these situations the AML aircraft would not survive to exploit the positional advantage, having been "killed" while obtaining it.•AGGRESSIVE•DEFENSIVE•NEUTRAL•EVASIVE•EVADING OPPONENTS' "LOCK AND FIRE"•EVADING MISSILE (AAM & SAM)•GROUND / STALL EVASIONFigure 6. TDG MODES OF OPERATION.The existing trial maneuver versions of AML do a good job of getting behind an opponent, but due to the grain of the trial maneuvers, lack the ability to fine-track the opponent. Several changes were made to the AML program [Burgin 1988] to address this problem. The requirement that only the opponents positional data be passed to the algorithm was relaxed and "complete and accurate information about the the opponent's past and present states" is now provided. The 1986 version of the AML program, AML86 [Burgin 1988], also made several major changes to the tactical decision generation process, abandoning the trial maneuver concept for a rule-based approach and a set of canned "Basic Fighter Maneuvers." [Burgin 1988] contains an extensive history of the "trial maneuver" concept and a description of how the new rule-based version of the program, AML68, was developed. A "pointing" control system was also developed to aid the fine-tracking process. The pointing control system directly commands roll and pitch rates to point the aircraft's longitudinal axis at the opponent. AML86 is a first step towards a multi-dimensional approach and is similar to the decision logic incorporated in the TDG.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TDG SYSTEMThe development of the TDG has been a multi-stage process using the COSMIC version of AML as a starting point. The COSMIC version of AML was updated by Dynamics Engineering Incorporated (DEI) while under contract to NASA Langley. This version of AML, (DEI-AML), has a scoring module that uses a set of 15 binary questions and a fixed set of weights to evaluate the trial maneuvers.DEI installed aerodynamic data and engine characteristics provided by the Aircraft Guidance and Controls Branch (AGCB) into the AML data tables and made all changes to the AML software outlined in [Burgin, 1986]. DEI-AML was tested by AGCB to insure symmetry of the engagements given symmetric initial conditions. During the testing process several software bugs were found and corrected. A full description of the bugs and corrections are outlined in [McManus 1989]. The resulting code, dubbed AML´, was again tested for symmetry and a DMS ready version of the code, DMS-AML´ was prepared. AML´ and a DMS ready version, DMS-AML´, are being used as the baseline during development of the TDG system.Figure 7. HOW TDG WORKS.The TDG system, outlined in figure 7, currently uses the trial maneuver concept outlined in the AML program with several extensions. The original set of five to nine trial maneuvers has been expanded to include over 40 trial maneuvers. Although this is a "brute force" solution the new trial maneuvers allow the TDG to perform target tracking more effectively and improve the system's overall performance. The TDG uses an object-oriented programming approach to represent each aircraft and the current state of its offensive systems, defensive systems, and engines. This information is used to help guide the TDG's reasoning process. The original FORTRAN AML throttle controller and the maneuver scoring modules have been redesigned using a rule-based programming approach and ported to the AI workstation. Examples of rules for each of the KBS modules are shown in figure 8.((AND (EQUAL (GET-MISSION PALADIN) *AGGRESSIVE*)(EQUAL (GET-POSITION PALADIN) *NEUTRAL*))((SETF (GET-MODE PALADIN) *AGGRESSIVE*)(AGGRESSIVE-WEIGHT)))EXAMPLE MODE SELECTION RULE.((AND I-SEE-HIM I-CAN-FIRE HE-CANT-FIRE (<= RANGE 12500))((SETF THROTTLE 0.94)) )EXAMPLE THROTTLE CONTROL RULE.((OR (≤ (ABS HIM-UNABLE-TO-FIRE) (I-CAN-FIRE))(AND (> HIM-UNABLE-TO-FIRE O.O) (≥ I-CAN-FIRE 0.0) )(= GUNA 1.0)(= ALLA 1.0)(= HEATA 1.0))(SETF (GET-POSITION PALADIN) *AGGRESSIVE*))EXAMPLE SITUATION ASSESSMENT RULE.Figure 8. Example Rules.KBS MODULES OF THE TDGThe TDG system has a knowledge-based Situation Assessment (SA) module that is executed at each decision interval before the trial maneuvers are evaluated. The SA module is used to determine the TDG's current MO. The SA is executed at each interval, before the maneuver scoring module, and determines the TDG's MO. This determination is based on the TDG's current mission, the current state of the aircraft's systems, the relative geometry between the aircraft and its opponent, and the opponent's instantaneous-intent (*in-int*). Each of the modes shown in figure 6 has a unique set of scoring weights and a decision interval associated with it. The weights for each mode have been adjusted during the design and testing process to maximize the TDG's performance in that mode. Test results have shown that a short decision interval, (0.5 sec.), improves the TDG's fine-tracking performance. The same short decision interval results in a "thrashing" motion in neutral situations resulting in degraded system performance. A longer decision interval, (1.0 sec.), is used in neutral situations. The opponent's *in-int* is defined to be an estimation of the opponent's intent at the current point in time based on available sensor, positional, and geometric data. Currently, there is no attempt to use a history of *in-int* to derive a long-term opponent intent. The flexibility provided by the use of MO's allows the system to more closely model the pilots changing strategies during the engagement. The COSMIC version of AML, and most AML variations before AML86, do not have the ability to change their decision generation strategy based on the changing environment. The TDG Scoring Module (SM) is a KBS that uses a set of 17 fuzzy logicquestions with responses ranging from [0 = NO, ..., 1.0 = YES], (fig. 8), and the set of mode-specific scoring weights selected by the SA module to score each of the trial maneuvers.A rule-based active Throttle Controller (TC) has been developed to replace the existing throttle control subroutine. The TC is called at the start of each decision interval and can set the throttle at any position from idle to full afterburner [0, .., 2]. The logic for the existing AML throttle control subroutine had only three positions (0 = idle, 1 = military, 2 = full afterburner) and had been turned off in the COSMIC version--all engagements were being flown with the throttle set at full afterburner.T D GFigure 10. SET OF 64 INITIAL CONDITIONS.A statistics module is used to calculate the amount of time that each aircraft has its weapons locked on its opponent and the deviation angle and angle-off. The Line-Of-Sight (LOS) vector is defined as the vector between ownship c.g. and opponent's c.g. The Line-Of-Sight (LOS) angle is defined as the angle between the LOS vector and ownship body x-axis; the deviation angle is defined as the angle between the LOS vector and ownship velocity vector; and the angle-off is defined as the angle between the LOS vector and opponent's velocity vector (fig.10).AMLAIRPLANETDGAIRPLANEOWNSHIP VELOCITYVECTORFigure 11. ANGLE DEFINITIONS.The weapons cones used represent a generic all-aspect missile, a generic tail-aspect missile,and a 20 mm cannon (fig. 11). Four metrics are currently used to evaluate each engagement.The first metric is calculated every second and computes the total time that each airplane has its weapons locked on the opponent, the probability that the shot will hit, the distance between the opponents, the angle-off, and the deviation angle. The results are printed in a table format at the completion of each run. The second metric computes a Probability of Survival (PS) using the data computed by the first metric. The missiles are treated as a limited resource and aprobability to hit of 0.65 is required to launch the first missile. The firing threshold increases by 0.05 for each missile launched, and all missiles are required to complete their flight to the target before the next missile is fired. The third scoring metric attempts to determine a Lethal Time (LT) value for each engagement. The LT value for a run is equal to ((TDG gun time -AML gun time) / 2) + 2 * (TDG tail-aspect time - AML tail-aspect time) + (TDG all-aspect time - AML all-aspect time). A positive LT value shows TDG with an advantage, a negative LTshows AML with an advantage. The fourth metric is Time on Offense (TOF). TOF is the sum of all weapons lock time for each each airplane. ∆TOF is computed as TDG TOF minus AML TOF.5° GUN CONE. RANGE 0 TO 5000 FT.-1-051122TDG- AML (time on offense)∆ TOF(seconds)Run Number.Figure 13. ∆TOF FOR SET OF 64 ENGAGEMENTS.TEST RESULTSA set of nine engagements presented in [Eidetics 89] were used to compare theperformance of the TDG system with the performance of the AML´ in the lab, and againstpilots in the DMS. AML´ was used as the A airplane in both sets of lab test engagements, and the human pilot flew the A airplane during the DMS runs. Airplanes with identicalperformance characteristics were used in both the DMS and the lab. The set of nine initial initial conditions, fig.13, favor the Aairplane.2 NM SEPARATION.540 KTS AIRSPEED.15,000 ALTITUDEFigure 14. EIDETICS INITIAL CONDITIONS.The B airplane has five neutral starting positions, runs 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9; one offensive starting position, run 8; and 3 defensive starting positions, runs 1, 2, and 4. There is a 2-nautical mile separation between the opponents and each airplane is at an initial altitude of 15,000 feet and an initial airspeed of 540 knots. All of the engagements were run for 60 seconds. The scoring metric used was an Overall Exchange Ratio (OER), defined as the # of A killed / the # of B killed. The Eidetics study was conducted using a modified version of the AASPEM program and produced an OER of ≈ 0.72. The OER was less than 1.0 due to the use of a non-symmetric set of initial conditions. In the first set of engagements the AML´ program wasflown against itself and the produced an OER of 0.75.2468101214Run Number.Time inSeconds.Figure 15. AML´ vs AML´ TOF.In the second set of engagements the TDG was used to control the B airplane and achieved an OER of 1.50, a 100 percent improvement. The test results, (figs. 14, 15), clearly show the superior performance of the TDG system. It is also interesting to note that the maximum OER Eidetics achieved by modifying aircraft performance characteristics was ≈ 0.85 [Eidetics1989].246810121416123456789Run Number.Time inSeconds.Figure 16. TDG vs AML´ TOF.The DMS runs were conducted using the research pilot with the most DMS flight time against the TDG-DMS as the opponent. The pilot flew against the set of initial conditions three times, providing a total of 27 runs. TOF data for the DMS runs is not available at this time. The OER for the set of 27 runs was 0.83. As stated earlier, studies done in the lab have shown that the reduced set of trial maneuvers used by DMS-TDG cannot fine track an opponent as effectively as the expanded set used by the TDG. The reduced set of trial maneuvers used by DMS-TDG may account for most of the performance difference between the TDG and DMS-TDG.FUTURE WORKSeveral enhancements to the existing TDG system are planned. The maneuver selection logic will be expanded to replace the use of the trial maneuvers for modes of operation where conventional guidance algorithms provide better performance. This change to the logic and selection module will improve the TDG's ability to track its opponent. Initial lab results have shown that the development of mode-specific maneuver sets will increase system efficiency by reducing the number of maneuvers evaluated for some MO's. The development of logic for two-vs-one engagements is underway. The third aircraft will be dynamically allocated to either the TDG or the opponent at the start of each run. This feature will allow researchers to evaluate the TDG in both two-vs-one and one-vs-two engagements. A system for connecting the Symbolics workstation directly to the DMS real-time computing facilities is also being investigated. The development of such a link would allow the full TDG system to be tested in the DMS against human pilots.The TGRES system presents an excellent opportunity to evaluate the use of AI programming techniques and knowledge-based systems in a real-time environment. It also clearly shows that the maneuver selection and scoring techniques developed in the late 1960's and early 1970's cannot perform well in the modern tactical environment and are not well suited for evaluating agile aircraft. Figure 16 shows many of the changes in the tactical and simulation environments since the original AML tactical decision generation logic was developed. The use of KBS and AI programming techniques in developing the TDG has allowed a complex tactical decision generation system to be developed that addresses the modern combat environment and agile aircraft in a clear and concise manner.1968HEAT SEEKING WEAPONS DOMINATE TACTICAL SITUATIONLIMITED COMPUTING AND MODELING RESOURCES. SHORT-RANGE RADAR. SHORT-RANGE WEAPONS.1 vs 11989ALL-ASPECT WEAPONS DOMINATE TACTICAL SITUATION. (LONGER RANGE, FIRE AND FORGET,....)BETTER COMPUTING AND MODELING RESOURCES.LONG-RANGE RADARLONG-RANGE WEAPONS.2 vs 1, M vs N SUPERMANEUVERABLE AIRCRAFT, POINT AND SHOOT CAPABILITYFigure 17. 1968 AML vs 1989 TDG.CONCLUDING REMARKSA KBS TDG is being developed to study WVR air combat engagements. The system incorporates modern airplane simulation techniques, sensors, and weapons systems. The system was developed using several concepts first outlined in the AML program originally developed for use in the LaRC DMS. An updated AML system is being used as a baseline to assess the functional and performance tradeoffs between a conventionally coded system and theAI-based system. Test results have shown that the AI-based TDG system has performed better than AML´ in both the TMS and the DMS. The use of a KBS SA module and MO's allows the TDG to more accurately represent the complex decision making process carried out by a pilot. The use of a more extensive set of trial maneuvers and a KBS TC module allows the TDG tofine track the opponent more effectively than AML´. The KBS decision generation logic has proved to be much easier to modify than the AML´ FORTRAN source code. The ability to integrate the TDG into the DMS offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the performance of theAI-based TDG software in a real-time tactical environment against human pilots.REFERENCES1. Burgin, G. H. ; et al. : An Adaptive Maneuvering Logic Computer Program for theSimulation of One-on-One Air-to-Air Combat. Vol I and II. NASA CR-2582, CR-2583, 1975.2. Burgin, G. H. : Improvements to the Adaptive Maneuvering Logic Program. NASA CR-3985, 1986.3. Burgin, G. H. ; and Sidor, L. B. : Rule-Based Air Combat Simulation. NASA CR-4160,1988.4. Hankins III, W. W. : Computer-Automated Opponent for Manned Air-to-Air CombatSimulations. NASA TP-1518, 1979.5. Kerchner, R. M. ; et al. : The TAC Brawler Air Combat Simulation Analyst Manual(Revision 3. 0). DSA Report #668.6. Buttrill, C. S. ; et al. : Draft NASA TM 1989.7.Taylor, Robert T. ; et al. : Simulated Combat for Advanced Technology AssessmentsUtilizing The Adaptive Maneuvering Logic Concepts. NASA Order no. L-24468C, Coastal Dynamics Technical Report No. 87-001.8.McManus, John W. ; Goodrich, Kenneth H. : Draft NASA TM 1989.9.Goodrich, Kenneth H; McManus John W. :AIAA Paper #...。

Chapter4 Negotiating strategies and tactics

rately trust
Negotiating Styles VS Degrees of AC
High
assertiveness
Competing (Controlling)
Med
Collaborating
Compromising
Low
Avoiding
Low
Accommodating
Collaborative Style
Competing (Controlling)
Collaborating Compromising Avoiding Get both concern out Identify issues Work on a few item Stay in stated bounds postpone, delay Ask/say little, withdraw Don’t appear Change the topic Claim limited authority Straddle
Competitive （Controlling) Style Accommodative Style Avoiding Style Compromising Style To try to gain all there is to gain To be willing to yield all there is to yield To try to stay out of negotiation To try to split the difference or find an intermediate point according to some principle To try to find gain for both exploration of parties – and pie the maximum possible parties – by careful the interests of all often by enlarging the

高三英语学术研究方法创新不断单选题30题

高三英语学术研究方法创新不断单选题30题1.In academic research, a thorough literature review is ______ essential step.A.anB.aC.theD./答案：A。

本题考查冠词的用法。

“essential”是以元音音素开头的单词，所以用“an”。

“a”用于辅音音素开头的单词前；“the”表示特指；“/”即零冠词，此处需要一个不定冠词来表示“一个”的意思，且“essential”以元音音素开头，所以选“A”。

2.______ successful academic research requires careful planning and dedication.A.AB.AnC.TheD./答案：D。

本题考查零冠词的用法。

“successful academic research”在此处是泛指学术研究，不是特指某一项学术研究，也不是可数名词单数需用不定冠词修饰的情况，所以用零冠词“/”。

3.At the heart of academic research is ______ pursuit of knowledge.A.aC.theD./答案：C。

本题考查定冠词的用法。

“the pursuit of knowledge”表示“对知识的追求”，是特指的概念，所以用“the”。

4.Researchers need ______ accurate data to draw valid conclusions.A.anB.aC.theD./答案：D。

本题考查零冠词的用法。

“data”在此处是不可数名词，且不是特指某一特定的数据，所以用零冠词“/”。

5.______ innovation is crucial in academic research.A.AnB.AC.TheD./答案：D。

本题考查零冠词的用法。

“innovation”在此处是泛指创新，不是特指某一个创新，也不是可数名词单数需用不定冠词修饰的情况，所以用零冠词“/”。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

Chapter 11References.net microsoft, .NET Passport Authentication Web Service,/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/passport25/serviceguide/intro/NET_Passport_Authentication_Web_Service.aspAbowd et al, 1992, G. Abowd, J. Coutaz, and L. Nigay (1992), Structuring the Space of Interactive System Properties. Proceedings of the EHCI'92, IFIP TC2/WG2.7 Working Conference on Engineering for Human Computer Interaction, North Holland Publ, Ellivuori, Finland, pages 113-128.Abowd and Dix, 1992, G. Abowd and A. J. Dix (1992), "Giving undo attention", Interacting with Computers 4(3), pages 317-342.Alexander et al, 1977, C.Alexander, Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., and Angel, S. (1977), A Pattern Language, Oxford University Press.Alonso et al, 1998, A. Alonso, M. Garcia-Valls, and J. A. de la Puente (1998), Assessment Timing Properties of Family Products, Proceedings of the Proceedings of Second International ESPRIT ARES Workshop , pages 161-169.Alreck and Settle, 1994, P.L.Alreck and Settle, R. B. (1994), The survey research handbook, Irwin Profesional Publishing.ANSI standard, ANSI/ASQC A3/1978, 1978.Apple Company, 2004, Apple Company, Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, , MVC for , /asp_mvc.aspxArgyris et al, 1985, C.Argyris, Putnam, R., and Smith, D. (1985), Action Science: Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention, Jossey-Bass.Bachman et al, 2002, F. Bachman, L. Bass, and M. Klein, Illuminating the Fundamental Contributors to Software Architecture Quality, 2002.Bachman et al, 2003, F. Bachman, L. Bass, and M. Klein, Deriving Architectural Tactics: A Step Toward Methodical Architectural Design, 2003.Baecker et al, 1995, R. M. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. A. S. Buxton, and S. Greenberg (1995), Introduction to HCI., in: R. M. Baecker, Grudin, J., Buxton, W. A. S., and226References Greenberg, S. (eds.), Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Towards the Year2000, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pages 1-3.Bass et al, 1998, L.Bass, Clements, P., and Kazman, R. (1998), Software Architecturein Practice, Addison Wesley Longman.Bass et al, 2001, L. Bass, J. Kates, and B. E. John, Achieving Usability throughsoftware architecture, Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-005, 1-3-2001.Bass et al, 2003, L.Bass, Clements, P, and Kazman, R (2003), Software ArchitectureIn Practice 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley.Bengtsson, 2002, P.O.Bengtsson (2002), Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis, Department of Software Engineering and Computer Science, Blekinge Institute of Technology.Bengtsson and Bosch, 1999, P. O. Bengtsson and J. Bosch (1999), ArchitectureLevel Prediction of Software Maintenance, Proceedings of the EuroMicro Conferenceon Software Engineering, IEEE, Amsterdam, Netherlands, page 139-147.Berkun, 2002, S. Berkun, The list of fourteen reasons ease of use doesn't happen on engineering projects, /issues/issue22.htmBerlage, 1994, T. Berlage (1994), "A selective undo mechanism for graphical user interfaces based on command objects", ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) Volume 1, Issue 3, pages 269-294.Bevan, 1995, N. Bevan (1995), Usability is quality of use, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Elsevier.Bevan, 2001, N. Bevan (2001), "International standards for HCI and usability", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55-4, pages 533-552.Bevan et al, 1991, N. Bevan, J. Kirakowski, and J. Maissel (1991), What is usability?, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction, Elsevier.Bias, 1994, R. Bias (1994), The Pluralistic Usability Walkthrough: Coordinated Empathies., in: J. Nielsen and Mack, R. L. (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, page 63-76.Boehm et al, 1981, B.Boehm, Brown, J. R. Kaspar H., Lipow, M, Macleod, G. J., and Merrit, M. J. (1981), Characteristics of Software Quality, North Holland.Booch, 1991, G.Booch (1991), Object-Oriented Design With Applications, Benjamin Cummings.Bosch, 2000, J.Bosch (2000), Design and use of Software Architectures: Adoptingand evolving a product line approach, Pearson Education (Addison-Wesley and ACM Press).References227 Bosch and Bengtsson, 2002, J. Bosch and P. O. Bengtsson (2002), Assessing optimal software architecture maintainability, Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Software Maintainability and Reengineering, Lisbon, Portugal.Brighton, 1998, Brighton, The Brighton Usability Pattern Collection./research/patterns/home.htmlBrooks, 1995, F.P.jr.Brooks (1995), The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Twentieth Anniversary Edition, Addison-Wesley.Buschmann et al, 1996, F.Buschmann, Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., and Stal, M. (1996), Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns, John Wiley and Son Ltd.Carrol et al, 1994, J. M. Caroll, R. L. Mack, S. Robertson, and M. Rosson (1994), "Binding objects to scenarios of use", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 41(1-2), pages 243-276.Chidamber and Kemerer, 1991, S. R. Chidamber and C. F. Kemerer (1991), "Towards A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design", Sigplan Notices 11, pages 197-211.Chin et al, 1988, J. P. Chin, V. A. Diehl, and K. L. Norman (1988), Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer-interface, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the CHI'88 Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems, ACM Press, New York, pages 213-218.Chung et al, L.Chung, Nixon, B. A., and Mylopoulos, J. (1999), Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishing.Clements, 1996, P. Clements (1996), A Survey of Architecture Description Languages, Proceedings of the Eight International Workshop on Software Specification and Design.Clements et al, 2002, P.Clements, Bachman, F., Bass, L, Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R. L., and Stafford, J. (2002), Documenting Software Architectures; views and beyond, Addison-Wesly Professional.Common ground, 1999, J. Tidwell, Common ground: Pattern Language for Human-Computer Interface Design, /~jtidwell/interaction_patterns.htmlConstantine et al, 2003, L. L. Constantine, R. Biddle, and J. Noble (2003), Usage-centered design and software engineering: models for integration., Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop "bridging the Gaps Between Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction".Constantine and Lockwood, 1999, L.L.Constantine and Lockwood, L. A. D. (1999), Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design, Addison-Wesley, New York NY.228References Coplien and Schmidt, 1995, J.O.Coplien and Schmidt, D. C. (1995), Pattern Languages of Program Design, Addison-Wesley (Software Patterns Series).Cuomo and Bowen, 1994, D. L. Cuomo and C. D. Bowen (1994), "Understanding usability issues addressed by three user-system interface evaluation techniques", Interacting with Computers 6(1), pages 86-108.Davis, 1989, F. D. Davis (1989), "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, andUser Acceptance of Information Technology", MIS Quarterly 13:3, pages 319-340.DIN 55350-11, German Industry Standard DIN 55350 Part 11.Doll et al, 1994, W. J. Doll, W. Xia, and G. A. Torkzadeh (1994), "ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument.", MIS Quarterly18-4, pages 453-461.Dumas and Redish, 1993, J.S.Dumas and Redish, J. A (1993), Practical Guide to Usability Testing, Ablex Publishing.Duyne et al, 2002, D.K.van Duyne, Landay, J. A., and Hong, J. I (2002), The Designof Sites: Patterns, Principles, and Processes for Crafting a Customer-Centered Web Experience, Addison-Wesley.Ferre, 2003, X. Ferre (2003), Integration of Usability techniques into the software development process, Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Bridging the GapsBetween Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction.Folmer and Bosch, 2003, E. Folmer and J. Bosch (2003), Usability patterns in Software Architecture, Proceedings of the Human Computer Interaction International 2003, IEA, pages 93-97.Folmer and Bosch, 2004, E. Folmer and J. Bosch (2004), "Architecting forusability; a survey", Journal of systems and software, Vol 70/1-2, pages 61-78.Folmer and Bosch, 2005a, E. Folmer and J. Bosch (2005), Analyzing Software Architectures for Usability, Proceedings of the EuroMicro Conference on Software Engineering, Porto August 2005.Folmer and Bosch, 2005b, E. Folmer and J. Bosch (2005), "Experiences withSoftware Architecture Analysis of Usability", Submitted for the Journal of systems and software, May 2005.Folmer et al, 2003, E. Folmer, J. v. Gurp, and J. Bosch (2003), "A framework for capturing the relationship between usability and software architecture", Software Process: Improvement and Practice Volume 8, Issue 2, pages 67-87.Folmer et al, 2004, E. Folmer, J. v. Gurp, and J. Bosch (2004), SoftwareArchitecture Analysis of Usability , Proceedings of the 9th IFIP Working Conferenceon Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, Wiley, pages 321-339.References229 Folmer et al, 2005, E. Folmer, M. Welie, and J. Bosch (2005), "Bridging Patterns- an approach to bridge gaps between SE and HCI", Accepted for the Journal of Information & Software Technology.Fowler, 2003, M. Fowler, Who Needs an Architect?/ieeeSoftware/whoNeedsArchitect.pdfFowler, 1996, M.Fowler (1996), Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models, Addison-Wesley, Reading.Fowler et al, 1999, M.Fowler, Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., and Robers, D. (1999), Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, Addison-Wesley.Gamma et al 1995, E.Gamma, Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J. (1995), Design patterns elements of reusable object-orientated software., Addison-Wesley.Granlund et al, 2001, Å. Granlund, D. Lafrenière, and D. A. Carr (2001), Pattern-Supported Approach to the User Interface Design Process, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI 2001), New Orleans.Gurp and Bosch, 2002, J. v. Gurp and J. Bosch (2002), "Design Erosion: Problems and Causes", Journal of systems and software 61(2), pages 105-119.Hackos and Redish, 1998, J.T.Hackos and Redish, J. C (1998), User and Task Analysis for Interface Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.Häggander et al, 1999, D. Häggander, P. O. Bengtsson, J. Bosch, and L. Lundberg (1999), Maintainability Myth Causes Performance Problems in Parallel Applications, Proceedings of the, pages 288-294.Hartson et al, 1996, H. R. Hartson, J. C. Castillo, J. Kelso, J. Kamler, and W. C. Neale (1996), Remote Evaluation: The Network as an Extension of the Usability Laboratory, Proceedings of the Proceedings of CHI'96 Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 228-235.HFRG, the Human Factors Research Group, www.ucc.ie/hfrg/Hillside group, Patterns Library, /Hix and Hartson, 1993, D.Hix and Hartson, H. R. (1993), Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product and Process., John Wiley and Sons.Hofmeister et al, 1999, C.Hofmeister, Nord, R. L., and Soni, D. (1999), Applied Software Architecture, Addison Wesley Longman.Holcomb and Tharp, 1991, R. Holcomb and A. L. Tharp (1991), What users say about software usability., Proceedings of the International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 3 no. 1, pages 49-78.230References IBM, 1991a, IBM, SAA CUA Guide to user interface design. IBM Document SC34-4289-00, 1991.IBM, 1991b, IBM, SAA CUA Advanced interface design. IBM Document SC34-4290-00, 1991.IEEE, 1998, IEEE, IEEE Architecture Working Group. Recommended practice for architectural description. Draft IEEE Standard P1471/D4.1, IEEE, 1998.IEEE 610.12-1990, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, StandardGlossary of Software Engineering TerminologyDocument Number: IEEE 610.12-1990, 2005.ISO 9241-11, ISO, ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visualdisplay terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability, 1994.ISO 9241, ISO, ISO 9241 DIS. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visualdisplay terminals (VDTs), 1998.ISO 9126-1, ISO, ISO 9126-1 Software engineering - Product quality - Part 1: Quality Model, 2000.Johnson and Foote, 1988, R. Johnson and B. Foote (1988), "Desiging Reusable Classes", Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 1,5, pages 22-35.Kazman et al, 1998, R. Kazman, M. Klein, M. Barbacci, T. Longstaff, H. Lipson, andJ. Carriere (1998), The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Monterey,CA.Kazman et al, 1994, R. Kazman, G. Abowd, and M. Webb (1994), SAAM: A Methodfor Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 81-90.Kazman et al, 2000, R. Kazman, M. Klein, and P. Clements, ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004), 2000.KDE, 2001, KDE, KDE User Interface Guidelines, Keinonen, 1998, T.Keinonen (1998), One dimensional usability - influence ofusability on consumers product preference, University of Art and Design.Kienzle and Elder, 2002, D. M. Kienzle and M. C. Elder, Security Patterns for Web Application Development,/archive/securitypatterns/dmdj_final_report.pdfKruchten, 1995, P. B. Kruchten, The 4+1 View Model of Architecture, IEEE Software, 1995.Laakso 2004, S. A. Laakso, User Interface Design Patterns,http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/salaakso/patterns/References231 LAP, Liberty Alliance Project, /Landauer, 1995, ndauer (1995), The Trouble with Computers: Usefulness, Usability and Productivity, MIT Press.Lassing et al, 2002a, N. Lassing, P. O. Bengtsson, H. van Vliet, and J. Bosch (2002), "Experiences with ALMA: Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis", Journal of systems and software 61(1), pages 47-57.Lauesen and Younessi, 1998, S. Lauesen and H. Younessi (1998), Six styles for usability requirements, Proceedings of the Proceedings of REFSQ'98, Presses Universitaires de Namur, pages 155-166.Lederer and Prassad, 1992, A. L. P. J. Lederer (1992), "Nine Management Guidelines for Better cost Estimating", Communications of the ACM 35(2) (februari, 1992), pages 51-59.Lewis, 1992, J. R. Lewis (1992), Psychometric evaluation of the post-study system usability questionnaire: The PSSUQ., Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting., HFES, Santa Monica, CA, pages 1259-1263.Lewis, 1995, J. R. Lewis (1995), "IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation and Instructions for Use.", International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 7-1, pages 57-78.Li and Henry, 1993, W. Li and S. Henry (1993), "OO Metrics that Predict Maintainability", Journal of systems and software 23(1), pages 111-122.Liu and Ha, 1995, J. W. S. Liu and R. Ha (1995), Efficient Methods of Validating Timing Constraints, in: S. H. Son (eds.), Advanced in Real-Time Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc, New York, pages 199-224.Luckham et al, 1995, D. C. Luckham, J. J. Kenney, L. M. Augustin, J. Vera, D. Bryan, and W. Mann (1995), "Specification and Analysis of System Architecture Using Rapide", Ieee Transactions on Software Engineering 4, pages 336-355Lung et al, 1997, C. Lung, Bot.S., and K. K. R. Kaleichelvan (1997), An Approach to Software Architecture Analysis for Evolution and Reusability, Proceedings of the CASCON Proceedings.Macleod, 1994, M. Macleod (1994), Usability: Practical Methods for testing and Improvement, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Computer Society Software '94 Conference, Sandvika, Norway.Mahemof and Hussay, 1999, M. Mahemof and A. Hussay, Patterns for Designing Safety-Critical Interactive Systems, 1999.McCall et al, 1977, J. A. McCall, P. K. Richards, and G. F. Walters, Factors in software quality Vol. 1,2,3. AD/A-049-014/015/055. Nat.Tech. Inf. Service. Springfield, 1977.232References McKay, 1999, E.N. McKay (1999), Developing User Interfaces for MicrosoftWindows, Microsoft Press.Mercay and Gilbert, 2002, J. Mercay and G. Bouzeid, Boost Struts with XSLT and XML, /javaworld/jw-02-2002/jw-0201-strutsxslt-p1.htmlMicrosoft, 1992, Microsoft (1992), the Windows Interface - An Application Design Guide, Microsoft Press.Microsoft, 2004, Microsoft, Performance and Reliability Patterns,/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnpatterns/html/EspPerformanceReliabilityPatternsCluster.aspMicrosoft, 2004, Microsoft Passport SDK, /library/en-us/passport25/sdk.aspMilewski, 2003, A. Milewski (2003), Software Engineering overlaps with human computer interaction: A natural Evolution, Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Bridging the Gaps Between Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction.MYUID, 2004, MYUID, /Nielsen, 1993, J.Nielsen (1993), Usability Engineering, Academic Press, Inc.Nielsen, 1995, J. Nielsen (1995), Scenarios in Discount Usability Engineering, in: J.M. Caroll (eds.), Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development., John Wiley and Sons, New York, pages 59-83.Nielsen, 1994, J. Nielsen (1994), Heuristic Evaluation., in: J. Nielsen and Mack, R. L. (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Nigay and Coutaz, 1997, L. Nigay and J. Coutaz (1997), Bridging Two Worlds using Ergonomics and Software properties., in: Palanque & Paterno' (eds.), Formal Methodsin Human-Computer Interaction, Springer-Verlag., London, pages 49-73.Norman, 1988, D.A.Norman (1988), The design of everyday things, Basic Books.Ovaska, 1991, S. Ovaska (1991), "Usability as a Goal for the Design of Computer Systems", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems.Parnas, 1972, D. L. Parnas (2002), "On the Criteria to be Used In DecomposingSystems into Modules", Communications of the ACM 12, pages 1053-1058.Perry and Wolf, 1992, D. E. Perry and A. L. Wolf (1992), "Foundations for the Studyof Software Architecture", Software Engineering Notes 17-4, pages 40-52.Perzel and Kane 1999, K. Perzel and D. Kane (1999), Usability Patterns for Applications on the World Wide Web, Proceedings of the Pattern Languages of Programming Conference.References233 PoInter, 2003, Pointer, PoInter: Patterns of INTERaction collection,/computing/research/cseg/projects/pointer/patterns.htmlPolson and Lewis, 1990, P. G. Polson and C. H. Lewis (1990), Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces, Proceedings of the, pages 191-220.Poulson, 1996, D.Poulson, Ashby, M., and Richardson, S. (1996), USERfit, A practical handbook on user-centred design for Assistive Technology, HUSAT Research Institute.Preece et al, 1994, J.Preece, Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., and Carey, T. (1994), Human-Computer Interaction, Addison Wesley.Pressman, 1992, R.S.Pressman (1992), Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach, McGraw-Hill, NY.Pirsig,1994, R.Pirsig (1984), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Bantam.Rauschenberger , 2001, J. Rauschenberger, Secure Your Web Site With Passport, /archives/premier/mgznarch/vbpj/2001/11nov01/jr0111/jr 0111-1.aspRavden and Johnson, 1989, S.J.Ravden and Johnson, G. I. (1989), Evaluation usability of human-computer interfaces: A practical method., Ellis Horwood Limited, New York.Ressel and Gunzenhouser, 1999, M. Ressel and R. Gunzenhouser (1999), Reducing the problems of group undo, Proceedings of the Proceedings of Group'99, ACM Press, Phoenix USA, pages 131-139.Richardson and Wolf, 1996, D. J. Richardson and A. L. Wolf (1996), Software Testing at the Architectural Level, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Second International Software Architecture Workshop.Robson, 1993, C.Robson (1993), Real world research, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Rowley and Rhoades, 1992, D. E. Rowley and D. G. Rhoades (1992), The Cognitive Jogthrough: A Fast-Paced User Interface Evaluation Procedure., Proceedings of the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM Press, Monterey, California, United States, pages 389-395.Rubin, 1994, J.Rubin (1994), Handbook of Usability Testing, John Wiley and Sons.Rubinstein and Hersh, 1984, R.Rubinstein and Hersh.H. (1984), The Human Factor: Designing Computer Systems for People., Digital Press, Bedford, MA.Scapin and Bastien, 1997, D. L. Scapin and J. M. C. Bastien (1997), "Ergonomic criteria for evaluationg the ergonomic quality of interactive systems, ", Behaviour & Information Technology 4/5, pages 220-231.234References SEI, 2004, How Do You Define Software Architecture?,/architecture/definitions.htmlSeshadri, 1999, G. Seshadri, Understanding JavaServer Pages Model 2 Architecture, /javaworld/jw-12-1999/jw-12-ssj-jspmvc.htmlShackel, 1991, B. Shackel (1991), Usability - context, framework, design and evaluation, in: B. Shackel and Richardson, S. (eds.), Human Factors for Informatics Usability, Cambridge University Press.Shaw, 2002, M. Shaw (2002), What makes good research in software engineering?, Proceedings of the ETAPS 2002.Shaw, 1995, M. Shaw (1995), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Architectures for Software Systems.Shaw et al, 1995, M. Shaw, R. Deline, D. V. Klein, T. L. Ross, D. M. Young, and G. Zelesnik (1995), "Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support Them",Ieee Transactions on Software Engineering 4, pages 314-335.Shaw and Garlan, 1996, M.Shaw and Garlan, D. (1996), Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Prentice Hall.Shneiderman, 1986, B.Shneiderman (1986), Designing the user interface: Strategiesfor effective human-computer interaction., Addison-Wesley.Shneiderman, 1998, B.Shneiderman (1998), Designing the User Interface:Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley.Smith, 1990, C.U.Smith (1990), Performance Engineering of Software Systems,Addison-Wesley.Soken et al, 1993, N.Soken, Reinhart, B., Vora, P., and Metz, S. (1993), Methods for Evaluating Usability (Section 5B), Honeywell.STATUS, STATUS project website, http://www.ls.fi.upm.es/status/Stuart et al, E. Jezierski, M. Stuart, L. Joyner, and P. Cibraro, User Interface Process Application Block for .NET, /library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnbda/html/uip.asp?_r=1Sun, 2000, C. Sun (2000), Undo any operation at any time in group editors, Proceedings of the Proceedings of ACM conference on computer supportedcooperative work (CSCW2000), ACM Press, PA USA, pages 191-200.Sun, 2004, Java Server Pages and XML, /xml/jspxml.pdfSvahnberg et al, 2000, M. Svahnberg, C. Wohlin, L. Lundberg, and M. Mattson (2000), A method for understanding quality attributes in software architecture structures, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 14th international conference onReferences235 Software engineering and knowledge engineering, SESSION: Workshop on softwareengineering decision support., Ischia, Italy, pages 819-826.Swanson, 1976, E. B. Swanson (1976), The dimensions of maintenance, Proceedings of the proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pages 492-497.Tidwell 1998, J. Tidwell (1998), Interaction Design Patterns, Proceedings of the Conference on Pattern Languages of Programming 1998, Illinois USA.Trætteberg, 2000, H. Trætteberg (2000), Model based design patterns, Proceedings of the Workshop on User Interface Design Patterns (CHI 2000).Workflow patterns, W. van der Aalst and A. ter Hofstede, Workflow patterns, http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns/Viega and McCraw, 2001, J.Viega and McCraw, G. (2001), Building Secure Software: How to Avoid Security Problems the Right Way, Aw Professional.Vora and Helander, 1995, P. Vora and M. G. Helander (1995), A Teaching method as an alternative to the concurrent think-aloud method for usablity testing, in: Y. Anzai, Ogawa, K., and Mori, H. (eds.), Symbiosis of Human and Artifact, pages375-380.Vredenburg et al, 2001, K.Vredenburg, Isensee, S., and Righi, C (2001), User-Centered Design: An Integrated Approach, Prentice Hall.Walenstein, 2003, A. Walenstein (2003), Finding Boundary Objects in SE and HCI: An approach through engineering oriented design theories, Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Bridging the Gaps Between Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction, IEEE, pages 92-100.Welie, 2003, M. Welie, GUI Design patterns, /Welie and Trætteberg, 2000, M. Welie and H. Trætteberg (2000), Interaction Patterns in User Interfaces, Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programming (PloP).Welie et al, 1999, M. Welie, G. C. van der Veer, and A. Eliëns (1999), Breaking down Usability, Proceedings of the Proceedings of Interact 99, Edinburgh, Scotland, pages 613-620.Wharton et al, 1994, C. Wharton, J. Rieman, C. H. Lewis, and P. G. Polson (1994), The Cognitive Walkthrough: A practitioner's guide., in: J. Nielsen and Mack, R. L. (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Wikipedia: quality, wikipedia's definition of quality,/wiki/QualityReferences236 Willshire, 2003, M. Willshire (2003), Where SE and HCI meet: A position paper, Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Bridging the Gaps Between SoftwareEngineering and Human-Computer Interaction.Wixon et al, 1994, D. Wixon, S. Jones, L. Tse, and G. Casaday (1994), Inspectionsand Design Reviews: Framework, History, and Reflection. In Usability Inspection Methods., in: J. Nielsen and Mack, R. L. (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pages 77-103.Wixon & Wilson, 1997, D. Wixon and C. Wilson (1997), "The usability Engineering Framework for Product Design and Evaluation. I, in: M. G. Helander (eds.), InHandbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Elsevier North-Holland, 1997, pages653-688.W3 uaprof, UAProf profile repository,http://w3development.de/rdf/uaprof_repository/Yoder and Barcalow, 1997, J. Yoder and J. Barcalow (1997), Architectural patternsfor enabling application security, Proceedings of the In Proceedings of the Pattern Languages of Programming (PLoP) Workshop.Zhang, 2001, Z. Zhang, Overview of usability evaluation methods.,/~zzj/UsabilityHome.htmlZhang et al, 1998a, Z. Zhang, V. Basili, and B. Shneiderman (1998), An An empirical study of perspective-based usability inspection., Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago, pages 1346-1350.Zhou and Imamiya, 1997, C. Zhou and A. Imamiya (1997), Object-based LinearUndo model, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 InternationalConference on Human-Computer Interaction, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pages252-259.。

Tactics A Step Toward Methodical Architectural Design, 2003.

祝2A习题答案-新视野4

管理学英语试题及答案

Automotive chassis

德国-波兰-捷克跨境空间规划

审美是科学进步的密钥 作文

Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Programming Techniques to Tactical Guidance for

Chapter4 Negotiating strategies and tactics

高三英语学术研究方法创新不断单选题30题

审美是科学进步的密钥作文