Halal Haram Cryptocurrency

The invention of the computer which was originally a calculating machine (Difference Engine no. 1) which was discovered by Charles Babbage (1791-1871) is something very famous in the history of computer development and is the first automatic calculator. With the very rapid development of the digital world, in 1983 an American cryptography expert David Chaum used cryptographic electronic money called e-cash, and in 1995, he implemented it through Digichash, which became the initial form of collaboration between the digital world of computers and Money, which is a cryptographic electronic payment instrument that requires user software to pull notes from the bank and designate a specific encrypted key before it can be sent to the recipient. And in 1996, the NSA, namely the United States National Security Agency, which was founded by President Harry S. Truman on November 4, 1952, had the task and function of collecting and analyzing communications from other countries, as well as protecting information belonging to the United States. The agency published a paper entitled How to Make a Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash, describing the Crypto currency system that first published it on the MIT mailing list, later in 1997, in the journal The American Law Review (Vol. 46, Issue 4). It was these researches that eventually led the developers to start developing what is known today as blockchain which is basically a distributed open ledger to record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way. The discovery of Bit coin in 2009 which was declared as electronic money was developed by an institution or individual who has the initials Satoshi Nakamoto, the technology used is using a peer to peer network without centralized storage so that verification can be done anywhere in the world anywhere that dedicates a computer, to do this or it is called mining. Since 2009 other coins and tokens have started to appear, as we can see on CoinMarketcap which has more than 6000 coins and tokens. The utilization and use of this technology is still being debated from the point of view of Muslims in Indonesia, as stated by Yenny Wahid in the activities carried out by the Islamic Law Firm (ILF), this is due to the uncertainty of the asset value which can change at any time

Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers

[EN] Nowadays, collaborative knowledge management (CKM) is well accepted as a decisive asset in the field of networked enterprises and supply chains. However, few knowledge management initiatives have been performed successfully because, in most cases, the barriers that hinder the CKM process are unknown and misunderstood. Currently, the research reveals different uni- and bi-dimensional barriers' classifications, however multi-dimensional approaches provide a better view of the complexity in the area of CKM. Therefore, this paper proposes the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers taking into account: (i) perspectives; (ii) levels and (iii) barriers blocks to provide a reference way to audit the CKM barriers, and thus, in further research, focus on the corrections and adjustments to guarantee the success while implementing a CKM project.Sanchis, R.; Sanchis Gisbert, MR.; Poler, R. (2020). Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers. Sustainability. 12(3):1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031279S125123Rajabion, L., Sataei Mokhtari, A., Khordehbinan, M. W., Zare, M., & Hassani, A. (2019). The role of knowledge sharing in supply chain success. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1222-1249. doi:10.1108/jedt-03-2019-0052Sanguankaew, P., & Vathanophas Ractham, V. (2019). Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018. Sustainability, 11(16), 4388. doi:10.3390/su11164388Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e‐government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548-567. doi:10.1108/17410390510624007Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746Yih‐Tong Sun, P., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90. doi:10.1108/13673270510590236Solli-Sæther, H., Karlsen, J. T., & van Oorschot, K. (2015). Strategic and Cultural Misalignment: Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Project Networks. Project Management Journal, 46(3), 49-60. doi:10.1002/pmj.21501Kukko, M. (2013). Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(1), 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2013.02.006Mazorodze, A. H., & Buckley, S. (2019). Knowledge management in knowledge-intensive organisations: Understanding its benefits, processes, infrastructure and barriers. SA Journal of Information Management, 21(1). doi:10.4102/sajim.v21i1.990Vuori, V., Helander, N., & Mäenpää, S. (2018). Network level knowledge sharing: Leveraging Riege’s model of knowledge barriers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(3), 253-263. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1557999Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115, 307-316. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.005General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda. (2001). Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045672Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. (2006). Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts, frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500103Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93-109. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131Brandt, D., & Hartmann, E. (1999). Editorial: Research topics and strategies in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 9(3), 241-243. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6564(199922)9:33.0.co;2-bKim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.xArgote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140-154. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.2.140Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016). A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1271-1292. doi:10.1002/job.2104Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative Alliances: Moving from Practice to Theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021886391271001Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 209-227. doi:10.1177/0021886391272004Scheff, J., & Kotler, P. (1996). Crisis in the Arts: The Marketing Response. California Management Review, 39(1), 28-52. doi:10.2307/41165875Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. doi:10.1086/210179Maitlo, A., Ameen, N., Peikari, H. R., & Shah, M. (2019). Preventing identity theft. Information Technology & People, 32(5), 1184-1214. doi:10.1108/itp-05-2018-0255Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M., & Turban, E. (2002). Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 163-176. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00142-7Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160. doi:10.1108/13673270910971897Yew Wong, K., & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-61. doi:10.1108/13673270410541033Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing for Requirement Engineeringhttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/28916Practical Tools and Methods for Corporate Knowledge Management—Sharing and Capitalising Engineering Know-How in the Concurrent Enterprisehttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-1999-12685Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 341-357. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.002Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2011). An experience‐based view of co‐opetition in R&D networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 136-154. doi:10.1108/14601061111124867Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2010). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1-2), 128-142. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.006McGaughey, S. L., Liesch, P. W., & Poulson, D. (2000). An unconventional approach to intellectual property protection: the case of an Australian firm transferring shipbuilding technologies to China. Journal of World Business, 35(1), 1-20. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(99)00031-0Ilvonen, I., & Vuori, V. (2013). Risks and benefits of knowledge sharing in co-opetitive knowledge networks. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 13(3), 209. doi:10.1504/ijnvo.2013.063049Martinez-Noya, A., Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2012). R&D Outsourcing and the Effectiveness of Intangible Investments: Is Proprietary Core Knowledge Walking out of the Door? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 67-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01086.xROSEN, B., FURST, S., & BLACKBURN, R. (2007). Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259-273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.007Hislop, D. (2005). The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 244-252. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500073Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2005). A culturally aware model of inter-organizational knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(3), 146-155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500064Balle, A. R., Steffen, M. O., Curado, C., & Oliveira, M. (2019). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in a science and technology park: the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2016-2038. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2018-0328Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management of risks in information technology projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 286-295. doi:10.1108/02635570410530702Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 138-148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095Solitander, M., & Tidström, A. (2010). Competitive flows of intellectual capital in value creating networks. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 23-38. doi:10.1108/14691931011013316Khamseh, H. M., & Jolly, D. (2014). Knowledge transfer in alliances: the moderating role of the alliance type. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(4), 409-420. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.63Corallo, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(4), 354-367. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.25Salvetat, D., Géraudel, M., & d’ Armagnac, S. (2013). Inter-organizational knowledge management in a coopetitive context in the aeronautic and space industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(3), 265-277. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.6Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 547-587. doi:10.1002/job.259Korbi, F. B., & Chouki, M. (2017). Knowledge transfer in international asymmetric alliances: the key role of translation, artifacts, and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1272-1291. doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2016-0501Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Slyke, D. M. V. (2001). Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372-388. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.372.10099Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39. doi:10.1177/002224298805200303Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The «real» success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9Santos, V. R., Soares, A. L., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2012). Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(1), 27-38. doi:10.1002/kpm.1379Tiwari, S. R. (2015). Knowledge Integration in Government-Industry Project Network. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), 11-21. doi:10.1002/kpm.1460Mariotti, F. (2007). Learning to share knowledge in the Italian motorsport industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(2), 81-94. doi:10.1002/kpm.275Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541-554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. den, Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123-144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00290.xKatz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.xGupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200004)21:43.0.co;2-iBarkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners Are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 845-864. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490122Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Enterprise Resilience Assessment—A Quantitative Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4327. doi:10.3390/su11164327Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (2010). The Impact of Organizational and National Cultural Differences on Social Conflict and Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00975.xRichards, D., Busch, P., & Venkitachalam, K. (2007). Ethnicity-based cultural differences in implicit managerial knowledge usage in three Australian organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 173-185. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500145Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (s. f.). Structure and Spontaneity: Knowledge and Organization. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, 44-67. doi:10.4135/9781446217573.n3Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of «Ba»: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. doi:10.2307/41165942Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2010). Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(3), 229-239. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.14Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2015). Information encountering on social media and tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Information Science, 42(4), 539-550. doi:10.1177/0165551515598883Bisbal, J., Lawless, D., Bing Wu, & Grimson, J. (1999). Legacy information systems: issues and directions. IEEE Software, 16(5), 103-111. doi:10.1109/52.795108Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework. The Information Society, 18(1), 47-64. doi:10.1080/01972240252818225Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.016Sieber, J. E. (1988). Data sharing: Defining problems and seeking solutions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 199-206. doi:10.1007/bf01073128Pauleen, D. J., & Wang, W. Y. C. (2017). Does big data mean big knowledge? KM perspectives on big data and analytics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 1-6. doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2016-033

Foreign Language Learning In Knowledge Forums: using a knowledge-building forum in an EFL classroom

[EN] This paper presents the first phase of a study conducted to analyze Knowledge Building forums for evidence of second language acquisition. This study is an analysis of the posts within an existing forum in search of evidence of foreign language learning. The analysis found that the collaborative writing project shows evidence that the students passed through the stages of construction of knowledge within their foreign language classroom, however factors, such as confounding variables, inconsistencies in error types, and the small number of posts by the participants made it challenging to determine whether there is evidence of language acquisition for each student. The forum posts show evidence of knowledge acquisition, but further investigation is required to determine whether collaborative writing in knowledge forums is effective for foreign language acquisition.Manegre, M.; Gutiérrez-Colón, M.; Gisbert, M. (2019). Foreign Language Learning In Knowledge Forums: using a knowledge-building forum in an EFL classroom. The EuroCALL Review. 27(1):3-13. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2019.11150OJS313271Al-Jarf, R. (2007). Teaching Vocabulary to EFL College Students Online. CALL-EJ, 8(2). 1-16. http://econf.uob.edu.bh/conf1/pdf%20files/133.pdfBielaczyc, K. & Collins, A. (2005). Technology as a catalyst for fostering knowledge-creating communities. A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & J. van der Linden (Eds.), Using technology to enhance learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A. (2006). Fostering knowledge-creating communities. A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can Children Really Create Knowledge?. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l'apprentissage et de la technologie, 36 (1). Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2ZP43Bereiter C., Scardamalia M. (2014) Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation: One Concept, Two Hills to Climb. In: Tan S., So H., Yeo J. (Eds.) Knowledge Creation in Education. Education Innovation Series, pp. 35-52. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_3Bikowski, D. & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of Web-Based Collaborative Writing on Individual L2 writing Development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79-99. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44447/1/20_01_bikowskivithanage.pdfBrantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M. & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative Studies in Special Education. Exceptional Children. 71(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205Chen-Chung, L., Pin-Ching, W. & Shu-Ju, T., (2016). An analysis of student engagement patterns in language learning facilitated by Web 2.0 Technologies. ReCALL 28(2), 104- 122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401600001XChuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Prinsen, F., Resendes, M., Messina, R., Hunsburger, W., Teplovs, C., & Chow, A. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific process: A theory building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2GP4RCingel, D. P. & Sundar, S. (2012). Texting, techspeak, and tweens: The relationship between text messaging and English grammar skills. New Media & Society. 14(8).https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444812442927. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812442927Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R. & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL 21(1), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000032Consell Superior d'Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu (2015). Avaluació del projecte COMconèixer. Barcelona, Departament d'Ensenyament, Consell Superior d'Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu, col·lecció 'Documents' 32. http://cdl3.cdl.cat/COMconeixer/docs/Avaluacio_Projecte_COMconeixer.pdfCook, J. & Smith, M. (2004). Beyond formal learning: Informal community eLearning. Computers & Education. 43(1-2), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.003Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Press.Gunawardena, C. N, Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 17(4). https://doi.org/10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAGHeiser, S., Stickler, U. & Furnborough, C. (2013). Student training in the use of an online synchronous conferencing tool. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 226-251. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.2.226-251Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work, Theory Into Practice, 38:2, 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834Kim, B., Tan, L., & Bielaczyc, K. (2015). Learner-generated designs in participatory culture: What they are and how they are shaping learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 545-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1067974Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D. & Cress, U. (2017). All in Good Time: Knowledge Introduction, Restructuring, and Development of Shared Opinions as Different Stages in Collaborative Writing. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. 12(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6Laferriere, T., Law, N. & Montaine, M. (2012). An International Knowledge Building Network for Sustainable Curriculum and Pedagogical Information. International Education Studies, 5(3), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n3p148Montane, M., Amaros, C. & Gisbert, M. (2017). The COMknowledge project: evaluation of methodological aspects of the project based on pupils' perceptions. Unpublished conference paper.Moss, J. & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 441- 465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9003-zNami, F, Marandi, S.S., Sotoudehnama, E., (2018). Interaction in a discussion list: An exploration of cognitive, social, and teaching presence in teachers' online collaborations. ReCALL,30(3), 375-398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000349Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research. 74(4), 557-576. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1,37-68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0101_3Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge Based Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences 3(3), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 97-118. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P.J., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992). Educational applications of networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments. 2(1), 45-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482920020105Sun, Y., Franklin, T. & Gao, F. (2015). Learning Outside of Classroom: Exploring the Active Part of an Informal Online English Learning Community in China. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12340Thorne, S., Black, R. W. & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 802-821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.xYim, S., Warschauer, M., (2017). Web-Based Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Methodological Insights From Text Mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146-165. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44599/1/21_01_yimwarschauer.pdfZhan, Z., Xu, F. & Ye, H. (2011). Effects of an online learning community on active and reflective learners' learning performance and attitudes in a face-to-face undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 56(4), 961- 968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.01

Multirate control with incomplete information over Profibus-DP network

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Systems Science on 2014, available online:http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00207721.2013.844286When a process ¿eld bus-decentralized peripherals (Pro¿bus-DP) network is used in an industrial environment, a deterministic behaviour is usually claimed. However, due to some concerns such as bandwidth limitations, lack of synchronisation among different clocks and existence of time-varying delays, a more complex problem must be faced. This problem implies the transmission of irregular and, even, random sequences of incomplete information. The main consequence of this issue is the appearance of different sampling periods at different network devices. In this paper, this aspect is checked by means of a detailed Pro¿bus-DP timescale study. In addition, in order to deal with the different periods, a delay-dependent dual-rate proportional-integral-derivative control is introduced. Stability for the proposed control system is analysed in terms of linear matrix inequalitiesThe authors are grateful to the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity [Research Grant TEC2012-31506].Salt Llobregat, JJ.; Casanova Calvo, V.; Cuenca Lacruz, ÁM.; Pizá Fernández, R. (2014). Multirate control with incomplete information over Profibus-DP network. International Journal of Systems Science. 45(7):1589-1605. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2013.844286S15891605457Alves, M., & Tovar, E. (2007). Real-time communications over wired/wireless PROFIBUS networks supporting inter-cell mobility. Computer Networks, 51(11), 2994-3012. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2007.01.001Boyd, S., El Ghaoui, L., Feron, E., & Balakrishnan, V. (1994). Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory. doi:10.1137/1.9781611970777Bucher, R., & Balemi, S. (2006). Rapid controller prototyping with Matlab/Simulink and Linux. Control Engineering Practice, 14(2), 185-192. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2004.09.009Casanova, V., & Salt, J. (2003). Multirate control implementation for an integrated communication and control system. Control Engineering Practice, 11(11), 1335-1348. doi:10.1016/s0967-0661(02)00256-3Lee, J., Jung, W., Kang, I., Kim, Y., & Lee, G. (2004). Design of filter to reject motion artifact of pulse oximetry. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 26(3), 241-249. doi:10.1016/s0920-5489(03)00077-1Cuenca, Á., Pizá, R., Salt, J., & Sala, A. (2012). Linear Matrix Inequalities in Multirate Control over Networks. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2012, 1-22. doi:10.1155/2012/768212Cuenca, A., & Salt, J. (2012). RST controller design for a non-uniform multi-rate control system. Journal of Process Control, 22(10), 1865-1877. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2012.09.010Cuenca, Á., Salt, J., & Albertos, P. (2006). Implementation of algebraic controllers for non-conventional sampled-data systems. Real-Time Systems, 35(1), 59-89. doi:10.1007/s11241-006-9001-2Halevi, Y., & Ray, A. (1988). Integrated Communication and Control Systems: Part I—Analysis. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 110(4), 367-373. doi:10.1115/1.3152698Khargonekar, P., Poolla, K., & Tannenbaum, A. (1985). Robust control of linear time-invariant plants using periodic compensation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 30(11), 1088-1096. doi:10.1109/tac.1985.1103841Lall, S., & Dullerud, G. (2001). An LMI solution to the robust synthesis problem for multi-rate sampled-data systems. Automatica, 37(12), 1909-1922. doi:10.1016/s0005-1098(01)00167-4Lee, I. W. C., & Dash, P. K. (2003). S-transform-based intelligent system for classification of power quality disturbance signals. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 50(4), 800-805. doi:10.1109/tie.2003.814991Lee, C. K., Ron Hui, S. Y., & Henry Shu-Hung Chung. (2002). A 31-level cascade inverter for power applications. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 49(3), 613-617. doi:10.1109/tie.2002.1005388Performance evaluation of control networks: Ethernet, ControlNet, and DeviceNet. (2001). IEEE Control Systems, 21(1), 66-83. doi:10.1109/37.898793Feng-Li Lian, Moyne, J., & Tilbury, D. (2002). Network design consideration for distributed control systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 10(2), 297-307. doi:10.1109/87.987076Lin, J., Fei, S., & Gao, Z. (2013). Control discrete-time switched singular systems with state delays under asynchronous switching. International Journal of Systems Science, 44(6), 1089-1101. doi:10.1080/00207721.2011.652230Liou, L.-W., & Ray, A. (1991). A Stochastic Regulator for Integrated Communication and Control Systems: Part I—Formulation of Control Law. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 113(4), 604-611. doi:10.1115/1.2896464Lorand, C., & Bauer, P. H. (2006). On Synchronization Errors in Networked Feedback Systems. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 53(10), 2306-2317. doi:10.1109/tcsi.2006.882824Moayedi, M., Foo, Y. K., & Soh, Y. C. (2011). Filtering for networked control systems with single/multiple measurement packets subject to multiple-step measurement delays and multiple packet dropouts. International Journal of Systems Science, 42(3), 335-348. doi:10.1080/00207720903513335Peñarrocha, I., Sanchis, R., & Romero, J. A. (2012). State estimator for multisensor systems with irregular sampling and time-varying delays. International Journal of Systems Science, 43(8), 1441-1453. doi:10.1080/00207721.2011.625482Piza, R., Salt, J., Sala, A., & Cuenca, A. (2014). Hierarchical Triple-Maglev Dual-Rate Control Over a Profibus-DP Network. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 22(1), 1-12. doi:10.1109/tcst.2012.2222883Ray, A. (1989). Introduction to networking for integrated control systems. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 9(1), 76-79. doi:10.1109/37.16755Ray, A., & Halevi, Y. (1988). Integrated Communication and Control Systems: Part II—Design Considerations. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 110(4), 374-381. doi:10.1115/1.3152699Sala, A., Cuenca, Á., & Salt, J. (2009). A retunable PID multi-rate controller for a networked control system. Information Sciences, 179(14), 2390-2402. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.02.017Salt, J., & Albertos, P. (2005). Model-based multirate controllers design. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 13(6), 988-997. doi:10.1109/tcst.2005.857410Salt, J., Sala, A., & Albertos, P. (2011). A Transfer-Function Approach to Dual-Rate Controller Design for Unstable and Non-Minimum-Phase Plants. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 19(5), 1186-1194. doi:10.1109/tcst.2010.2076386Schickhuber, G., & McCarthy, O. (1997). Distributed Fieldbus and control network systems. Computing & Control Engineering Journal, 8(1), 21-32. doi:10.1049/cce:19970106Sturm, J. F. (1999). Using SeDuMi 1.02, A Matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones. Optimization Methods and Software, 11(1-4), 625-653. doi:10.1080/10556789908805766Tipsuwan, Y., & Chow, M.-Y. (2003). Control methodologies in networked control systems. Control Engineering Practice, 11(10), 1099-1111. doi:10.1016/s0967-0661(03)00036-4Xie, L. B., Ozkul, S., Sawant, M., Shieh, L. S., Tsai, J. S. H., & Tsai, C. H. (2013). Multi-rate digital redesign of cascaded and dynamic output feedback systems. International Journal of Systems Science, 45(8), 1757-1768. doi:10.1080/00207721.2012.752546Yang, T. C. (2006). Networked control system: a brief survey. IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and Applications, 153(4), 403-412. doi:10.1049/ip-cta:2005017

Copyright

Copyright is the branch of Intellectual Property Law that governs works of expression such as books, paintings and songs, and the expressive aspects of computer programs. Intellectual products such as these have a partially public goods character: they are largely inexhaustible and nonexcludable. Intellectual Property Law responds to inexcludability by giving producers legal rights to exclude nonpayers from certain usages of their intellectual products. The goal is to provide incentives for new production at fairly low transaction costs. However, the copyright owner will charge a price above marginal cost and this, coupled with the inexhaustibility of most copyrighted products, creates deadweight loss. Various copyright doctrines (such as the idea/expression dichotomy, the limited duration of the copyright ownership term and the doctrine of ‘fair use’) work to reduce deadweight loss and other costs within a larger structure that creates incentives. Copyright Law, unlike Patent Law, gives owners rights only against those who actually copy the work. This limitation, too, may serve to reduce both transaction costs and deadweight loss. Empirically it is unclear how successful copyright has been in creating incentives for production, reducing transaction costs and keeping deadweight costs low

Technology Policy, Gender, and Cyberspace

Event based sampling occurs when the time instants are measured everytime the amplitude passes certain pre-defined levels. This is in contrast with classical signal processing where the amplitude is measured at regular time intervals. The signal processing problem is to separate the signal component from noise in both amplitude and time domains. Event based sampling occurs in a variety of applications. The purpose here is to explain the new types of signal processing problems that occur, and identify the need for processing in both the time and event domains. We focus on rotating axles, where amplitude disturbances are caused by vibrations and time disturbances from measurement equipment. As one application, we examine tire pressure monitoring in cars where suppression of time disturbance is of utmost importance

A single journal study : Malaysian Journal of Computer Science

Single journal studies are reviewed and measures used in the studies are highlighted. The following quantitative measures are used to study 272 articles published in Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, (1) the article productivity of the journal from 1985 to 2007, (2) the observed and expected authorship productivity tested using Lotka's Law of author productivity, identification and listing of core authors; (3) the authorship, co-authorship pattern by authors' country of origin and institutional affiliations; (4) the subject areas of research; (5) the citation analysis of resources referenced as well as the age and half-life of citations; the journals referenced and tested for zonal distribution using Bradford's law of journal scattering; the extent of web citations; and (6) the citations received by articles published in MJCS and impact factor of the journal based on information obtained from Google Scholar, the level of author and journal self-citation

Bibliometric studies on single journals: a review

This paper covers a total of 82 bibliometric studies on single journals (62 studies cover unique titles) published between 1998 and 2008 grouped into the following fields; Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (12 items); Medical and Health Sciences (19 items); Sciences and Technology (30 items) and Library and Information Sciences (21 items). Under each field the studies are described in accordance to their geographical location in the following order, United Kingdom, United States and Americana, Europe, Asia (India, Africa and Malaysia). For each study, elements described are (a) the journal’s publication characteristics and indexation information; (b) the objectives; (c) the sampling and bibliometric measures used; and (d) the results observed. A list of journal titles studied is appended. The results show that (a)bibliometric studies cover journals in various fields; (b) there are several revisits of some journals which are considered important; (c) Asian and African contributions is high (41.4 of total studies; 43.5 covering unique titles), United States (30.4 of total; 31.0 on unique titles), Europe (18.2 of total and 14.5 on unique titles) and the United Kingdom (10 of total and 11 on unique titles); (d) a high number of bibliometrists are Indians and as such coverage of Indian journals is high (28 of total studies; 30.6 of unique titles); and (e) the quality of the journals and their importance either nationally or internationally are inferred from their indexation status