Communication Action as an Integrating
Dynamic Relation of Enterprise Modelling
Remigijus Gustas
Department of Information Technology
University of Karlstad
S-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
Ph: +46-54 83 87 65
Fax: +46-54 83 84 46
E-mail: Remigijus.Gustas@hks.se
Abstract
The focus of this paper is on the modelling primitives which are not only taking into account semantic models
of traditional approaches for information system development, but also put a communication aspect into the
foreground of system analysis. Integration of static, dynamic and non-traditional communication dependencies
is considered as a most important feature of the suggested framework. In this paper is presented an integrated
set of the basic semantic modelling primitives that is adequate to analyse the static and dynamic aspects of
business processes. It is useful for the purpose of understanding and reasoning about information systems at
the enterprise modelling level.
1. Introduction
There is a growing interest to integrate information system development methodologies from different areas such as requirements engineering, method engineering, workflow management, business process modelling, object –oriented approach, etc. Many system analysts recognise that it is not enough to describe semantics of organisational system by concentrating distinctly on one of the methods. For instance, often system designers tend to start by focusing on the static concept dependencies or on behaviour [Yourdon 89] by concentrating either on activity triggering effects or on the control of flows. When re-engineering information systems such view tends to neglect communication aspects [Goldkuhl 95] among several actors of organisation. Dependencies of communication and co-operation between actors and their actions describe a very important part of knowledge about business processes. Unfortunately, communication approaches often neglect some behavioural aspects of system modelling that are basic in information system engineering.
In any information system being developed, the supporting system activity needs to be defined in a context of organisational processes. Therefore, two levels of information system models are necessary [Davis & Olson 85]. Organisational level model which specifies the ideal system structure is referred to as an enterprise model. This model defines the boundaries within which actions and decisions of individuals are to be made. Supporting (implementation) information system model determine information processing needs for a specific application. Conventional methodologies for information system development are heavily centred around the supporting system.
Enterprise modelling takes place in the early and middle phases of information system development cycle. The most difficult part of it is arriving at a complete and consistent description of a new system that sometimes is known as conceptual, semantic or requirements model. Despite of apparent clarity of the semantic models used
by various Object – Oriented methods and CASE tools, the research has shown that a large part of the maintenance costs can be attributed to improper conceptual modelling or to misconception of real requirements [Siau et al. 97].
Recent research in information system requirements engineering, the same as in business and knowledge modelling has indicated a growing attention to the so-called communicative action tradition [Winograd & Flores 86] which is concentrating on the interaction among actors of an information system. Dependencies of communication and co-operation describe a very important part of knowledge about organisational activities [Winter et al. 95]. These activities can be viewed as purposeful human actions that are supported by computerised information systems.
The way in which organisational activity is conceptualised will define what supporting information system is appropriate. Therefore, enterprise models can be used to define information processing needs. Since, activities in the organisational system are expressed in terms of actions of communication and collaboration, this kind of knowledge is crucial to reason about purposeful implications of organisational processes. Most of semantic models, that have been used in traditional static and behavioural modelling approaches for information system development, usually neglect essential communication dependencies of organisational processes.
Various graphical diagrams are used to define semantics of information systems. It is obvious that all notations have been designed to describe one or a few, but not all aspects of information systems. This means that enterprise models should comprise a combination of several notations, each for some particular aspect. This may lead to a difficult question: ‘how is it possible to use several notations in a complimentary way to develop clear models?’ [Riddle 96]. More importantly, it is often possible to employ a notation to describe some other aspects than those it has been designed to use for. A solution could be found in the development of the interaction principles for the basic semantic modelling primitives that are more adequate to analyse static and dynamic aspects of business processes. In this paper we will present and analyse the relationships among a set of abstractions that can be considered as a necessary basis to built an integrated enterprise model.
6HPDQWLF DQG 3UDJPDWLF 5HSUHVHQWDWLRQV
A starting point in a business process re-engineering research, are initial requirement statements that express the wishes of stakeholders about new organisation of a system. These initial requirements are usually presented as a natural language text which is often ambiguous, incomplete and inconsistent. Although the system re-engineering processes can be driven by these pragmatic requirements, usually traditional models are not taking into account dependencies between activities and goals of stakeholders. Moreover interdependencies between goal models and process models are usually defined in a very fuzzy way. Some requirements engineering methodologies have already identified the problem of making system requirements precise, unambiguous, complete and consistent. The process of bridging goals to information system specifications was entitled 'from fuzzy to formal' [F3 Consortium 94].
Various business process diagrams exist because they express the needs and rationales of goals represented by various stakeholders. Therefore, goals may motivate completeness of process descriptions. Pragmatic specifications may explain the presence of some parts of process specifications, which are not necessarily comprehensible without appropriate understanding of goals [Dardenne et al. 93]. Goals lead to the integration of processes and can be used to understand responsibilities of actors and consequences of their actions. Dependencies between goals provide basic elements for detecting and resolving conflicts that arise from the different points of view.
Predominance of the fuzzy thinking in modelling of business activities and goals has led to serious lack of interaction between semantic and pragmatic descriptions of processes. More often, a process goal is merely postulated rather than expressed in terms of semantic diagrams. Such ignorance of a power of goals was recognised in the area of cognitive modelling [Castelfranchi 90]. A very useful framework to consider goal models as an important part of business process representations is presented in change analysis [Goldkuhl & Rostlinger 88].
Organisational processes consist of actions that change and control the situation. Usually desirable situations are formulated in terms of various goals of stakeholders. Considerably less attention in this area has been given to studies of pragmatic dependencies between actors and their actions that may be viewed as possibilities to avoid problematic situations by achieving new situations. The new situations depending on how the intended system would meet specified requirements can be interpreted either as opportunities or goals. Such pragmatic view to process modelling would enable the understanding of 'how' and 'why' [Sowa & Zachman 92] various communicative actions came about.
Enterprise goal modelling [F3 Consortium] is aiming to identify, to document and to analyse the business
in terms of the pragmatic level entities such as goals, problems, causes of problems and opportunities. The goal model addresses the 'why' perspective. It is motivating and driving processes of enterprise re-engineering. Goals are usually understood as states of affairs or situations [Barwise & Perry 83] that should be reached or at least striven for. Situations are resulting from the actions. It does not suffice to talk about the possible states surrounding a present state only, but why a certain path through the transition diagram is chosen must be accounted for. An important part of this is study of the ways in which different goals are related [Gustas et al. 96]. A meta-model of an interplay between pragmatic and semantic specifications is represented in Fig. 2.1.
Fig.2.1. An Interplay between Semantic Specifications and Pragmatic Categories Here: is the total multivalued dependency, is the total functional dependency, is a
In this approach, goals can be defined in terms desirable situations that are interpreted by an actor as final. Such pragmatic notions as objective, vision, goal, etc. express wishes and desires of actors concerning a system they design or control. Problems can be represented in terms of undesirable situations. Usually the problematic situations are defined in terms of restrictions that actors try to avoid. If a specification define the actual situation of a system under development then the expected specification is able to describe the desired changes that are represented by the development action.
6HPDQWLF 'HSHQGHQFLHV
Typically semantic diagrams of an information system specify the dependencies of intended business processes in many different perspectives such as the "why", "what", "who", "where", "when" and "how" [Sowa & Zachman 92]. Various semantic constraints can be described by using intensional and extensional [Martin & Odell 95] dependencies of various kinds. The intensional dependencies define static and behavioural constraints on relationships between information system concepts. Concepts can be either classes or instances (sometimes, instances are referred to as objects or individuals) of classes. The extensional dependencies are constraining the membership of objects. The membership dependency between an object and a concept in object-oriented approach is entitled to as a classification link [Martin & Odell 95]. Semantics of static intensional dependencies can be defined as cardinalities. Cardinalities are represented by a minimum and maximum number of individuals of one concept that can be associated for each individual of another concept, and vice versa [Tsichritzis & Lochovsky 82]. Static dependencies of concepts [Gustas 97] stem from several kinds of semantic models applied in the area of information system analysis and design.
Behavioural constraints of concepts can be defined in terms of dynamic dependencies. Dynamic dependencies typically describe transitions between states and specify the "how" perspective. Actor dependencies represent activities using and producing flows for responsible actors involved. Flow dependencies between actors describe the "who" perspective. Many diagrams, that are used to specify dynamics of processes, concentrate either on the state transition or on the actor communication links.
Most behavioural diagrams in software engineering put into foreground a dynamic link, which is very similar to the understanding of a state transition in a finite state machine. Such transition link, constitute a modelling basis of several diagrams of object-oriented approaches in order to define dynamics of an information system. States are resulting from the actions [Falkenberg et al. 96]. Specification of actual and desired states is crucial to understand semantics of action. What is not included in the definition of a desired state is not part of the goal. Actual static constraints define set of conditions for the object in the current state. The expected state define a set of conditions for an object in the desired state [Gustas 95]. Any action is able to change a state, and visa versa, in order to change a state, the action is needed. Sometimes, a change can be referred to as an event. A real world process is usually not instantaneous, but modelling it as an event, indicates that we do not care about the internal structure [Rumbaugh et al. 91] of it. If we do care, then the event can be interpreted as an action. In this approach, an action is defined in terms of two states. If these states are connected by a transition dependency, then any object of the actual state the action can be transferred to the next state. Actions will be represented by ellipse. The graphical illustration of the transition dependency is presented in Fig. 3.1.
Fig.3.1. The transition dependency between actual and desired situations
The presented state transition dependency (ACTUAL STATE)
the actual state to anew state. Usually, a set of actions carries out a specific task.
Dependencies between actors involved in a particular action, describe the "who" perspective. Dependency links between two actors (agent and recipient) indicate that one actor depends on the other for some flow. The agent can be any actor (customer or performer) who is able to send a flow, for example, individual, group of people, job-role, position, organisation, machine, computer, information system, etc. Flow dependency links notation of the flow dependency between an agent and recipient (AGENT FLOW
represented in Fig.3.2.
F L O W
A G E N T R E C IP IE N T
Fig.3.2. Flow dependency
The flow dependency represents transfer of the ownership right for a particular object of FLOW. Before sending the flow, it is owned by an AGENT and later, dependent on whether the flow would be accepted or not, this ownership may be transferred to a RECIPIENT. The flows can be informational or material. Recipient by depending on agent is able to achieve his goals that he was not able to do without agent. At the same time, the recipient becomes vulnerable to the failure on agent. If agent fails to deliver the flow, a recipient would be unfavourably affected in a capability to achieve his goal. Some details about pragmatic (goal) dependencies [Gustas 95], [Gustas 96], [Gustas 97] can be found in the chapters 6 and 7.
,QWHJUDWLRQ RI %HKDYLRXUDO 'HSHQGHQFLHV
Any flow dependency may imply a communicative action. It is then considered to be an action and a communication flow. It should be noted that many approaches in the area of business process re-engineering do not view actions in these two different perspectives [Goldkuhl 95]. Composition of such action and flow in the process modelling activity result into a more complex abstraction. In such a case, the flow dependency link between two actors specifies that the recipient depends on the agent not just only by the specific flow, but by the action as well.
In the area of information system analysis, a part of requirement specification may be defined in terms of actors and use cases [Jacobson et al. 92]. Usually, the semantic category (type of entity) of an actor is the aid to describe what exist outside [Checkland 81] of the computerised system, and the category of use case shows what should be performed inside of this system. Therefore, a use case model is bounded by a box which defines the boundary between supporting and supported parts of the overall system. In the case of software system
development, an actor is representing the environment of computerised system. Often designers do not define actors in detail. An example of a use case model is presented in Fig.4.1.
Fig.4.1. Use cases and actors
(ACTOR
opposite direction, i.e. ACTION
be performed without a flow. Cohesion of the flow dependency (AGENT
FLOW action dependencies (AGENT
ACTION and ACTION which will be referred to as the communicative action dependency. A graphical notation of it is represented in Fig.4.2.
AGENT RECIPIENT
FLOW Fig.4.2. The communicative action dependency between two actors
The communicative action dependency link between two actors indicates that the recipient depends on the agent by a specific action that transfers the ownership of flow from the agent to recipient. Underlying concepts and dependencies play an important role in various business modelling approaches which are based on communication [Winograd & Flores 86]. A typical action workflow loop can be defined in terms of two communicative action dependencies between actors. Sequences of communicative actions in the workflow diagrams [Action Technologies 93] may serve as a basis to define obligations, authorisations and contracts
[Weigand et al. 97]. Example of the typical workflow loop that is defined in terms of two communicative actions into opposite directions is represented in Fig. 4.2.
CUSTOMER
SUPPLIER
Fig.4.2. Action workflow loop between Customer and Supplier
This graphical example shows that a customer is authorised to send an order to a supplier by using the predefined ordering action. If this order will be accepted by a supplier then he is obliged to supply the specific item. The supplier is also responsible to follow the contract which can be defined in terms of relationships between incoming (ORDER) and outcoming flows (ITEM).
Similar approach was demonstrated in the Strategic dependency model [Yu & Mylopoulos 94]. Strategic dependency links between two actors indicate that one actor depends on the other actor for something in order to attain some goal [Gustas 96]. Strategic dependencies have been defined as resource, task and goal dependencies.By matching the dependencies from agents to recipients, one can reason about opportunities that are available to these actors.
5. An Extended View to the Communicative Action Dependency
Any action can be viewed in two different perspectives. An agent is an active element that carries out a specific task in order to transfer a flow. At the same time, the purpose of action is to change the state of a specific object from the current to expected. Therefore, an action may be considered as a transition between two states. In our approach, an action is also a part of the cooperation process. Therefore, a communicative action represents intentional knowledge about dependency between two actors on some flow.
To produce any kind of flow means to accomplish a task. Therefore, in this approach, an action can be defined at least from two different perspectives: static and dynamic. Described above dependency of a flow between to actors is a basic to define the static view to the process modelling. According to this perspective, an action must carry out its task in the flow processing regardless of what happen elsewhere. Conversely, the dynamic component of the process modelling may denote a relationship between two consequential states that are connected by action. States define two different sets of conditions to initiate and to finish an action. Therefore, a communicative action in this approach is also similar to the notion of a dynamic transition between two states.
Interdependencies between states of actions in a same workflow loop may also involve set of constraints to be considered as definition of a contract between two actors. In the following, we shall use a combined notation to represent two described perspectives of action. It includes both communication action and transition dependencies that are required to specify the semantics of action. Graphical notation of such understanding is presented in Fig.5.1.
Fig.5.1. The communicative action and transition dependency The communication flow dependency defines just a part of a contract between two actors. It is represented graphically by an arrow into and out of a process. Thus, flows between actors represent the static aspect of an action, whereas states referred to as the current and expected, represent the dynamic change. This notation includes both communication and transition dependencies that required to reason about possible effects of an action for the overall business process.
For any communicative action to be performed successfully, it has to satisfy the certain conditions:?Preconditions before an action is started,
?Postconditions after an action has been performed,
?Static conditions.
The preconditions before the action is started are as follows:
), where x ∈ S C , S C∩ S E= ?;
1)An object (x) of action belongs to the CURRENT STATE (S
C
2) A FLOW is owned by an AGENT.
The postconditions followed immediately after an action has been performed are the following:
), where x ∈ S E , S C∩ S E= ?;
1)An object (x) of an action belongs to the EXPECTED STATE (S
E
2) A FLOW is owned by a RECIPIENT.
Static conditions are as follows:
1) A flow is to be sent from one agent to exactly one recipient.
2)If the current and expected state has a least common generalisation X, then the concept X is totally
dependent on a concept of Flow.
Let us take a look to the example of a typical action workflow loop which has been already presented in the previous section. To initiate the ordering action for the object x, the set of constraints of a ‘Not Ordered Product’ have to be satisfied by x. In a context of the initiated flow (Order), the action (Order) is to be performed
successfully if and only if the dependencies of concept ‘Ordered Product’ would be satisfied by x and the Order y is to be accepted by the SUPPLIER (w) from CUSTOMER (z). This example is illustrated graphically in Fig. 5.2.
Fig.5.2. Two examples of communication and transition actions The consequence of the sent ORDER (CUSTOMER ORDER supplier (SUPPLIER
has to have exactly one CUSTOMER and one SUPPLIER. Also, if NOT_ORDERED_PRODUCT and ORDERED_PRODUCT is a PRODUCT, then ORDER has to be associated to one PRODUCT. This can be specified as follows:
ORDER PRODUCT, ORDER ? CUSTOMER, ORDER ? SUPPLIER,
The static dependencies that may be specified between any two concepts (including states) A and B are as follows:
? (1,1;0,1) - Injection dependency which will be denoted by A ? B ,
?
(1,1;0,*) - Total Functional dependency (A B),?
(1,*;0,1) - Surjective partial functional dependency (A ?> B ),?
(1,1;1,1) - Bijection dependency (A B),?
(1,*;1,1) - Surjection dependency (A B),?
(1,*;1,*) - Mutual multivalued dependency (A B),?
(1,*;0,*) - Total Multivalued dependency (A B),? (0,1;0,1) - Partial injectional dependency, (A |? B ) ,
? (0,1;0,*) - Functional (partial) dependency (A
B),? (0,*;0,*) - Multivalued (partial) dependency (A
B).The presented cardinality constraints represent a minimum and maximum number of individuals of the concept B that can be associated for each individual of the concept A, and vice versa [Tsichritzis & Lochovsky 82].
The existence of object x in some state would also impose the fulfilment of a set of static dependencies that are defined for the dependent on the particular state concepts. Two kinds of changes such as disconnection and connection occur concerning the associations of object during the transition of this object from one state to another. A disconnection removes an existing association from existence and connection adds a new association.Sometimes, such change is referred to as a reconnection event [Martin & Odell 96].
The disconnected and connected associations are represented by entirely different relationships of states.The definition of such noteworthy difference of the current and new state is very important to understand the nature of action. Only those processes, that conclude with a state change followed by the disconnection or connection event, can be interpreted as actions. For instance, if B then the concepts A and B can be interpreted as states. The dependency B for the state A would mean that for any object x, x ∈A, a transition of x to the next state B is applicable. To perform such transition, the communicative action is needed. For instance, a graphical example of the noteworthy difference between three states, that are important to understand actions of customer and supplier, is illustrated by Fig.5.3.
Fig.5.3. Constraints to Order and to Supply
In this diagram a graphical notation by Martin/Odell [Martin & Odell 96] is adopted to represent semantics of the static dependencies.
The transition from the state ‘Product Needs to be Ordered’ to the state ‘Ordered Product’ can be performed by the action of Ordering. Existence of object x in state ‘Ordered Product’ would imply that it must have one or many (surjection dependency) ‘Not Supplied Item s’ associated to this Product. The presented static dependencies denote a noteworthy semantic difference between the previous (Product Needs to be Ordered) and the current state of a product. Noteworthy changes performed by actions are important for actors, because they create a need to react. The reaction mechanism can be defined in terms of communication flows. If the state changes are of interest for actors, then they need to go somehow together with flows which are to be sent through actor communication links. For instance, if ‘Product Needs to be Ordered’ then a Customer has to react appropriately. In this particular situation, a Customer is supposed to send an Order to a Supplier. If an item is ‘Not Supplied Item’ then the Supplier is supposed to Supply an Item to the Customer.
The semantic difference between two states ‘Not Supplied Item’ and ‘Supplied Item’ is defined in terms of two semantic links (see ‘Ordered Product’ and ‘Product Needs not to be Ordered’). Because of the transition link between these two boxes, they may be considered as two sequential states of an item, where the state transition can be performed by the action of supply.
Simultaneous declassification of an object and classification it into another type of concept in object-oriented approach is entitled as a reclassification event [Martin & Odell 95]. Reclassification event is very similar to what is described as a state transition perspective in this approach. Sometimes, an object passes several states, and is then destroyed. If a recipient rejects the flow, then the object has to remain in the current state, which guaranties that it will not be affected by any change. This also could mean the failure of an action. If the agent is not going to deliver a specific flow to a recipient, then it will cause a failure of the action as well.
6. Pragmatic Dependencies in an Extended Action Workflow Loop
The concept of action workflow [Action Technologies 93] is central in the field of business process re-engineering. Business processes can be defined as series of coherent activities that create a result, which has a value for a customer. Business process is seen as a goal driven activity of solving a problem through performing a task for a customer. It usually cuts across organisational boundaries within an organisational system. In this approach, business processes are viewed as value creating activity chains that consist of the typical action workflow loops.
Actor goals can be interpreted as a driving force to create viable chains of activities of the overall business process. A typical action workflow loop include two communication flows sent into opposite directions. Thus, a work activity is the fulfilment of commitments by one actor to the satisfaction of another. The customer is an actor who initiate the work to achieve his goal. The performer is an actor who is doing the work. Graphical representation of a typical workflow loop is depicted in Fig.6.1.
CUSTOMER PERFORMER
FLOW
Fig.6.1. Graphical representation of a basic workflow loop
According to the presented workflow loop, the first flow is created by a customer. The receiver of this flow is a performer. Flow dependencies in two opposite directions imply that certain contractual relationships are established between those two actors. In the reality they are represented either by the commitment or the contract [Goldkuhl 95] between customer and performer. A commitment is something that must be fulfilled to achieve some goal of a customer. Sometimes, it is not only a commitment, but also an offer to the performer. The very natural way of acceptance of such offer implies initiation of the flow into the opposite direction.
Any workflow loop is a business process that defines a set of responsibilities as well as set of requests that a customer can ask a performer. Constraints on responsibilities and requests can be specified in terms of situations. Usually, the customer is an actor who initiates the action in order to achieve his goal that is referred to as a desired situation (DS2) resulting from the action of performer. The goal corresponds to a final situation in a communicative action workflow loop. Once agreement is reached, by using flow in the forward direction, a customer is asking a performer for initiation of some action. If request corresponds to a contract, it will always create a situation (DS1) that is an opportunity for a performer (PERFORMER o DS1).
A pragmatic link between an actor and his desired situation is entitled to as a goal dependency ( g ). The problem link ( p ) will be used to refer a problematic situation of an actor. The opportunity link ( o ) is referring to an intermediate situation between a problematic and desired. Sometimes, opportunities are considered to as achievable situations that are not regarded as final, i.e. situations that actors may want to take advantage. If so, they may be interpreted as intermediate goals. Graphical notations of the pragmatic dependencies are presented in Fig.6.2.
will be accepted) then, by the action of customer, this problematic situation would be replaced to a desired situation (DS1). In the next step, a performer by sending Flow 2 has a possibility to change his problematic
situation (PS2) to the expected situation (DS1) that is regarded to as a goal of customer (Customer g DS2).
Therefore, a customer by depending on a performer, is able to avoid his problem and to achieve goal. Graphical example of semantic and pragmatic dependencies of a typical action workflow loop between customer and supplier is depicted in Fig. 6.3.
Fig.6.3. Example of dependencies in an action workflow loop Satisfaction of actors is closely related to their goals and problems. In order to activate any action, an agent has to know about the opportunities available. If a recipient is viewing an intermediate situation as an opportunity to achieve his goal or to avoid his problem, then the flow that has been sent by an agent would be accepted. By matching the flow dependencies from agents to recipients, one can explore possibilities that are available to these actors. If a performer becomes vulnerable to the failure of delivering the flow then the recipient would be concerned about viability of a particular communicative action dependency. Viability of actions can be defined in terms of pragmatic links.
A communicative action workflow loop represents the unit of work within a business process. Overall business process can be specified by linking such workflow loops [Action Technologies 93]. Any actor in a loop can act as both agent and recipient. It means that a recipient in the first part of the workflow loop can be interpreted as an agent in the second. It should be noted, that this understanding of the dynamics of actions is in correspondence with a well-known modelling technique such as data flow diagram [Yourdon 89] and the object flow diagram [Martin & Odell 95]. Specification of the actor dependencies in this approach may be described in terms of the semantic and the pragmatic perspective of process modelling.
7. The Influence Dependency
The semantic and pragmatic dependencies in the action workflow loop are very important to analyse viability of business processes. It should be noted that viability of a single communicative action dependency between two actors guaranties that the desired situation create a new possibility for a recipient of the flow. A customer tries to initiate the action, because he wants to avoid a problematic situation or to achieve a new desired situation. By depending on a performer, a customer is able to achieve a situation that can not be reached without involvement of a specific performer.
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction of actors is dependent on whether a new situation is interpreted as a goal, opportunity or a problem. New situation in a first part of the typical action workflow loop, creates a problem which can be solved by some action of performer. If a performer has no possibility to use appropriate action, a customer becomes vulnerable to the failure to achieve his goal. In this case, a performer would not deliver the flow to a customer. If the performer fails to deliver a flow to the customer, then customer becomes vulnerable to the failure.
Any two goals of different actors can be contradictory, if one of them is interpreted as a problem. Contradictory goal influence negatively or hinder to achieve a desirable situation. This means that the interpretation of the notion of goal and problem is relative and it is dependent on the actor objectives. The same situation can be interpreted as a goal for one actor, or as a problem for another. If a customer’s goal is in contradiction to a performer’s goal then this customer may become unfavourably affected in his capability to achieve some goal.
In this chapter, two pragmatic relationships that are entitled to as negative influence dependency ( - )
and positive influence dependency ( + ) will be defined. The negative influence dependency has been introduced in F3 project [F3 Consortium 94] to specify contradictions between goals. The negative influence dependency from A to B (A - B) indicates that the goal A hinders to the achievement of goal B. Let us have the following semantic dependencies:
CUSTOMER PERFORMER and S1
PERFORMER CUSTOMER and S3
In the context of a typical action workflow loop, the conditions for existence of the negative influence dependency are as follows:
if CUSTOMER p S1 and CUSTOMER g S4 then S1- S4 .
This axiom specifies that a problematic situation (S1) hinders to the achievement of desired situation (S4). The graphical illustration of the negative and positive influence dependencies among a problematic, intermediate and desired situation is presented in Fig.7.1.
Fig.7.1. Graphical representation of influence dependencies
Moreover, in a context of an opportunity (S2), the following axiom is true: if CUSTOMER p S1 , CUSTOMER o S2 and CUSTOMER g S4 then S2 - S1, S2 + S4 . According to this definition, an opportunity must influence negatively a problematic situation and it must influence positively a desired situation.
The positive influence dependency ( + ) between two goals means that the achievement of the first goal, would contribute to the achievement of the second. It should be noted that any problem that hinders to a problematic situation may be considered as an opportunity for some actor, i.e.
if PERFORMER p S3 and S2 - S3 then PERFORMER o S2.
Any opportunity that influences positively a desired situation may be considered as an opportunity as well. Thus, if PERFORMER g S5 and S4 + S5 then PERFORMER o S4.
A customer is the actor who initiate an action (see action of a customer in the previous chapter) to achieve his goal that corresponds to the desired situation (S4). If both actors in the action workflow loop are not considering a new situation (S2) as an opportunity, then this action workflow loop would not be viable. Definition of the pragmatic criterion to ensure the viability of an action workflow loop can be based on the introduced set of dependencies. If two actors in an action workflow loop have contradictory goals, then this loop may be not viable. Contradictory goal can influence negatively or hinder to the achievement of a desirable situation. The pragmatic part of the viability criterion in the context of the presented action workflow loop can be described as follows:
If CUSTOMER p S1, CUSTOMER o S2, PERFORMER o S2,
PERFORMER p S3, PERFORMER o S4 and CUSTOMER g S4 then
S1- S4 , S2 + S4 , S2 - S1 , S4 -
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction of actors can be studied in terms of pragmatic dependencies. It should be noted that the additional pragmatic links can be derived according to the following inference rules:
if A+ B , B - C then A - C ,
if A- B , B - C then A + C ,
if A+ B , B + C then A + C .
The negative and positive influence dependencies have been first introduced in F3 project [F3 Consortium]. In this approach, the negative influence dependency was defined in terms of the semantic dependencies. It is useful too specify contradictions between two goals of different actors. The negative influence pragmatic relationship from one situation to another indicates that the first hinders to the achievement of the second. If one of the goals hinders to the achievement of the other, then these goals are in conflict. The positive influence dependency between two goals indicates that the achievement of one goal helps to achieve the second.
A set of the negative and positive influence dependencies in the overall business process constitute a formal basis for a pragmatic part of inconsistency analysis.
8. Example of Reasoning about Consistency of Business Processes
A way normally people analyse business processes is by reasoning on a basis of the model for a particular part of the system. Many analyst in the area of information system development, define their systems in terms of initial conceptual models, and later extend them by making a whole lot of assumptions. Very often these conceptual models are quite vague, because of several reasons. Sometimes, the concept dependencies in a semantic diagram may be not strictly defined or they can be interpreted ambiguously. Also, the system model may be still not clear enough, even if the developed by experts diagrams are presented in a formal way. This can take place for the reason that a description of the system is inconsistent. Some inference rules of the presented semantic and pragmatic dependencies can be used to reason about consistency of business processes.
Let us take an example of ordering and supplying process that has already been used in this paper (see Fig.
5.3). An action of order and supply in the workflow loop can be activated to deliver a result for a customer. The transition of object from the state ‘Product Needs to be Ordered’ to the state ‘Ordered Product’ create a new opportunity for a customer. Existence of an object in state ‘Ordered Product’ would imply (see static dependencies of Fig. 5.3) that it must have one or many ‘Not Supplied Item s’ associated to this Product. If it is so, then to avoid a problematic situation a Supplier has to react appropriately. In this particular case, a Supplier is supposed to supply a specific ‘Not Supplied Item’ to a Customer. This action would enable a transition of a specific object from ‘Not Supplied Item’ to ‘Supplied Item’. The transition of this object can be performed by the action of supply, which eventually has to be accepted by a customer.
Let our diagram under discussion will be extended and analysed in the context of the next two communication actions that are represented in Fig.8.1.
Fig.8.1. Communicative actions to invoice and to pay
Conversely to the previous action workflow loop, a business process that is represented in Fig.8.1, has to deliver a result for a supplier. If the final state ‘Paid Item’ of the second communication action will be interpreted as a goal of a customer, then the overall business process may be viable. In this case, it should be possible to transfer an object from the state ‘Not Supplied Item’ to the state ‘Paid Item’ with the condition that the state ‘Invoiced Item’would be regarded to as an opportunity for both actors. To avoid the problematic situation ‘Not Supplied Item’, a supplier is supposed to invoice a specific Customer. This action would enable the transition of an object from a ‘Not Supplied Item’ to ‘Invoiced Item’. An integrated business process consisting of two workflow loops is graphically represented in Fig. 8.2.
Fig.8.2. Example of an integrated diagram
This example shows an integration of two previously described business processes that are represented in Fig.8.1 and Fig.5.3. The diagram asserts that the action of invoice is to be triggered in parallel with the action of supply. It is represented by two transition dependencies from the same state. According to the presented semantic links, there is the only possible way to move away an object from the state ‘Not Supplied Item ’ if and only if both actions are activated at the same time. The consequence of two accepted flows such as invoice and item, must be the action of payment.
Each of workflow loops in the diagram corresponds to a separate contract between customer and supplier.Any flow in a communicative action loop in the forward direction defines an authorisation, while obligation
[Weigand et al. 97] corresponds to the flow in the backward direction. Static relationships between states of each action workflow loop define conditions of a contract. According to the conditions of integrity between static and dynamic dependencies, the contracts of the presented diagram (see Fig.8.2) can be defined as follows:
If CUSTOMER
ORDER SUPPLIER then SUPPLIER ITEM If SUPPLIER
INVOICE CUSTOMER then CUSTOMER PAYMENT The activation of the invoicing action would mean the presence of a complimentary flow (Item) that is initiated by the action of supply and visa versa. Such condition of action concurrency would imply the following rules:
If SUPPLIER
INVOICE CUSTOMER then SUPPLIER ITEM If SUPPLIER
ITEM INVOICE The presented rules and dependencies exemplify the actor communication perspective of reasoning about flows.
The second perspective of reasoning about semantic consistency of business processes is based on the inference rules that are defined for the transition dependency (). In the area of enterprise modelling, we concentrate on a particular subset of semantic links, which is entitled to as totally applicable dependencies. The formal procedure of reasoning is based on the following inference rules:
1. if A ?> C then A
2. if A
B , B
C then A 3. C then A 4. if A ? C then A
5.if A
6.if A ?
7.if A B , B C then A C ,
8.if A ?>
9. B , B C then A
Suppose we need to predict a possibility of transition from the state ‘Product Needs to be Ordered’ to the state ‘Paid Item’. The formal prove can be shown on the presented diagram (see diagram in Fig.8.2):
If Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered ?> Not_Supplied_Item then Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered
If Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered Not_Supplied_Item, Not_Supplied_Item
Not_Supplied_Item Supplied_Item if and only if Not_Supplied_Item
If Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered Not_Supplied_Item, Not_Supplied_Item
Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered
If Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered Invoiced_Item, Invoiced_Item
Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered
The presented chain of inferences illustrates consistency of the second perspective that is based on reasoning about the state transition dependency.
Two perspectives of reasoning at the semantic level that are based on communication and transition links are not sufficient to assure consistency of the overall business process. If customer and supplier have contradictory goals, then the presented two workflow loops would not be viable. Inconsistent goals of two actors may hinder to the achievement of the desirable state ‘Item Paid’. The pragmatic dependencies of these two workflow loops have to satisfy the viability criterion. Let the pragmatic dependencies for the presented in Fig.8.2 workflow loops are as follows:
Customer p Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered, Customer o Ordered_Product,
Customer g Supplied_Item, Supplier p Not_Supplied_Item, Supplier o
Supplier g Paid_Item, Customer o Paid_Item.
According to the presented axioms, the following negative and positive influence dependencies can be derived: Ordered_Product - Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered, Ordered_Product + Supplied_Item,
Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered - Supplied_Item, Paid_Item - Product_Needs_to_be_Ordered,
Invoiced_Item - Not_Supplied_Item, Invoiced_Item + Paid_Item,
Not_Supplied_Item - Paid_Item.
The negative and positive dependencies between various situations in a business process are imposed by different intentions of actors. If influences in the action workflow loop are incompatible (A+ B and A - B), then this situation is referred to as an inconsistency. By using a set of influences between situations from the point of view of different actors, the inconsistency of goals can be identified. It is not so difficult to see that the pragmatic dependencies that are taken from both action workflow loops are consistent.
Inconsistency between actor goals in a context of the same business process would mean that one of the actors is vulnerable to the failure in the achievement of his goal. Inconsistencies may be eliminated either through negotiation among actors. Sometimes, the inconsistency can be avoided by disregarding some of the goals or by disregarding some of the actors. To the best of our knowledge, there were no well defined formal criteria to analyse inconsistency of pragmatic links on the basis of semantic dependencies. The presented inference rules of dependencies can be regarded as a starting point for the investigation of inconsistency among diagrams of various owners.
&RQFOXGLQJ 5HPDUNV
Modelling of organisational processes require a number of perspectives. There are often many actors in an organisation, each with a number of goals. In our approach, we have shown how to bring together semantic and pragmatic descriptions of business processes and to combine insights from the point of view of different goals. An attempt of the suggested generic framework for enterprise modelling is to bridge goals of various actors and a
way the business processes are described.Interaction of semantic and pragmatic dependencies is an essential feature of the framework. In this paper we have presented an interplay of semantic and pragmatic dependencies that can be considered as a necessary basis to reason about different perspectives of process diagrams.
The analysis of the actor and their goal dependencies begins with the premise that motivation of actions can be obtained on a basis of dependencies between goals. Every actor has motivation and rationale behind his action, which can be expressed in the form of pragmatic diagrams. Goals and desires of actors constitute an important part of knowledge about business processes. Pragmatic dependencies can explain the freedom of a specific actor and the extent to which actors are exposed to danger. In this paper, an overview and description of some properties of semantic and pragmatic dependencies is presented.
Lack of integrity among various concepts in the business process representations indicate a lower semantic quality of the enterprise modelling and may be a reason of a poor understanding what is going on in the system. Sometimes, experienced system analysts can reason about concepts that are related to one another even when the various static and dynamic constraints are not fully represented. They also play out scenarios with the objects and actively engage in analysis of semantic dependencies between business actions and actors involved. Nevertheless, the presented principle of integration seems to be a very useful tool to automate the process of enterprise engineering. Such more complex approach is needed where several business processes can be viewed differently by various stakeholders.
One of the problems of enterprise modelling is to bridge the static and behavioural dependencies of various diagrams. The basic schema of communication approach in this paper is taken as a foundation to examine an interplay of various semantic dependencies. Action workflow diagrams offer limited analytical capabilities of integration between static and dynamic aspects. Traditional data flow diagrams are closer to the technical system development stage, therefore, they do not capture organisational aspects. Although object-oriented models are quite comprehensible for users, they do not provide a complete integration between static and dynamic constraints. A set of the presented dependencies is semantically rich enough to take into account responsibilities as well as set of requests that a customer can ask a performer. Agreements can be also described in terms of static dependencies that are defined for various states of an action workflow loop.
Concept of the action workflow is central in the field of business process re-engineering. Business processes can be defined as series of coherent activities that create a result, which has a value for a customer. Traditionally, enterprise models are based on entity notations provided by several links. Links are established to capture semantic detail about relationships among concepts, activities and actors. The ability to describe a business process in a clear and sufficiently rich way is acknowledged as crucial to enterprise engineering. In this paper, some essential principles for the development of a consistent system diagram are described.
The presented set of semantic dependencies can be viewed as a uniform basis to reason about semantic integrity of the overall business process. The suggested generic framework focuses on the modelling of semantic and pragmatic constraints, where several actors co-operate to achieve new desired states. The presented dependencies provide a uniform formal basis in the area of concurrent enterprise modelling. The purpose of such analysis is that eventually enterprise models can be used as a tool to assist reasoning and validate various aspects of diagrams before they are implemented.
References
[Action Technologies 93]
Action Technologies. Action Workflow Analysis Users Guide. Action Technologies, 1993.
[Barwise & Perry 83]
Barwise, J. and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1983. [Castelfranchi 90]
C Castelfranchi. Social Power: A missing point in Multi-Agent, DAI and HCI. Decentralised A.I. North-
Holland, pp. 49-62, 1990.
[Checkland 81]
P B Checkland. Systems Thinking, System Practice. Wiley, Chichester, 1981.
[Davis & Olson 85]
G B Davis, M Olson. Management Information Systems. McGraw Hill, New York, 1985.
[Dardenne et al. 93]
A Dardenne, A van Lamsweerde, S Fickas. Goal Directed Requirements Acquisition. Science of Computer
Programming, 20, pp. 3-50, 1993.
[Falkenberg et al. 96]
E D Fankelberg et al. A Framework of Information System Concepts. The Report of the IFIP WG8.1 Task
Group FRISCO, 1996.
[F3 Consortium 94]
F3 Consortium. 'F3 Reference Manual (Esprit III Project 6612)', SISU, Kista, Sweden, 1994.
[Goldkuhl 95]
G Goldkuhl. Information as Action and Communication. The Infological Equation, Goteborg University,
Sweden, pp. 63-79, 1995.
[Goldkuhl & Rostlinger 88]
G Goldkuhl, A Roslinger. Forandringsanalys - Arbetsmetodik och forhallningssatt for goda forandringsbeslut.
Studentliteratur, Lund, 1988.
[Gustas et al. 96]
R Gustas, J Bubenko jr., B Wangler. Goal Driven Enterprise Modelling: Bridging Pragmatic and Semantic Descriptions of Information Systems. Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases VII, Y Tanaka, H Kangassalo, H Jaakola, A Yamamoto (eds.), IOS Press, 1996 , pp. 73 -91.
[Gustas 95]
R Gustas. A Basis for Integration within Enterprise Modelling. Second Int. Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Washington, DC Area, August 23-25, 1995, pp. 107-120. [Gustas 96]
R Gustas. A Framework for Description of Pragmatic Dependencies and Inconsistency of Goals. Proc. of the second Int. conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, June 12-14, 1996, Juan-Les-Pins, France, pp.
625-643.
[Gustas 97]
R Gustas. Semantic and pragmatic dependencies of information systems /Monograph. Kaunas, Technologija, 1997, 274p.
[Jacobson et al. 92]
I Jacobson, M Christerson, P Jonnson, G Overgaard. Object - Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case
Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., New York, 1992.
[Martin & Odell 95]
J Martin, J J Odell. Object-Oriented Methods: Foundation. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
[Martin & Odell 96]
J Martin, J J Odell. Object-Oriented Methods: Pragmatic Considerations. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1996. [Riddle 96]
W E Riddle. Fundamental Process Modelling Concepts. NSF Workshop on Workflow and Process Automation in Information Systems, May 8-10, 1996.
[Rumbaugh et al. 91]
J Rumbaugh, M Blaha, W Premerlani, F Eddy, W Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modelling and Design, Prentice Hall Int., 1991.
[Siau et al. 97]
K Siau, Y Wand, I Benbasat. The Relative Importance of Structural Constraints and Surface Semantics in Information Modelling. Information Systems, Vol. 22, No 2/3, pp 155-170, 1997.
[Sowa & Zachman 92]
J F Sowa, J A Zachman. Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture.
IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), pp. 590 - 616, 1992.
[Tsichritzis & Lochovsky 82]
D C Tsichritzis, F H Lochovsky. Data Models. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1982.
[Yu & Mylopoulos 94]
E Yu, J Mylopoulos. from E-R to 'A-R' - Modelling Strategic Actor Relationships for Business Process
Reengineering. 13th Int. Conf. on the Entity - Relationship Approach, P Loucopoulos (ed.), Manchester, U.K., 1994.
[Yourdon 89]
E Yourdon. Modern Structured Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1989.
[Weigand et al. 97]
H Weigand, E Verharen, F Dignum. Dynamic Business Models as a basis for Interoperable Transaction
Design. Information Systems, Vol. 22, No 2/3, pp 139-154, 1997.
[Winograd & Flores 86]
T Winograd, F Flores. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Norwood, NJ, 1986.
[Winter et al. 95]
M C Winter, D H Brown, P B Checkland. A Role of Soft systems Methodology in Information System development. European Journal of Information Systems, No 4, pp. 130-142, 1995.
ActionScript3 Flash编程无基础入门教程 如果你觉得https://www.doczj.com/doc/505877428.html,上的很多文章看太深奥，或者你是一个没有任何程序基础想学as，或者你连flash都不会。那么这篇文章就是你茫茫大海上的明灯，让你找到学习as的方向。 做过Flash动画的Flash爱好者们都知道，要做好一个Flash动画，AS是必不可少的，即使只是很简单的几句代码也能起到整个Flash画龙点睛的作用。这里我只简单的介绍一下AS的基本常识。 首先我们要了解AS要写在什么地方，什么时候AS会被触发执行。 1、帧： 写在关键帧上面的AS，当时间轴上的指针走到这个关键帧的时候，就写在这个帧上面的AS就被触发执行了。常见的例子有在影片结尾的帧写上stop() 等。操作方法就是点选关键帧，然后打开AS面板。 2、按钮： 不同于帧上面的AS，按钮上面的AS是要有触发条件的。要把AS写在按钮上，操作方法是点选目标按钮，然后打开AS面板。举个例子能说的更明白。 假设有一个动画，要让它在播放完同时停止，那么，你要做的就是在这个动画的最后一帧写AS stop(); 再假设有个按钮，效果是按下按钮后停止播放，那么步骤如下。 做一个按钮，放到主场景，点选按钮，然后打开AS面板。现在如果也在按钮上写 stop(); 那么，输出的时候就会提示错误。正确的应该这样写 on(release){ stop(); } 这里要比帧的动画多这些代码: on(release){} , 整个代码翻译过来就是: 当(松开){ 停止 } 红色的代码表示鼠标的触发事件事件之一，这里用的是release 松开，按钮的常用事件: release 松开 releaseOutside 在按钮外面松开 press 按下 rollOver 鼠标进入按钮的感应区 rollOut 鼠标离开按钮的感应区 现在很明确了:写在按钮上面的AS一定就是这种格式的： on(事件){要执行的代码} 3、MC(电影剪辑) 如果你看懂了上面的内容，那么写在MC上面的AS和写在按钮上的大同小异。操作方法就是点选MC，然后打 开AS面板。看个例子 onClipEvent(load){ stop(); } 同样，MC需要一个事件来触发AS的执行。翻译这段代码就是 当剪辑(载入){ 停止 } 红色代码同样表示一个事件。MC的事件有下面这些: load 载入,当MC出现的时候执行。也就是除非卸载这个MC，否则load事件内的代码只执行一次
英语语法大全 初中英语语法 学习提纲 一、词类、句子成分和构词法： 1、词类：英语词类分十种： 名词、形容词、代词、数词、冠词、动词、副词、介词、连词、感叹词。 1、名词(n.)：表示人、事物、地点或抽象概念的名称。如：boy, morning, bag, ball, class, orange. ：who, she, you, it . 主要用来代替名词。如)： 2、代词(pron.3、形容词(adj..)：表示人或事物的性质或特征。如：good, right, white, orange . 4、数词(num.)：表示数目或事物的顺序。如：one, two, three, first, second, third, fourth. 5、动词(v.)：表示动作或状态。如：am, is,are,have,see . 6、副词(adv.)：修饰动词、形容词或其他副词,说明时间、地点、程度等。如：now, very, here, often, quietly, slowly. 7、冠词(art..)：用在名词前,帮助说明名词。如：a, an, the. 8、介词(prep.)：表示它后面的名词或代词与其他句子成分的关系。如in, on, from, above, behind. 9、连词(conj.)：用来连接词、短语或句子。如and, but, before . 10、感叹词(interj..)表示喜、怒、哀、乐等感情。如：oh, well, hi, hello. 2、句子成分：英语句子成分分为七种：主语、谓语、宾语、定语、状语、表语、宾语补足语。 1、主语是句子所要说的人或事物,回答是“谁”或者“什么”。通常用名词或代词担任。如：I'm Miss Green.(我是格林小姐) 2、谓语动词说明主语的动作或状态,回答“做(什么)”。主要由动词担任。如：Jack cleans the room every day. (杰克每天打扫房间) 3、表语在系动词之后,说明主语的身份或特征,回答是“什么”或者“怎么样”。通常由名词、 代词或形容词担任。如：My name is Ping ping .(我的名字叫萍萍) 4、宾语表示及物动词的对象或结果,回答做的是“什么”。通常由名词或代词担任。如：He can spell the word.(他能拼这个词) 有些及物动词带有两个宾语,一个指物,一个指人。指物的叫直接宾语,指人的叫间接宾语。间接 宾语一般放在直接宾语的前面。如：He wrote me a letter . (他给我写了 一封信) 有时可把介词to或for加在间接宾语前构成短语,放在直接宾语后面,来强调间接宾语。如：He wrote a letter to me . (他给我写了一封信)
两学一做当先锋改革强军显作为演讲 稿 我，是一名入警大学生，11年大学毕业时，我毅然决然的选择了携笔从戎，成为了光荣的边防部队中的一员。XX 年1月，刚刚结束集训的我，被分配到了丽江边防检查站。每当我向朋友说起我在丽江工作时，他们总是不解的问我：丽江边防？丽江又不在边境线，哪来的边防？也许，这也是在座的许多人对我们这支部队的疑惑，可大家却忘了，我们美丽的丽江，为了更好的迎接海外游客，开通了多达五条的国际航线，我们丽江边防检查站，正是驻守在丽江机场这个国门一线的哨兵，担负着服务广大出入境旅客的职责任务。4年多来，我们顺利查验了近XX架次的出入境航班，验放了多达18万名的中外游客。而在这些数字的背后，却有着一个关于梦想的故事。 我刚到丽江站的时候，丽江站才刚刚组建，大门上连块门牌都没有，全站加起来，只有17个人，整个营区空旷得出奇，连说话稍微大声一些，都感觉带着回音。 入夜，一月的丽江出奇的寒冷，宿舍里除了两张床，再无一物，我几乎是把所有的军装盖在被子上才觉得温暖，睡不着的时候，我在想，这样的一个单位，日子怎么过呀！ 之后的日子里，我们第一批丽江边检人拿着清扫工具，打扫着空空荡荡的营区与办公楼；我们在仅有的一间会议室
里开着武警大会，因为椅子不够，很多人得站着；我们去山上挖树苗回单位栽种来美化营区；因为缺少桌椅电脑，综合办公室的战友必须排队使用电脑办公；因为兵员紧张，所有干部白天要上班，夜里还要负责岗哨；我们自己动手画篮球场的标线，自己动手搭篮球架；12年3月15日，丽江站正式挂牌成立、5月31日，第一架飞往香港的航班我们顺利验放……这一件件、一桩桩的小事，成了我最珍贵的回忆。 如今的丽江站，有了一流的信息化硬件设施，有了崭新的官兵宿舍，有了宽敞的食堂，有了丰富的文体活动场所。可我不会忘记我们曾经度过的那段艰难的日子。 这段日子，记录的不仅仅是丽江站从无到有的岁月，更是一群丽江边检人带着"敢想、敢试、敢干"精神顽强拼搏的见证。我们缺少物质上的支持，可我们有一个信仰：党和国家选择在丽江设立机场口岸，就是需要我们为口岸的顺畅运行保驾护航，我们不可以辜负这一期望。为了这一个信仰，丽江边检人已经在这片热土上度过了四个春夏秋冬！ 工作之余，会有战友聊天时说起老单位的情况，对比丽江站，觉得丽江站很艰苦。我很羡慕的听着他们聊老单位的一切，觉得他们的军旅生涯真是丰富多彩，可对我而言，丽江站是我军旅生涯的第一站，可就这第一站在一步步变得更加美好时，军改的消息如雷鸣般轰入我们每一名官兵的脑海里。一时间，众说纷纭、谣言四起。我忽然觉得，我的第
计算机系统结构试题及答案 一、选择题（50分，每题2分，正确答案可能不只一个，可单选 或复选） 1.（CPU周期、机器周期）是内存读取一条指令字的最短时间。 2.（多线程、多核）技术体现了计算机并行处理中的空间并行。 3.（冯?诺伊曼、存储程序）体系结构的计算机把程序及其操作数 据一同存储在存储器里。 4.（计算机体系结构）是机器语言程序员所看到的传统机器级所具 有的属性，其实质是确定计算机系统中软硬件的界面。 5.（控制器）的基本任务是按照程序所排的指令序列，从存储器取 出指令操作码到控制器中，对指令操作码译码分析，执行指令操作。 6.（流水线）技术体现了计算机并行处理中的时间并行。 7.（数据流）是执行周期中从内存流向运算器的信息流。 8.（指令周期）是取出并执行一条指令的时间。 9.1958年开始出现的第二代计算机，使用（晶体管）作为电子器件。 10.1960年代中期开始出现的第三代计算机，使用（小规模集成电路、 中规模集成电路）作为电子器件。 11.1970年代开始出现的第四代计算机，使用（大规模集成电路、超 大规模集成电路）作为电子器件。 12.Cache存储器在产生替换时，可以采用以下替换算法：（LFU算法、 LRU算法、随机替换）。
13.Cache的功能由（硬件）实现，因而对程序员是透明的。 14.Cache是介于CPU和（主存、内存）之间的小容量存储器，能高 速地向CPU提供指令和数据，从而加快程序的执行速度。 15.Cache由高速的（SRAM）组成。 16.CPU的基本功能包括（程序控制、操作控制、时间控制、数据加 工）。 17.CPU的控制方式通常分为：（同步控制方式、异步控制方式、联合 控制方式）反映了时序信号的定时方式。 18.CPU的联合控制方式的设计思想是：（在功能部件内部采用同步控 制方式、在功能部件之间采用异步控制方式、在硬件实现允许的情况下，尽可能多地采用异步控制方式）。 19.CPU的同步控制方式有时又称为（固定时序控制方式、无应答控 制方式）。 20.CPU的异步控制方式有时又称为（可变时序控制方式、应答控制 方式）。 21.EPROM是指（光擦可编程只读存储器）。 22.MOS半导体存储器中，（DRAM）可大幅度提高集成度，但由于（刷 新）操作，外围电路复杂，速度慢。 23.MOS半导体存储器中，（SRAM）的外围电路简单，速度（快），但 其使用的器件多，集成度不高。 24.RISC的几个要素是（一个有限的简单的指令集、CPU配备大量的 通用寄存器、强调对指令流水线的优化）。
英语的时态问题 英语的时态可以分为：“时”(time) 和“体”(aspect)（又称为态）。时是指动作发生的时间，体是指动作发生时的状态。时间与体就象是坐标里的横轴和纵轴，它们的结合交织出了瞬息万变的时空，也构成了英语动词的时态问题。 时间分为：过去，现在，将来，过去将来 体分为：一般（在某个时间点）， 进行（延续某个时间段）， 完成（完成某个时间段） 完成进行（延续某个完成的时间段） 如此以来，英语中就有16种时态变化，现在就用动词为write例，看看它们的形式。 注意：里面的斜体字部分，由于时态过于复杂，几乎没有人真正去应用它们，可以忽略不记。 下面就常用的12种时态，（其中还有三种相对用的较少的，请注意）。具体分析一下。 一．一般现在时 表示现在的时间“点”上发生的动作或者状态，常用于以下的情况 1、经常重复发生的动作或存在的状态，多与often, always, usually, sometimes, everyday, 等时 间状语连用。 He takes a walk after supper everyday My mother and father work at the same company. 2、表示性格，特征，能力。 Mr. Smith hates fish and never eats any. 3、表示客观真理或者普遍事实。
The sun rises in the east. 二．一般过去时 表示过去某时发生的动作或者状态，常和表示过去某个时间“点”的时间状语(yesterday, last week, 3 years ago, in 1987)连用 She bought a car last week. He came to help me at that time. 三．一般将来时 表示将来的时间“点”上发生的动作或者状态。 The train will arrive soon. We shall know the news tomorrow. 四．过去将来时 过去某个时间“点”上将要发生的动作或状态。 I asked her where she would spend her holiday. I told my father that I should go home next Monday. 五．现在进行时 表示现在的时间“段”上正在延续进行的动作或者状态。 I’m doing some washing. What are you doing? 六．过去进行时 在过去某一个时间“段”正在延续进行的动作。 I was working in my office at eight o’clock yesterday evening. He was making a phone call when I saw him. 七．将来进行时 在将来某个时间“段”正在发生的动作，一般表示一种猜测和未来的计划，一般不太常用。What will you be doing at 3 o’clock tomorrow afternoon? （明天下午三点你将在做什么哪） 八．现在完成时 表示动作在一个时间“段”的完成，而且这个时间段是从过去某一点延续到现在的。经常跟时间状语since 1987，for 10 hours , by the last year相连。 My brother has been ill for 3 days. I have not seen her since 1991. 九．过去完成时 在过去的某个时间“段”里动作的完成，从过去的一点再到过去的另一点。或者称为过去的过去。 He said that he had written her a letter. Helen rang me up after I had gone to sleep.
逐梦军旅演讲稿 逐梦军旅演讲稿篇一 尊敬的各位领导、各位老师，亲爱的同学们：大家下午好!我是来自高20xx级2班的一名学生，今天很荣幸能够代表本届高三学子在这里发表演讲。高考在即，我们每一个人都承载着自己的责任在努力复习备战高考。闲暇之余，也曾畅谈理想，规划自己的未来。有人想学医悬壶济世，有人想研究科学探索自然奥秘，有人想手持朱笔诲人不倦，有人想游走商界叱咤风云。这些都是很美好的憧憬，那，你们有没有和我一样想到过另一种选择，那，1就是逐梦军旅，献身国防。从小时候起，我们便学习中国的近代史，知道百年前积弱的旧中国是如何被无情的帝国主义践踏，在那样几近灭国的危亡中，使我们伟大的中国共产党带领着顽强英勇的人民解放军赶跑了帝国主义，同所有中国人民一起建立了一个全新的中国。而如今我们的幸福生活不仅有革命先辈们打下的基础，更有此时此刻正坚守在岗位的解放军战士们的功劳。有了他们的不懈努力，有了他们活跃在祖国母亲的血脉中，祖国才能在而今国际形势瞬息万变，风起云涌的时事政变中泰然自若，敢对他国挑衅予以还击，能在世界大局中引导潮流，参与到世界维和的任务中去。所以，能成为一名铁骨铮铮、保家卫国的解放军战士是多么庄严而又光荣的事!我知道，我们当中有很多人其实是很向往军旅生活的，只是想到军旅生活的艰苦便退缩了。但，我们不能退缩。古人曾
说：天将降大任于是人也，必先苦其心志，劳其筋骨，饿其体肤，空乏其身，行拂乱其所为，所以动心忍性，曾益其所不能。只有当我们融入到解放军艰苦紧张的军营生活锤炼出坚强的品格，学习政治、军事、科学技术掌握过硬的本领;通过正规的教育训练培养出过硬的军政素质、严格的组织纪律和良好的作风，我们才会成长，从思想上成长为有道德、有担当、有毅力的青年，从能力上成长为生活自强、专业技术精通，能打硬仗的战士，磨砺出自己的锋芒，成为国家现代化建设的优秀人才，为祖国更美好的未来添砖加瓦，贡献力量。我们是新时代的青年，是祖国未来的希望，更是祖国国防发展的主力军。哪一只雄鹰不曾在疾风中振翅，越飞越高?哪一柄利剑不是在熔炉里冶炼，越炼越强?携笔从戎，献身国防，我们要证明我们并非软弱畏难的一代青年，我们有气节与志向，有磊落与坦荡，我们愿意响应国家号召，满怀理想、壮志与激情，选择军营，选择戎马山河，用自己的血与火，汗与泪，为国防建设燃烧自己青春的热血。携笔从戎，献身国防，只要我们干一行，爱一行，专一行，把全心全意为人民服务的崇高思想，化为实际行动，踏踏实实，坚持不懈的做好本职工作，我相信我们一定会在从军的道路上走得越来越远，为我国国防事业添砖加瓦，在我国新军事变革的征程中留下浓重的一笔!犹记得戊戌变法运动领袖之一的梁启超先生曾对我们殷切寄语：故今日之责任，不在他人，而全在我少年。少年智则国智，少年富则国富，少年强则国强，少年独立则国独立。看到部队的战士们齐步列队走在军营的
文明守纪演讲稿Document of civilized speech 编订：JinTai College
文明守纪演讲稿 小泰温馨提示：演讲稿是在较为隆重的仪式上和某些公众场合发表的讲话文稿。演讲稿是进行演讲的依据，对演讲内容和形式的规范和提示，体现着演讲的目的和手段，用来交流思想、感情，表达主张、见解；也可以用来介绍自己的学习、工作情况和经验等等；同时具有宣传、鼓动、教育和欣赏等作用，可以把演讲者的观点、主张与思想感情传达给听众以及读者，使他们信服并在思想感情上产生共鸣。本文档根据演讲稿内容要求展开说明，具有实践指导意义，便于学习和使用，本文下载后内容可随意修改调整及打印。 尊敬的老师，亲爱的同学们： 大家好！今天我演讲的题目是《做一个文明守纪的中学生》 我曾经在书上看到这样一则故事：一头牛饿了，它会在本能驱使下寻找食物：遇上青草就大嚼一通，即使是人家的庄稼，甚至名贵的花草，只要可口，都会照吃不误。而人就不同了。我们饥肠辘辘时，尽管看到商店橱窗里的美味近在咫尺，但如果囊中羞涩，也不敢有非分之想。甚至，当你已经坐在餐桌前面对香喷喷的菜肴时，如果主宾还未到来，也许就需要忍饥等待。为什么呢？道德规范的约束！在我们日常生活中的道
德观念时时提醒我们做一个文明的人，做一个遵守社会规范的人。 刘备临终前告诫儿子刘禅“勿以恶小而为之，勿以善小 而不为”。但我们生活中的不良行为却比比皆是： 1.乱丢垃圾。在校园公共区域和教室内，吐出的痰迹、 空饮料瓶、废纸片和食品包装袋等经常可以见到。 2.损害公物。最典型的是在书桌、椅子上用刀、用笔刻 划“留言”，用涂改液等在上面乱写乱画，在教室的墙壁上涂抹。上面写出的内容大都是消极颓废、甚至是思想不健康的语言垃圾。这不但破坏了公物，也污染了我们学生的视觉及心灵。 3.语言不美。少数同学说话便带出脏字，而且自己并没 有意识到。他们自己也说：“不是故意的，只是习惯而已。”一些同学当别人意见与自己不同时，尤其是当自己的不文明行为受到制止时，往往恶语伤人，庸俗不堪。 4.言行不雅。个别同学在教学楼道甚至在教室内大声喧哗，破坏了教学环境应有的宁静与和谐；少数同学身着比较新潮的衣服，或是自己“创造”的衣服，把自己打扮得象一个模特；有些同学的头发太长，让人以为是“问题少年”。
一、选择题 1．Susan never gets upset when she has to wait in line. She is very ______ . A．shy B．honest C．funny D．patient 2．I looked at a few printers, and among them the one from China was ________ to use. A．easy B．easier C．easiest D．the easiest 3．- Do you like the western food, Li Li? - No, I think Chinese food is______ than that of western countries. A．more delicious B．the most delicious C．not as delicious D．much delicious 4．Mother’s Day ______ we are looking forward to is coming. We are going to write a lett er to our mothers in order to show our best love and thank for their_____ care for us. A．which, 15-year B．when, 15 years’C．that, 15-years 5．Choice is life’s ________ gift. It is the ability to choose some actions from a set of things to achieve a goal. A．greater B．greatest C．the greatest 6．All of us are ______ about the ______ news that Beijing will hold the Winter Olympics in 2022. A．excited; exciting B．exciting; excited C．excited; excite D．exciting; excite 7．—Sonia, do you think you are different from Linda? —Yes. I'm ______ at drawing than her. A．better B．good C．well D．best 8．—Judy, what do you think of your junior high school life? —I think it is one of ______ periods in my life. A．wonderful B．the most wonderful C．more wonderful 9．—I really like to watch the TV program I AM A SINGER. —Me, too. It’s one of the ________ TV programs I’ve ever seen. A．least boring B．least interesting C．most boring D．most interesting 10．A walk every day is enough to keep you healthy and in good shape． A．30-minute B．30-minutes C．30 minute's D．30-minutes' 11．Mr. Black’s memory is getting . As a result, he often leaves his keys at home. A．older B．poorer C．greater D．better 12．—How is your head teacher? —Our head teacher is _________ with us and we usually feel nervous in his lesson. A．kind B．pleased C．strict D．good 13．We've got a bedroom, if you'd like to stay.
中国梦强军梦我的梦 五千年的斗转星移，五千年的潮起潮落 五千年的沧桑巨变，五千年 孕育着一个伟大民族的复兴之梦 习主席深情阐述：“中国梦是强国梦，更是强军梦”。他引用了三句诗：“雄关漫道真如铁，人间正道是沧桑，长风破浪会有时”将中华民族的昨天、今天和明天，熔铸于百余年中国沧桑巨变的历史图景中，展现了几代人为民族复兴奋斗的艰辛历程，令人感慨，催人奋进。 国无军不强，民无军不安，没有强大的人民军队中国梦的实现不过是纸上谈兵的笑谈，没有强大的人民军队就不会有安宁和平的发展环境。 历史往往经过时间的沉淀后会变得更加明晰，追根溯源，伟大的中华民族有着悠久灿烂的文明，长久居于世界文明发展的前列。然而中华民族却有那么一段屈辱的历程，使得近代中国满目疮痍。 1840年鸦片战争，英国用“坚船利炮”击碎了清王朝以“天朝上国”自居的美梦，1900年，八国联军拼凑起来的兵力不足两万而京城一带纵有十几万清军、几十万义和团之众。仍无法阻止京师沦陷和赔白银四亿余万两。1840年到1919年，80年间，旧中国与列强签订了900多个丧权辱国的不平等条约，平均每月一个，合约越签越多，而和平、安全和主权却越来越少。 百年屈辱、百年渴望，当中华民族面对“千年未有之巨变，千年未有之强敌”。我中华儿女便萌生了一个执着的梦，民族复兴的梦。 新中国成立以来，无数科研工作者为富国强军孜孜贡献。1964年第一课原子弹试爆成功，让所有中国人挺立了腰杆，让世界惊叹那一朵“蘑菇云” 2003年神州五号顺利升空，证明中国千年来的登天梦实现了，2012年中国首艘航母---辽宁舰下水，结束了五大国中唯一没有航母的历史。这些都是我们军队强盛的证明，更是强军梦逐步实现的脚印。 习主席在五四讲话中指出：“历史和现实都告诉我们青年一代有理想有担当，国家就有前途，民族就有希望。实现我们的发展目标就有源源不断的力量。” 入伍前，我是一名大学生。校园的欢声笑语无忧无虑，自由安逸，似乎让我忘却了什么是梦想，甚至中国梦在我记忆深处埋没。“进来是铁，出去是刚”。昨天的我就是今天的你，今天的我就是明天的你。人生因梦想而精彩，青春因奋斗而美丽。一位退伍大学生老兵点醒了我。位卑未敢忘忧国，天下兴亡匹夫有责等箴言在我脑中萦绕，投笔从戎，参军报国，让青春无悔，让我再一次舞动起青春的乐章。 路漫漫其修远兮，吾将上下而求索。人的生命犹如一条奔腾的江河，不经历海岛和暗礁难以激起生命的浪花。严格要求，苦练杀敌本领，一千次跌倒将会在一千零一次中爬起，拍打灰尘、挺起胸脯、毅然前进。站军姿、叠被子、练擒敌、爬战术，平凡但不平庸，一个胸怀抱负的士兵，注定要在平凡的岗位上刻下浓浓一笔，一个勇于担当的士兵，注定让精彩的梦想充满军旅生涯。 做为新世纪和平年代可爱的武警战士，自觉发扬爱国主义优良传统，把警营当做爱国报国建功立业的最好平台。立足本职岗位，脚踏实地工作，用实实在在的行动展示新一代革命军人的时代风采。 我相信只要坚持不懈、努力拼搏，梦一定能成真。我的梦，我们的梦，铸就了实现国富民强的强军梦。强军梦要靠我们的梦来实现，我们要为实现强军梦而奋斗。
文明守纪中学生演讲稿3篇 Speech document of civilized and discipline abiding mid dle school students 编订：JinTai College
文明守纪中学生演讲稿3篇 小泰温馨提示：讲话稿是为了在会议或重要活动上表达自己意见、看法或汇报思想工作情况而事先准备好的文稿，用来交流思想、感情，表达主张、见解，是演讲上一个重要的准备工作。本文档根据讲话稿内容要求和特点展开说明，具有实践指导意义，便于学习和使用，本文下载后内容可随意修改调整及打印。 本文简要目录如下：【下载该文档后使用Word打开，按住键盘Ctrl键且鼠标单击目录内容即可跳转到对应篇章】 1、篇章1：文明守纪中学生演讲稿 2、篇章2：文明守纪中学生演讲稿 3、篇章3：文明守纪中学生演讲稿 文明是什么呢?文明是路上相遇时的微笑，是同学有难时的热情帮助，是不小心撞到对方时的一声“对不起”，是自觉将垃圾放入垃圾箱的举动，是不讲脏话、粗话，是在安静无声的自修课上自觉遵守纪律……文明是一种品质，文明是一种修养，一种受人尊敬并被大家广泛推崇的行为。本文是小泰为大家整理的文明守纪的中学生演讲稿，仅供参考。 篇章1:文明守纪中学生演讲稿
尊敬的各位老师、亲爱的同学们： 今天我演讲的题目是《文明之手编织和谐校园》 众所周知，我国是世界四大文明古国之一，也是传统的 礼仪之邦。作为新时代的少先队员，我们更应当注重自己在 日常的学习和生活中，从自己言谈举止的每一个细节入手，自觉履行我们应当遵守的文明礼仪。 当你踏着光洁的地板走进教学楼的时候，你是否会想起 那位经常手拿扫把，埋头辛苦扫地同学;当你在操场上与朋友 尽情嬉戏的时候，你是否看见学校老师栽培草坪的背影;当你 在干净、整洁的校园里漫步徜徉的时候，你是否感觉到那位拖垃圾车的老爷爷的艰辛。 在生活中，在我们的身边，不乏有这样的现象： 校园里，见到老师，不知道问好;生活中没有秩序，不懂 得谦让;大庭广众之下，公开骂一些不堪入耳的脏话!这难道是礼貌吗?不，这是无礼!干净的教室转瞬间成为了垃圾的天堂! 崭新的门板霎时被破坏得惨不忍睹!这难道是文明吗?不!这是 无耻!平日里，披头散发，不修边幅，长长的指甲中藏污纳垢。这难道是潇洒吗?不!这是邋遢à !
高中英语语法知识表解 一．名词 I. 名词的种类： 1. 规则名词的复数形式： 名词的复数形式，一般在单数形式后面加-s或-es。现将构成方法与读音规则列表如下： 英语里有些名词的复数形式是不规则的，现归纳如下：
名词在句中表示所有关系的语法形式叫做名词所有格。所有格分两种：一是名词词尾加’s构成，二是由介词of加名词构成。前者多表示有生命的东西，后者多表示无生命的东西。 1. ’s所有格的构成：
用于无生命的东西：the legs of the chair, the cover of the book 用于有生命的东西，尤其是有较长定语时：the classrooms of the first-year students 用于名词化的词：the struggle of the oppressed 二．冠词 冠词分为不定冠词（a, an），定冠词（the），和零冠词。 I. 不定冠词的用法：
三．代词： I. 代词可以分为以下七大类：
1. one, some与any: 1) one可以泛指任何人，也可特指，复数为ones。some多用于肯定句，any多用于疑问句和否定句。One should learn to think of others. Have you any bookmarks? No, I don’t have any bookmarks. I have some questions to ask. 2) some可用于疑问句中，表示盼望得到肯定的答复，或者表示建议，请求等。 Would you like some bananas? Could you give me some money? 3) some 和any修饰可数名词单数时，some表示某个，any表示任何一个。 I have read this article in some magazine. Please correct the mistakes, if any. 4) some和数词连用表示“大约”，any可与比较级连用表示程度。 There are some 3,000 students in this school. Do you feel any better today? 2. each和every: each强调个别，代表的数可以是两个或两个以上， 而every强调整体，所指的数必须是三个或三个以上。 Each student has a pocket dictionary. / Each (of us) has a dictionary. / We each have a dictionary. Every student has strong and weak points. / Every one of us has strong and weak points. 3. none和no： no等于not any，作定语。 none作主语或宾语，代替不可数名词，谓语用单数，代替可数名词，谓语单复数皆可以。 There is no water in the bottle. How much water is there in the bottle? None. None of the students are (is) afraid of difficulties. 4. other和another: 1) other泛指“另外的，别的”常与其他词连用，如：the other day, every other week, some other reason, no other way, the other特指两者中的另外一个，复数为the others。如： He held a book in one hand and his notes in the other. Two students in our class failed, but all the others passed the exam. 2) another指“又一个，另一个”无所指，复数形式是others，泛指“别的人或事”如： I don’t like this shirt, please show me another (one). The trousers are too long, please give me another pair / some others. Some like football, while others like basketball. 5. all和both, neither和either
遵规守纪做文明中学生演讲稿 遵规守纪做文明中学生演讲稿（一） 各位领导、老师、同学们： 大家早上好！ 冬天的早晨是寒冷的，但是每周一早晨同学们都会排着整齐的队伍，喊着响亮的口号站在国旗下举行庄严的升国旗仪式。为什么？答难只有两个字---纪律。俗话说；没有纪律不成方圆。一个社会，一个团体，只有在良好的纪律维持下，才会逐渐的走向成熟。今天我要和同学们说遵守纪律做文明xx人。《中小学生守则》和《中学生日常行为规范》已经给了我们明确的目标：自尊自爱，注重仪表，真诚友爱，礼貌待人，遵规守纪，勤奋学习，勤劳俭朴，孝敬父母。我们xx实验学校的各项校规、校纪和这些守则规范是完全一致的。比如说，学校有明确要求：穿着得体大方，待人谦虚礼貌、言行文明适度等等。这些说起来简单，但做起来可就不那么容易了。有些同学总是怀着侥幸心理，认为偶尔违反一两条纪律没什么关系。偶尔犯一两次错误本来是可以原谅的，但如果总是怀有这些侥幸心理的话，天长日久养成了不良习惯，再改可就非常难了。要知道，我们学校的各种规章制并不是为了限制同学们的自由，而是为了让同学们拥有一个更加有序的环境，获得更大意义上的自由；使同学们能够更好的学习、工作，这才是学校制定各种纪律、规范的真正目的。 同学们，作为xx的一名学生，我们应当感谢学校对我们的重视，
从现在做起，从我做起，从身边做起，不但自觉遵守各项校规校纪、法规法纪，养成良好的习惯，而且，积极主动作好宣传。这样做不仅为了使学校环境更加美好，更为了使我们能够健康的成长，有效的学习，使我们每一个人都拥有一个更加美好的前程，成为对社会有用的人。 让我们积极行动起来，从身边的小事做起，规范自己，监督自己，使自己率先成为守纪.护法的文明xx人！ 遵规守纪做文明中学生演讲稿（二） 老师们、同学们： 大家好！ 我今天演讲的主题是：遵规守纪，做文明中学生 中国是一个有着五千年历史的文明古国，中华民族素来是一个谦恭礼让的文明礼仪之邦。华夏儿女的举手投足，无不体现一个人的气质与素养。荀子云：“不学礼无以立，人无礼则不生，事无礼则不成，国无礼则不宁。”文明礼仪是我们学习、生活的根基，是我们健康成长的臂膀。 然而在我们美丽的校园里，在少数学生中仍然存在着言不美、行不端等违纪违规、不讲文明的现象：比如校园里随处可见的垃圾，集会时交头接耳，文艺汇演时站立起来影响其他学生观看，在楼道里追逐打闹，课上不认真听讲……虽然这是个别学生的行为，但我们也对此深表遗憾！因为孩子是家长的缩影。在你不文明的行为背后不免让人猜测是什么样的家庭，什么样的家长培养了不讲文明的学生。同学
英语语法知识难点解读 词性 一、实词 1.名词(nouns）n.： 名词是词性的一种，也是实词的一种，是指代人、物、事、时、地、情感、概念等实体或抽象事物的词。名词可以独立成句。在短语或句子中通常可以用代词来替代。名词可以分为专有名词（Proper Nouns）和普通名词 (Common Nouns），专有名词是某个（些）人，地方，机构等专有的名称，如Beijing，China等。普通名词是一类人或东西或是一个抽象概念的名词，如：book，sadness等。 2.代词（pronoun）pron.： 代词是代替名词的一种词类。大多数代词具有名词和形容词的功能。英语中的代词，按其意义、特征及在句中的作用分为：人称代词、物主代词、指示代词、反身代词、相互代词、疑问代词、关系代词、连接代词和不定代词九种。 3.数词（numeral）Num.： 表示“多少”和“第几”的词，叫数词。其用法相当于名词或者形容词。数词分为基数词和序数词两种。 4.形容词(adjective）adj.或a.； 很多语言中均有的主要词类中的一种。主要用来修饰名词的词，表示事物的特征。形容词用来修饰名词或代词，表示人或事物的性质、状态，和特征的程度好坏，与否。 5.副词（adverb)adv.： 是一种用来修饰动词、形容词、全句的词，说明时间、地点、程度、方式等概念的词。副词是一种半虚半实的词。副词可分为：时间副词、地点副词、方式副词、程度副词、疑问副词、连接副词、关系副词、频率副词和说明性副词等。 6.动词（Verb）v.： 动词，就是用来形容或表示各类动作的词汇。基本上每个完整的句子都有一个动词，要表示第二个动作时可使用不定词、动名词、对等连接词、从属连接词或增加子句等方法连结。 二、虚词 7.冠词（article) art.： 冠词是虚词,本身不能单独使用,也没有词义,它用在名词的前面,帮助指明名词的含义。 冠词可以说是名词的一种标志，它不能离开名词而独立存在。表示的主语数量或者特征。 8.介词（preposition）prep.： 介词是一种用来表示词与词、词与句之间的关系的虚词，在句中不能单独作句子成分。介词后面一般有名词、代词，或相当于名词的其他词类，短语或从句作它的宾语。介词和它的宾语构成介词词组，在句中作状语，表语，补语或介词宾语。介词可以分为时间介词、地点介词、方式介词、原因介词和其他介词。 9.连词（conjunction）conj： 连词是一种虚词，它不能独立担任句子成分而只起连接词与词，短语与短语以及句与句的作用。连词主要可分为4类：并列连词、转折连词、选择连词和因果连词。 10.助词： 助词是附着在词，短语，句子的前面或后面，表示结构关系或某些附加意义的虚词。助词有结构助词，时态助词，语气助词三种。 11.叹词：（interjection）interj.： 叹词是语法学术语。表示感叹、呼唤、应答的词。
关于改革强军的演讲稿(范文一) 铸牢军魂，梦融强军 “赳赳老秦，复我河山，血不流干，死不休战。”在老秦人的呼啸声中，秦国的方阵铁骑，视战国六雄为草芥，攻城夺地，势如破竹，实现了华夏大一统;唐夏虎牢之战，李世民率领数千名玄甲军大败王世充数万之众，一役定乾坤，成就李唐王朝;嘉靖年间，戚家军抗倭，台州之役，九战九捷，为明朝海防的稳定做出了巨大贡献。历史证明，一个民族国家崛起和复兴的背后，势必有着一支强有力的军队为其披荆斩棘，开疆拓土。由此也可以看出，当前新形势下习总书记提出强军目标的重要性，要实现中华民族的伟大复兴，必定要有一支听党指挥，能打胜仗，作风优良的人民军队为坚强后盾。 一、溯游历史长河，坚定强军信仰 学习践行强军目标心得体会心得体会，学习心得二战中的德国，席卷波兰于一夜之间，甚至将德意志的军旗插至目及克里姆林宫的河畔，这样一个国土面积只有35万平方公里国家的军队创造出的战绩却不得不令世界震撼。虽然指挥这场战争的是纳粹党，但我们不得不从中看出一些东西;反观苏共，自戈尔巴乔夫推行改革以来，军队国家化的思潮逐渐开始泛滥，军队的对党忠诚开始动摇，最终导致了苏联的解体。这样一个在战争中成长起来的国家，却在和平时期的一场改革中断送了自己的前途，这不得不让人扼腕。于此可见，党对军队的绝对领导是十分必要的，听党指挥是军之魂，任何时期都要坚守住党对人民军队的绝对领导这个高地，做到招之能来，来之能战。作风优良是保证。治军之道，得之于严，失之于宽。古有诸葛亮挥泪斩马谡，曹操”割发代首”等。通过这些，我们可以看出，精兵劲旅皆出于严;相反，奢靡散懒皆是法纪不振而至：北洋水师松于法纪，惰于练兵，船坚炮利的外壳下却早已是被腐蚀的锈迹斑斑，不堪一击，难支大清帝国大厦。在近代，蒋介石赦一张灵甫，毒瘤暗生，法乱而后功溃;毛泽东毙一黄克功，三军整肃，法定而后功成。由此可见，令严方可肃军威，命重始于整纲纪。悠悠岁月，时光像纷飞的雪花尘封了红军曾经的金戈铁马，带走了浴血奋战的峥嵘画面，却如大浪淘沙般沉淀下金石般的优良传统，熠熠生辉。秉承前辈的优良传统，将红色基因薪火相传。铁打的营盘流水的兵，人民军队就这样代代相传，直至今日，老兵永远不死，只是会慢慢消亡。而今，身为国防生的我们，
小学生文明守纪演讲稿 篇一：文明守纪,从我做起学生发言稿 “文明守纪、从我做起”获奖学生发言稿 尊敬的老师，亲爱的同学们： 你们好！ 从我一进学校读书，站在庄严的五星红旗下，看着鲜艳的红旗冉冉升起的那一刻，我心中就涌起一股暖流，要严格遵守各项校规校纪，争做遵规守纪的文明学生。 遵规守纪说起来容易，可做起来，的确很难。我是一个谨慎的学生，时时刻刻处处都会提醒着自己，勤早上学，不可迟到，尊重他人，团结友爱，讲文明话，做文明人，爱护花草，爱清洁，走路轻声慢步等。因此，校园里里外外，都留下我灿烂文明的足迹。 青少年时代是最美丽的，同学们，我们大多处在天真烂漫的孩提时代，有的已步入人生最美的“花季”，青春的花朵就要在我们的生命之树上绽开，阳光是我们的，希望是我们的，世界是我们的! 歌德说过，要成就一番伟大的事业，就要从青春时代做起。那么，我们应该怎样做才能迈出正确的步子，让青春无憾无悔，走向美好的明天呢 首先，作为新时代的学生，就要遵守纪律，做现代文明的学生。
俗话说，“没有规矩，不成方圆”，我们知道，良好的纪律是学好科学文化知识的保障。作为一名学生，就要严格遵守 《学生守则》、《学生日常行为规范》：严格遵守学校各项规章制度，切实做到：尊师爱友，自律自强；诚实守法，文明礼貌；遵守公德，爱护公物。 其次，作为新时代的学生，还要学会守法。 每个公民都必须具有法制观念，不仅要学法，而且还要守法。缺乏法制观念是非常危险的。 第三、要遵守社会公德。 讲究公共卫生、爱护公共财物、维持公共秩序等，这些都是社会公德。遵守社会公德是衡量社会文明程度的标志之一。 讲究公共卫生，就是要保持优美整洁的公共环境。比如：在教室里，在马路上，不随地吐痰，不随手扔果皮、纸屑。还有一点，则是不能大喊大叫。妨碍其他人学习、工作或休息；不能在建筑物上或课桌椅上乱刻乱画。 我们身边的公共财物有很多。如学校的门窗、桌椅、教学设备等，公园里的花草、树木，马路边的路灯、路牌、公用电话等，我们不仅要做到自己爱护，而且还应当劝阻、制止有些人破坏公共财物的不文明行为。争做一个讲文明、懂礼仪的好学生。遇到师长、来宾，主动敬礼问好；上下楼梯，