A framework for the simulation of structural software evolution

This is the author's accepted manuscript. The final published article is available from the link below. Copyright @ 2008 ACM.As functionality is added to an aging piece of software, its original design and structure will tend to erode. This can lead to high coupling, low cohesion and other undesirable effects associated with spaghetti architectures. The underlying forces that cause such degradation have been the subject of much research. However, progress in this field is slow, as its complexity makes it difficult to isolate the causal flows leading to these effects. This is further complicated by the difficulty of generating enough empirical data, in sufficient quantity, and attributing such data to specific points in the causal chain. This article describes a framework for simulating the structural evolution of software. A complete simulation model is built by incrementally adding modules to the framework, each of which contributes an individual evolutionary effect. These effects are then combined to form a multifaceted simulation that evolves a fictitious code base in a manner approximating real-world behavior. We describe the underlying principles and structures of our framework from a theoretical and user perspective; a validation of a simple set of evolutionary parameters is then provided and three empirical software studies generated from open-source software (OSS) are used to support claims and generated results. The research illustrates how simulation can be used to investigate a complex and under-researched area of the development cycle. It also shows the value of incorporating certain human traits into a simulation—factors that, in real-world system development, can significantly influence evolutionary structures

Unlocking legal validity. Some remarks on the artificial ontology of law

Following Kelsen’s influential theory of law, the concept of validity has been used in the literature to refer to different properties of law (such as existence, membership, bindingness, and more) and so it is inherently ambiguous. More importantly, Kelsen’s equivalence between the existence and the validity of law prevents us from accounting satisfactorily for relevant aspects of our current legal practices, such as the phenomenon of ‘unlawful law’. This chapter addresses this ambiguity to argue that the most important function of the concept of validity is constituting the complex ontological paradigm of modern law as an institutional-normative practice. In this sense validity is an artificial ontological status that supervenes on that of existence of legal norms, thus allowing law to regulate its own creation and creating the logical space for the occurrence of ‘unlawful law’. This function, I argue in the last part, is crucial to understanding the relationship between the ontological and epistemic dimensions of the objectivity of law. For given the necessary practice-independence of legal norms, it is the epistemic accessibility of their creation that enables the law to fulfill its general action-guiding (and thus coordinating) function

THE CONCEPT OF LAW AND EFFICACY

Jedno od značenja izraza ‘učinkovitost’ odnosi se na činjenicu da se adresati pravnih normi stvarno ponašaju onako kako to od njih zahtijevaju pravne norme. To se značenje izraza obično koristi u filozofskopravnim raspravama glede toga je li učinkovitost bitan element pojma prava. Prema pravnom pozitivizmu, učinkovitost je u nekim slučajevima i na određene načine uvjet važenja (vrijeđenja) pravnih normi i pravnih sustava. S druge strane, pravni je realizam sklon potpunom poistovjećivanju pravnog važenja s učinkovitosti ili njegovu svođenju na učinkovitost. Prema tome, u oba je filozofskopravna pravca učinkovitost u pravilu uključena u oblikovanje njihovih pojmova prava. Međutim, dok pravnopozitivističko shvaćanje ne utječe na najuobičajenije značenje važenja pravne norme (pripadanje pravne norme pravnom sustavu), a utvrđivanjem učinkovitosti kao kriterija postojanja pravnog sustava ne dodaje mnogo objašnjenju pojma prava, pravnorealističko se shvaćanje suočava s ozbiljnim prigovorima glede svoje objašnjavalačke prikladnosti.One of the senses of the term ‘efficacy’ refers to the fact that norm-addresses actually behave as is required of them by legal norms. This sense of the term is one which is generally used within the jurisprudential discussions about whether efficacy is the essential element of the concept of law. According to legal positivism, efficacy is in some cases and in certain ways the condition of legal validity of both legal norms and legal systems. On the other hand, legal realism tends to entirely identify legal validity or reduce it to efficacy. Thus, in both jurisprudential approaches, efficacy tends to play a role in shaping their respective concepts of law. However, while the legal positivistic view does not affect the most standard sense of legal validity of the legal norm (i.e. the legal norms’ membership in the legal system), and does not add much to the explanation of the concept of law by identifying efficacy as the criterion of legal systems’ existence, the legal realistic view is faced with some serious objections regarding its explanatory adequacy

Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy)

In the hunt for a better--and more substantial--awareness of the “law,” The author intends to analyze the different notions related to the “rule of law” and to criticize the conceptions that equate it either to the sum of “law” and “rule” or to the formal assertion that “law rules,” regardless of its relationship to certain principles, including both “negative” and “positive” liberties. Instead, he pretends to scrutinize the principles of the “rule of law,” in general, and in a “constitutional democracy,” in particular, to conclude that the tendency to reduce the “democratic principle” to the “majority rule” (or “majority principle”), i.e. to whatever pleases the majority, as part of the “positive liberty,” is contrary both to the “negative liberty” and to the “rule of law” itself

Chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone in patients with resectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial

Background: This is a randomized, controlled trial of preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Patients were allocated to chemotherapy, consisting of 2-4 cycles of cisplatin and etoposide, followed by surgery (CS group) or surgery alone (S group). Initial results reported only in abstract form in 1997, demonstrated an advantage for overall survival in the CS group. The results of this trial have been updated and discussed in the timeframe in which this study was performed.Methods: This trial recruited 169 patients with OSCC, 85 patients assigned to preoperative chemotherapy and 84 patients underwent immediate surgery. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS), secondary endpoints were disease free survival (DFS) and pattern of failure. Survival has been determined from Kaplan-Meier curves and treatment comparisons made with the log-rank test.Results: There were 148 deaths, 71 in the CS and 77 in the S group. Median OS time was 16 months in the CS group compared with 12 months in the S group; 2-year survival rates were 42% and 30%; and 5-year survival rates were 26% and 17%, respectively. Intention to treat analysis showed a significant overall survival benefit for patients in the CS group (P = 0.03, by the log-rank test; hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95%CI 0.51-0.98). DFS (from landmark time of 6 months after date of randomisation) was also better in the CS-group than in the S group (P = 0.02, by the log-rank test; HR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52-1.0). No difference in failure pattern was observed between both treatment arms.Conclusions: Preoperative chemotherapy with a combination of etoposide and cisplatin significantly improved overall survival in patients with OSCC

Normative Autonomy and Normative Co-ordination: Declarative Power, Representation, and Mandate

In this paper we provide a formal analysis of the idea of normative co-ordination. We argue that this idea is based on the assumption that agents can achieve flexible co-ordination by conferring normative positions to other agents. These positions include duties, permissions, and powers. In particular, we explain the idea of declarative power, which consists in the capacity of the power-holder of creating normative positions, involving other agents, simply by "proclaiming" such positions. In addition, we account also for the concepts of representation, namely the representative's capacity of acting in the name of his principal, and of mandate, which is the mandatee's duty to act as the mandator has requested. Finally, we show how the framework can be applied to represent the contract-net protocol. Some brief remarks on future research and applications conclude this contribution

The Political De-Determination of Legal Rules and the Contested Meaning of the ‘No Bailout’ Clause

Traditional debates on legal theory have devoted a great deal of attention to the question of the determinacy of legal rules. With the aid of social sciences and linguistics, this article suggests a way out of the ‘determinate-indeterminate’ dichotomy that has dominated the academic debate on the topic so far. Instead, a dynamic approach is proposed, in which rules are deemed to undergo processes of political ‘de-determination’ and ‘re-determination’. To illustrate this, the article uses the example of Art. 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the ‘no bailout’ provision, which played a major role in the management of the Euro-crisis. As will be shown, with the start of the crisis, this provision, whose meaning was once scarcely controversial, became the object of intense interpretative disagreement. As it became politically relevant, the rule also became the site of interpretative competitions, until the intervention of the European Court of Justice disambiguated and redefined its meaning

Unorthodoxy in legislation: The Hungarian experience

This paper deals with legal unorthodoxy. The main idea is to study the so-called unorthodox taxes Hungary has adopted in recent years. The study of unorthodox taxes will be preceded by a more general discussion of how law is made under unorthodoxy, and what are the special features of unorthodox legal policy. Unorthodoxy challenges equality before the law and is critical towards mass democracies. It also raises doubts on the operability of the rule of law, relying on personal skills, or loyalty, rather than on impersonal mechanisms arising from checks and balances as developed by the division of political power. Besides, for lack of legal suppositions, legislation suffers from casuistry and regulatory capture