VC每周简讯总第298期(2011.03.12-03.18)

ｈｔｔｐ：／／ｗｗｗ．ｒｅｎｍｉｎｚｈｕｊｉａｎｇ．ｃｎＤＯＩ：１０ ３９６９／ｊ ｉｓｓｎ １００１ ９２３５ ２０２４ ０４ ００５第４５卷第４期人民珠江　２０２４年４月　ＰＥＡＲＬＲＩＶＥＲ基金项目：国家重点研发计划（２０２２ＹＦＣ３２０２２０４）收稿日期：２０２３－０７－２４作者简介：罗朝林（１９８３—），男，硕士，高级工程师，主要从事水利信息化、智慧水利等工作。

Ｅ－ｍａｉｌ：２７３９０６６８２＠ｑｑ．ｃｏｍ通信作者：孟庆魁（１９９５—），男，硕士，工程师，主要从事水利信息化、智慧水利等工作。

Ｅ－ｍａｉｌ：１８３９２５２５２７２＠１６３．ｃｏｍ罗朝林，孟庆魁，陈武奋，等．数字孪生灌区精细化水量调控关键技术研究与应用［Ｊ］．人民珠江，２０２４，４５（４）：３３－３９．数字孪生灌区精细化水量调控关键技术研究与应用罗朝林，孟庆魁 ，陈武奋，张　波（珠江水利委员会珠江水利科学研究院，广东　广州　５１０６１１）摘要：为提高中国水资源利用效率，推动灌区精细化管理，基于目前灌区发展现状，提出了数字孪生灌区精细化管理框架，并分别对灌区可供水量预测、作物需水预测、灌区渠道水量优化配置以及测控一体化闸门的关键技术进行了研究，并构建了一套数字孪生灌区“四预”平台，通过“多要素立体感知”“全周期需水预报”“旱涝风险靶向预警”“水资源全过程预演”“防灾减灾科学预案”５条路径，实现灌区全方位、智慧化、科学化的管理。

数字孪生灌区“四预”平台部分功能已在广州市流溪河灌区成功应用。

数字孪生灌区全过程精细化水量调控关键技术通过对“供水－需水－配水－调水”全过程的水量调配，实现了水资源优化配置，提高了水资源利用效率，对数字孪生灌区的推广与应用具有指导意义。

关键词：数字孪生灌区；精细化；“四预”；流溪河灌区中图分类号：Ｓ２７５ 文献标识码：Ａ 文章编号：１００１ ９２３５（２０２４）０４ ００３３ ０７ＲｅｓｅａｒｃｈａｎｄＡｐｐｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎｏｆＫｅｙＴｅｃｈｎｏｌｏｇｉｅｓｆｏｒＲｅｆｉｎｅｄＷａｔｅｒＣｏｎｔｒｏｌｉｎＤｉｇｉｔａｌＴｗｉｎＩｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎＡｒｅａｓＬＵＯＺｈａｏｌｉｎ牞ＭＥＮＧＱｉｎｇｋｕｉ牞ＣＨＥＮＷｕｆｅｎ牞ＺＨＡＮＧＢｏ牗ＰｅａｒｌＲｉｖｅｒＷａｔｅｒＲｅｓｏｕｒｃｅｓＲｅｓｅａｒｃｈＩｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｅｏｆＰｅａｒｌＲｉｖｅｒＷａｔｅｒＲｅｓｏｕｒｃｅｓＣｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ牞Ｇｕａｎｇｚｈｏｕ５１０６１１牞Ｃｈｉｎａ牘Ａｂｓｔｒａｃｔ牶ＴｏｉｍｐｒｏｖｅｔｈｅｅｆｆｉｃｉｅｎｃｙｏｆｗａｔｅｒｒｅｓｏｕｒｃｅｕｔｉｌｉｚａｔｉｏｎｉｎＣｈｉｎａａｎｄｐｒｏｍｏｔｅｒｅｆｉｎｅｄｍａｎａｇｅｍｅｎｔｏｆｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓ牞ｔｈｉｓｐａｐｅｒｐｒｏｐｏｓｅｓａｒｅｆｉｎｅｄｍａｎａｇｅｍｅｎｔｆｒａｍｅｗｏｒｋｆｏｒｄｉｇｉｔａｌｔｗｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓｂａｓｅｄｏｎｔｈｅｃｕｒｒｅｎｔｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔｏｆｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓ．Ｍｅａｎｗｈｉｌｅ牞ｉｔｓｔｕｄｉｅｓｔｈｅｋｅｙｔｅｃｈｎｏｌｏｇｉｅｓｏｆｗａｔｅｒｓｕｐｐｌｙｐｒｅｄｉｃｔｉｏｎｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓ牞ｃｒｏｐｗａｔｅｒｄｅｍａｎｄｐｒｅｄｉｃｔｉｏｎ牞ｏｐｔｉｍａｌｗａｔｅｒｖｏｌｕｍｅａｌｌｏｃａｔｉｏｎｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓ牞ａｎｄｉｎｔｅｇｒａｔｅｄｍｅａｓｕｒｅｍｅｎｔａｎｄｃｏｎｔｒｏｌｇａｔｅｓ．Ａｓｅｔｏｆ ＦＥＤＥ ｐｌａｔｆｏｒｍｓｆｏｒｄｉｇｉｔａｌｔｗｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓｈａｖｅｂｅｅｎｃｏｎｓｔｒｕｃｔｅｄ牞ａｎｄｆｉｖｅｐａｔｈｓｏｆ ｍｕｌｔｉ ｆａｃｔｏｒｔｈｒｅｅ ｄｉｍｅｎｓｉｏｎａｌｐｅｒｃｅｐｔｉｏｎ 牞 ｆｕｌｌ ｃｙｃｌｅｗａｔｅｒｄｅｍａｎｄｆｏｒｅｃａｓｔｉｎｇ 牞 ｔａｒｇｅｔｅｄｗａｒｎｉｎｇｏｆｄｒｏｕｇｈｔａｎｄｆｌｏｏｄｒｉｓｋｓ 牞 ｆｕｌｌ ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓｒｅｈｅａｒｓａｌｏｆｗａｔｅｒｒｅｓｏｕｒｃｅｓ 牞ａｎｄ ｓｃｉｅｎｔｉｆｉｃｐｌａｎｓｆｏｒｄｉｓａｓｔｅｒｐｒｅｖｅｎｔｉｏｎａｎｄｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ａｒｅａｄｏｐｔｅｄ．Ａｓａｒｅｓｕｌｔ牞ｃｏｍｐｒｅｈｅｎｓｉｖｅ牞ｉｎｔｅｌｌｉｇｅｎｔ牞ａｎｄｓｃｉｅｎｔｉｆｉｃｍａｎａｇｅｍｅｎｔｏｆｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓｉｓｒｅａｌｉｚｅｄ．Ａｄｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌｌｙ牞ｓｏｍｅｆｕｎｃｔｉｏｎｓｏｆｔｈｅ ＦＥＤＥ ｐｌａｔｆｏｒｍｏｆｄｉｇｉｔａｌｔｗｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓｈａｖｅｂｅｅｎｓｕｃｃｅｓｓｆｕｌｌｙａｐｐｌｉｅｄｔｏｔｈｅＬｉｕｘｉＲｉｖｅｒｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａ牞Ｇｕａｎｇｚｈｏｕ．Ｔｈｅｋｅｙｔｅｃｈｎｏｌｏｇｙｏｆｐｒｅｃｉｓｅｗａｔｅｒｖｏｌｕｍｅｃｏｎｔｒｏｌｔｈｒｏｕｇｈｏｕｔｔｈｅｅｎｔｉｒｅｐｒｏｃｅｓｓｏｆｄｉｇｉｔａｌｔｗｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓａｃｈｉｅｖｅｓｏｐｔｉｍａｌｗａｔｅｒｒｅｓｏｕｒｃｅａｌｌｏｃａｔｉｏｎａｎｄｉｍｐｒｏｖｅｓｗａｔｅｒｒｅｓｏｕｒｃｅｕｔｉｌｉｚａｔｉｏｎｅｆｆｉｃｉｅｎｃｙｂｙｒｅａｌｉｚｉｎｇｗａｔｅｒｖｏｌｕｍｅａｌｌｏｃａｔｉｏｎｔｈｒｏｕｇｈｏｕｔｔｈｅｅｎｔｉｒｅ ｗａｔｅｒｓｕｐｐｌｙ ｗａｔｅｒｄｅｍａｎｄ ｗａｔｅｒｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ｗａｔｅｒｔｒａｎｓｆｅｒ ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓ．Ｔｈｉｓｈａｓａｇｕｉｄｉｎｇｓｉｇｎｉｆｉｃａｎｃｅｆｏｒｔｈｅｐｒｏｍｏｔｉｏｎａｎｄａｐｐｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎｏｆｄｉｇｉｔａｌｔｗｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａｓ．Ｋｅｙｗｏｒｄｓ牶ｄｉｇｉｔａｌｔｗｉｎｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａ牷ｒｅｆｉｎｅｄ牷 ＦＥＤＥ 牷ＬｉｕｘｉＲｉｖｅｒｉｒｒｉｇａｔｉｏｎａｒｅａ人民珠江２０２４年２０２２年，农业用水总量为３７８１．３亿ｍ３，占用水总量的６３．０％，为保障粮食安全，需更加合理地进行农业水资源配置，并提高农业水资源利用效率［１－３］。

２０２４年４月水 利 学 报ＳＨＵＩＬＩ ＸＵＥＢＡＯ第５５卷　第４期文章编号：０５５９－９３５０（２０２４）０４－０４０３－１３收稿日期：２０２３－０８－０２；网络出版日期：２０２４－０３－０４网络首发地址：ｈｔｔｐｓ：??ｋｎｓ．ｃｎｋｉ．ｎｅｔ?ｋｃｍｓ?ｄｅｔａｉｌ?１１．１８８２．ＴＶ．２０２４０２２９．１３１０．００１．ｈｔｍｌ基金项目：国家自然科学基金重点项目（５２３３９００６）作者简介：陈帝伊（１９８２－），博士，教授，主要从事水电与新能源联合运行与控制研究。

Ｅ－ｍａｉｌ：ｄｉｙｉｃｈｅｎ＠ｎｗｓｕａｆ．ｅｄｕ．ｃｎ考虑避振条件的水风光互补发电系统运行经济性评估陈帝伊，张　猛，刘　泳，赵鹏罛，赵子文，何梦娇（西北农林科技大学水利与建筑工程学院，陕西杨凌　７１２１００）摘要：为更加全面、准确评估水电机组在风光水互补发电系统中的经济性表现，本文将水电机组寿命损耗成本纳入机组运行成本，建立以机组运行成本最小、发电量最大、功率负荷偏差最小为目标的风光水互补发电系统经济性评估模型，充分考虑水电机组运行策略的区别，对比机组避振与不避振运行时的系统经济性特征与机组运行特点。

基于ＮＳＧＡ－Ⅱ智能优化算法对模型求解，以国内某清洁能源基地为例分析了风光典型出力场景下系统运行经济性。

研究结果表明，相比水电机组不避振运行，采用避振运行方式的水风光互补系统虽然发电量和功率与负荷偏差均值分别降低了０．０９％（０．０２ＧＷｈ）和２．１０％（１．８９ＭＷ），但运行成本均值下降了０．２４％（１．７１万元）。

综合来看，在发电量未有明显提升的情况下，虽然功率与负荷偏差方面不避振运行方式表现较为优越，但由于机组疲劳损耗导致的运行成本显著增加、机组安全问题突出，其综合经济性表现不如避振运行方式。

该研究对于优化水风光互补系统中水电机组的运行方式，提高互补发电系统整体经济效益有一定指导意义。

关键词：水风光互补发电系统；经济性评估；避振运行；非支配遗传算法 中图分类号：ＴＭ７３２　文献标识码：Ａｄｏｉ：１０．１３２４３?ｊ．ｃｎｋｉ．ｓｌｘｂ．２０２３０４７５１　引言我国水、风、光等可再生能源具有较好的互补特性，水风光一体化协同发展是可再生能源未来发展方向。

VCG机制研究述评[摘要]文章追溯了VCG机制的理论沿袭过程，探讨VCG机制应用的局限性，以期从机制设计的角度为我国公共产品供给、城乡统筹发展和环境保护等重大问题提供有益的解决思路。

[关键词]VCG机制：公共产品：机制设计一、理论内涵VCG机制就是为了实现公共产品有效率的供给和分配，针对具有拟线性偏好的消费者，为激励其真实地表露对于公共产品的偏好而设计的一种机制。

二、理论渊源VCG机制的形成经历了三个阶段：(一)“二级密封价格拍卖”机制W.Vickrey(1961)指出对于某一种单件(不可分割)的商品，存在着很多潜在的购买者，通过拍卖来出售，很容易证明如果利用以下机制，每位潜在的购买者都会表露出他对该商品的真实估值：要求每位潜在的购买者把他的出价放在一个密封的信封中，并告知该商品将卖给出价最高的人，而售价是仅次于最高出价的那个价格。

这种拍卖机制被称为“二级密封价格拍卖”机制，也被称为“Vickrey拍卖”机制。

(二)“克拉克税”E.H.Clarke(1971)将Vickrey拍卖机制推广到了一般的情形，并将其应用于公共产品的供给、分配中。

通过对公共产品的消费者征收惩罚性的“克拉克税”激励其真实表露对于公共产品的偏好，以实现公共产品有效率的供给，这一思想来源于庇古税的启发，主要用于决策某项公共产品是否应该被供给。

(三)格罗夫斯机制T.Groves(1973)在两位学者研究的基础上，为政府引导企业设计了一套有效的激励补偿机制，通过证明得出，公司的存在会增加公共产品的供给量，而公司对公共产品的偏好显示所付的边际税额应等于公共产品的边际成本与除该公司以外的所有公共产品的消费者所获收益之间的差额。

三位学者所提出的机制都是通过激励机制的设计引导消费者真实表露偏好以解决公共产品的供给和分配效率问题，因此被糅合为“VCG机制”。

三、研究现状目前对于VCG机制的研究，国内外的方向完全不同：(一)国外研究现状Holzman，Kfir-Dahav，Monderer，Tennenhohz(2003)证明当公共产品的潜在购买者至少有三个人时，运用VCG机制得到的事后均衡，并不是一个均衡，而是多个均衡的集合。

基于VC++的时频分析软件设计作者：胡力文来源：《硅谷》2014年第11期摘要针对基于Matlab开发的时频分析软件在工程应用中对大容量数据进行处理时存在着界面迟滞、显示速度慢、执行效率低下的问题，基于Viscual C++开发了一款时频分析软件，实现了小波时频滤波、模态参数识别以及主频识别功能。

结果表明该软件具有操作简单灵活、运行速度快、执行效率高的特点。

关键词时频分析；Viscual C++；软件设计中图分类号：TP311 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1671-7597（2014）11-0012-02当前，市场上广泛存在的基于Matlab开发的时频分析软件在对大容量数据进行处理时存在着界面迟滞、显示速度慢、执行效率低下等问题，其主要用于工程算法分析和相关算法理论的验证，不适应工程应用分析的基本需要。

为了提高时频分析软件在工程分析中的应用效率，本文基于Viscual C++开发了一款时频分析软件，实现了小波时频滤波、模态参数识别以及主频识别功能。

1软件设计的功能需求分析在软件设计之初，通过与相关设计人员的探讨，确定该软件的功能需求包括如下几点：①能够读取不同存储格式的数据文件，诸如txt文档、mat文件等。

同时在向软件导入不合法（数据格式不符合要求）的文件时，软件将给出信息提示，而且能够对时域信号进行预处理，例如重采样等操作。

另外，分析得到的数据文件结果必须能够进行保存，便于后续的其他分析对数据结果进行直接调用；②通过小波时频滤波方法达到对信号进行滤波除噪的目的。

对于一些产生大噪声的设备进行强度模态试验时产生的数据而言，传统的直接估算频率响应函数的方式不能获得准确的结果，但频率响应函数的精度又对模态参数的识别结果产生直接影响。

所以，为了提高所获得频率响应函数结果的精确度，通过采用小波脊线提取的方式进行滤波，将能够有效的将输入、输出信号噪声进行清除。

这样不但能够获得具有良好响应特征的响应函数，而且使得系统的识别精度得到提升；③将Morlet小波为母小波，实现了小波模态参数识别的基本方法。

UCITS V指令简介及对我国基金行业的借鉴意义UCITS V指令（Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities V Directive）是欧盟制定的一项旨在规范基金行业的法规指令。

该指令于2014年7月22日经欧盟理事会正式颁布，并于2016年3月21日逐渐生效。

UCITS V指令是UCITS IV指令的延续和完善，旨在进一步加强投资者的保护，提高基金管理公司的透明度和监管标准，以及促进基金的跨境销售。

本文将对UCITS V指令的主要内容进行介绍，同时探讨其对我国基金行业的借鉴意义。

UCITS V指令主要内容包括以下几个方面：基金管理公司报酬的规定、存管人的职责和报酬的规定、资产净值估值的规定、基金合同的修改、基金负责人的职责和报酬的规定等。

UCITS V指令对基金管理公司的报酬做出了规定。

根据该指令，基金管理公司的报酬应当与其所管理的基金的业绩挂钩，以激励基金管理公司为投资者创造长期价值。

UCITS V 指令规定基金管理公司的报酬应当符合正当市场价格和流动性风险，同时应当充分披露给投资者。

这一规定有利于保护投资者的利益，避免基金管理公司为谋取自身利益而损害投资者利益。

UCITS V指令对存管人的职责和报酬做出了规定。

存管人是基金的监督者和资产的安全保障者，扮演着重要的角色。

UCITS V指令规定存管人应当按照投资基金的相关规定对其职责进行全面约束，并应当持续提供独立监督和服务。

存管人的报酬应当与其所提供的服务和风险相适应，同时也应当充分披露给投资者。

这一规定有助于确保存管人按照法规履行其职责，保障基金资产的安全和投资者的利益。

UCITS V指令对资产净值估值的规定进行了完善。

合理准确的净值估值是投资者进行投资决策的重要依据，也是评估基金业绩的关键指标。

UCITS V指令规定基金管理公司应当建立和维护有效的净值估值政策和程序，确保净值估值的独立性和准确性。

72INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM ECONOMICS国际石油经济Vol.28, No.122020摘　要：新冠肺炎疫情在全球范围内暴发，持续冲击世界经济，2020年4月20日，美国原油期货价格史无前例地跌至-40.32美元/桶，疫情期间国际原油价格驱动因素值得探讨。

选取2020年1月13日至8月3日交易日数据，考虑结构突变，构建国际原油价格驱动因素断点最小二乘法模型。

经实证，原油价格跌至负值当日确为模型的结构断点，结构断点前新冠肺炎疫情对国际原油价格上涨起严重阻碍作用，投资者预期对国际原油价格上涨也存在消极影响；结构断点后货币政策消极程度严重阻碍国际原油价格上涨；原油需求对原油期货价格的影响在结构断点前后有所不同。

据此认为，疫情防控和提升货币的政策积极性是各国的首要任务，保持对投资者具有重大利好的货币政策倾向、提升信息透明度是促进原油价格提升的重要手段。

关键词：新冠肺炎疫情；国际原油价格；断点最小二乘法；邹突变点检验Abstract ：The outbreak of COVID-19 on a global scale continues to impact the world economy. On April 20, 2020, the US crude oil futures price fell to USD -40.32/barrel for an unprecedented time due to the impact of the pandemic. It is worth exploring the driving factors of international crude oil price during the pandemic. The paper selects the trading date of solstice on January 13, 2020 to August 3, considers the abrupt change of structure, and constructs driving factors of international crude oil price—the least square model of the breakpoint. Empirical results show that the day when crude oil price falls to the negative is indeed the structural break point of the model. Before the structural break point, COVID-19 has seriously hindered the rise of international crude oil price, and investor’s expectations also have a negative impact on the rise of international crude oil price. After the structural break point, the degree of monetary policy passivity seriously hinders the rise of international crude oil price. The effect of crude oil demand on crude oil futures price varies before and after the structural break point. Therefore, this paper believes that the prevention and control of the pandemic and the promotion of monetary policy initiatives are the top priorities of all countries in the world, and maintaining a monetary policy orientation that is highly beneficial to investors and improving information transparency are also important means to promote the increase of international crude oil prices.Key words ：the COVID-19; international crude oil price; least square with breakpoint; Chow breakpoint test新冠肺炎疫情下国际原油价格驱动因素研究——基于断点最小二乘法与邹突变点检验闫勇1，张雪峰2，宋鸽2，付杨３( 1.中国石油集团经济技术研究院；2.北方工业大学经济管理学院；3.北京石油机械有限公司）Research on the driving factors of international crude oil price under COVID-19—Based on least square with breakpoint and Chow breakpoint test YAN Yong 1, ZHANG Xuefeng 2, SONG Ge 2, FU Yang 3(1. CNPC Economics &Technology Research Institute; 2. School of Economics and Management, North China University of Technology; 3. CNPC Beijing Oilfield Machinery Co., Ltd.)FORUM油价论坛731 国际原油价格驱动因素及相关研究2020年初，新型冠状病毒肺炎（下文简称“新冠”）疫情在全球范围内暴发。

Computing Curricula 2005The Overview Reportcovering undergraduate degree programs inComputer EngineeringComputer ScienceInformation SystemsInformation TechnologySoftware EngineeringA volume of the Computing Curricula SeriesThe Joint Task Force for Computing Curricula 2005A cooperative project ofThe Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)The Association for Information Systems (AIS)The Computer Society (IEEE-CS)30 September 2005Copyright © 2006 by ACM and IEEE.All rights reserved.Copyright and Reprint Permissions: Permission is granted to use these curriculum guidelines for the development of educational materials and programs. Other use requires specific permission. Permission requests should be addressed to: ACM Permissions Dept. at permissions@ or to the IEEE Copyrights Manager at copyrights@.ISBN: 1-59593-359-XACM Order Number: 999066IEEE Computer Society Order Number: R0236Additional copies may be ordered from:IEEE Computer Society Customer Service Center 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle P.O. Box 3014IEEE Service Center445 Hoes LaneP.O. Box 1331Piscataway, NJ 08855-IEEE Computer SocietyAsia/Pacific OfficeWatanabe Bldg., 1-4-2Minami-AoyamaACM Order DepartmentP.O. Box 11405New York, NY 10286-14051-800-342-6626 1331Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314 Tel: + 1 732 981 0060 Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0062 1-212-626-0500 (outsideU.S.)Tel: + 1 800 272 6657Fax: + 1 714 821 4641 /cspress csbooks@Fax: + 1 732 981 9667/store/customer-service@JAPANTel: + 81 3 3408 3118Fax: + 81 3 3408 3553tokyo.ofc@orders@Cover art by Robert Vizzini.Printed in the United States of America Sponsoring SocietiesThis report was made possible byfinancial support from the following societies:ACMIEEE Computer SocietyThe Joint Task Force forComputing Curricula 2005Russell Shackelford is chair of the CC2005 Task Force. He is the previous chair of the ACM Education Board. He has served as Associate Chair of the Computer Science Department at Stanford University and as Director of Undergraduate Studies at Georgia Tech’s College of Computing. He was co-chair of the CC2001 Task Force.James H. Cross II is Philpott-Westpoint Stevens Professor and Chair of Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn Universit y. He is a past Vice President of the IEEE Computer Society’s Educational Activities Board (EAB). He was a member of the CC2001 Task Force.Gordon Davies recently retired after forty years of teaching, the last twenty of which were at the U.K.’s Open University. In recent years, he helped create ACM’s Professional Development Center. He is now actively involved in accreditation for the British Computer Society. He was a member of the CC2001 Task Force.John Impagliazzo is Professor of Computer Science at Hofstra University. He chaired the Accreditation Committee of the ACM Education Board for twelve years. Currently, he is editor-in-chief of Inroads - The SIGCSE Bulletin, chair of the IFIP Working Group 9.7 on the History of Computing, and an active member and treasurer of the IEEE History Committee. He was a member of the CE2004 Task Force.Reza Kamali is an Associate Professor and Department Head of Computer Information Systems and Information Technology at Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana. He was a founding member of SITE, which later became ACM’s SIGITE. He now serves as SIGITE Education Officer. He is a memberof the IT2006 Task Force.Richard LeBlanc recently retired as Professor of Computer Science, College of Computing, Georgia Tech. He now serves as Vice President for Academic Affairs, Southern Catholic College. He is a past Chair and Vice Chair of the ACM Education Board, a member of IFIP Working Group 3.2 (Informatics Education at the University Level), a Team Chair for ABET’s Comp uting Accreditation Commission, and a Software Engineering Program Evaluator for the Engineering Accreditation Commission. He was co-chair of the SE2004 Task Force.Barry Lunt is Associate Professor of Information Technology at Brigham Young University. He was a founding member of SITE, which later became ACM’s SIGITE. He is a member of the IEEE Computer Society, the IEEE Communication Society, and ASEE. He is chair of the IT2006 Task Force.Andrew McGettrick is Professor of the Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Co-chair of the ACM Education Board, and a Vice President of the British Computer Society. He recently chaired groups that created benchmark standards for undergraduate and Masters degree programs in Computing in the U.K. He was a member of the CC2001 Task Force, theCE2004 Task Force, and the SE2004 Task Force.Robert Sloan is Associate Professor in the Computer Science Department of the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is an active member of the Educational Activities Board of the IEEE Computer Society.He was a member of the CC2001 Task Force and the CE2004 Task ForceHeikkiTopi is Associate Professor of Computer Information Systems and Chair of the CIS Department at Bentley College, Waltham, MA. He is active in the Association for Information Systems (AIS) and is involved in curriculum development and accreditation activities within the North American IS community. He was a member of the IS2002 Task Force.Computing Curricula 2005 – The Overview Report [This page intentionally left blank]Computing Curricula 2005 – The Overview ReportTable of ContentsSponsoring societies and copyright notice (ii)Members of the CC2005 Task Force (iii)Table of Contents (v)Summary .....................................................................................................................................1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1.1. Purpose ......................................................................................................................1.2. Scope ..........................................................................................................................1.3. Background and history .............................................................................................1.4. Guiding principles ..................................................................................................... 1 3 3 3 5 72. The Computing Disciplines (9)2.1. What is computing? (9)2.2. The landscape of the computing disciplines (9)2.2.1. Before the 1990s (9)2.2.2. Significant developments of the 1990s (10)2.2.3. After the 1990s (12)2.3. Descriptions of the computing disciplines (13)2.3.1. Computer engineering (13)2.3.2. Computer science (13)2.3.3. Information systems (14)2.3.4. Information technology (14)2.3.5. Software engineering (15)2.4. Graphical views of the computing disciplines (15)2.4.1. Computer engineering (17)2.4.2. Computer science (18)2.4.3. Information systems (19)2.4.4. Information technology (20)2.4.5. Software engineering (21)3. Degree programs and expectations of graduates (23)3.1. Curriculum summaries: A tabular comparison of computing degree programs (23)3.1.1. What the tabular view represents (24)3.1.2. Using the table: two related examples (26)3.2. Degree outcomes: Comparing expectations of degree program graduates (27)3.3. International Differences (29)3.4. The pace of change in academia: The disciplines and the available degrees (29)3.4.1. Computer engineering (30)3.4.2. Computer science (30)3.4.3. Information systems (32)3.4.4. Information technology (32)3.4.5. Software engineering (33)3.5. The pace of change in the workplace: The degrees and career opportunities (35)3.6. A shared identity: The common requirements of a computing degree (35)Computing Curricula 2005 – The Overview Report4. Institutional considerations (37)4.1. Evolution of computing degree programs (37)4.2. The portfolio strategy (38)4.3. Institutional challenges to diversity (40)4.3.1. Faculty development and adaptation (40)4.3.2. Organizational structure (41)4.3.3. Curricular structure (41)4.4. Academic integrity and market forces (44)4.5. Computing curricula and accreditation (45)4.5.1. Benefits of discipline-specific accreditation (45)4.5.2. Accreditation and quality (46)4.5.3. National; traits and international cooperation (47)4.5.4. Accreditation in the U.K. (48)4.5.5. Accreditation in the U.S. (48)5. Next steps (49)References (51)Glossary (52)Computing Curricula 2005 – The Overview ReportSummaryComputing has dramatically influenced progress in science, engineering, business, and many other areas of human endeavor. In today‟s world, nearly everyone needs to use computers, and many will want to study computing in some form. Computing will continue to present challenging career opportunities, and those who work in computing will have a crucial role in shaping the future.It is important that the computing disciplines attract quality students from a broad cross section of the population and prepare them to be capable and responsible professionals, scientists, and engineers. Over the years, professional and scientific computing societies based in the U.S. have taken a leading role in providing support for higher education in various ways, including the formulation of curriculum guidelines. Several reports that define and update guidelines for computing curricula have appeared over the past four decades. Recent efforts have targeted international participation, reflecting the need for the leading professional organizations to become truly global in scope and responsibility.Early in the process that produced Computing Curricula 2001 (CC2001), it became clear that the dramatic expansion of computing during the 1990s made it no longer reasonable to produce updated curriculum reports just for the disciplines for which reports existed previously. CC2001 called for a set of reports to cover the growing family of computing-related disciplines, including a separate volume for computer science, information systems, computer engineering, and software engineering. It was also clear thatnew computing disciplines would emerge over time. Since the publication of CC2001, information technology has joined the family of computing disciplines and now requires its own curriculum volume. The CC2001 report also called for an Overview Report to summarize the content of the various discipline- specific reports. This document is the first edition of that Overview Report. Its goal is to provide perspective for those in academia who need to understand what the major computing disciplines are and how the respective undergraduate degree programs compare and complement each other. This report summarizes the body of knowledge for undergraduate programs in each of the major computing disciplines, highlights their commonalities and differences, and describes the performance characteristics of graduates from each kind of undergraduate degree program. To create this report, we have examined curriculum guidelines for undergraduate education and have referred to the computing professions and other supporting information as necessary. We have not focused on graduate education or on the identities of the computing research communities. College-level faculty and administrators are the audience for this report. It outlines the issues and challenges they will face in shaping the undergraduate programs that will serve their constituents and their communities.Following the publication of the Overview Report, the Joint Task Force will publish a shorter companion report, The Guide to Undergraduate Programs in Computing. The Guide will offer guidance to a broader audience, including prospective students, their parents and guidance counselors, and others who have reason to care about the choices that await students who move from high school to college. It will provide brief characterizations of the computing disciplines, profile factors that students might consider when choosing an area of computing study, and it will be widely distributed as an independent document. This report is the result of an unprecedented cooperative effort among the leading computer societies and the major computing disciplines. It is based on inspection and analysis of the five discipline-specific volumes of the Computing Curricula Series. Because most of these documents are oriented to higher education in the United States and Canada, this report is implicitly North American-centric. We expect future generations of all such volumes to be more international in scope. Until then, this report provides context that may help those in other nations know how to best use these reports in their current context. Because things change rapidly in computing, the reports will require frequent updates. Electronic copies of the most recent edition of this and other computing curricula reports can be found at/education/curricula.html and at /curriculum.Computing Curricula 2005 – The Overview Report [This page intentionally left blank]Chapter 1: Introduction1.1. Purpose of This ReportThis report provides an overview of the different kinds of undergraduate degree programs in computing that are currently available and for which curriculum standards are now, or will soon be, available. Teachers, administrators, students, and parents need this report because computing is a broad discipline that crosses the boundaries between mathematics, science, engineering, and business and because computing embraces important competencies that lie at the foundation of professional practice. Computing consists of several fields, and many respected colleges and universities offer undergraduate degree programs in several of them such as computer science, computer engineering, information systems, information technology, software engineering, and more. These computing fields are related but also quite different from each other. The variety of degree programs in computing presents students, educators, administrators, and other community leaders with choices about where to focus their efforts. Several questions naturally arise. What are these different kinds of computing degree programs? How are they similar? How do they differ? How can I tell what their names really mean? Which kinds of programs should our local college or university offer? And so on. These are all valid questions, but to anyone unfamiliar with the breadth of computing, the responses to these queries may be difficult to articulate. This report may help to provide some answers.We have created this report to explain the character of the various undergraduate degree programs in computing and to help you determine which of the programs are most suited to particular goals and circumstances. We intend this report to serve a broad and varied audience. We think it can be helpful to:∙ university faculty and administrators who are developing plans and curricula for computing-related programs at their institutions, and to those who guide the accreditation of such programs, and∙ responsible parties in public education, including boards of education, government officials, elected representatives, and others who seek to represent the public interest.In addition, we will soon be preparing The Guide to Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computing (henceforth the Guide). The Guide will be an independent companion document that will be broadly distributed to a more general audience. It is intended to serve:∙ students who are trying to determine which path of computing study fits their interests and goals,∙ parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and others who are trying to assist students in their choices,∙ professionals considering how to continue their education in a rapidly changing, dynamic field, and∙ anyone who is trying to make sense of the wide range of undergraduate degree programs in computing that are now available.1.2. Scope of This ReportThere are many kinds of computing degree programs. Reliable information about the number of different kinds of computing degree programs is hard to come by, but over the last ten years or so, there has been a dramatic increase in the number and type of computing degree programs available to students. It is beyond both our goal and our capability to catalog and characterize them all. In this report, we focus on five that are prominent today: computer engineering (CE), computer science (CS), information systems (IS), information technology (IT), and software engineering (SE). These five satisfy our criterion for inclusion, that is, each one has, or will soon have, a recent volume of undergraduate curriculum guidelinesthat is approved and published by one or more international professional and scientific societies. These five also attract the overwhelming majority of all U.S. undergraduates who are majoring in computing.We expect that, in the future, additional disciplines in computing may satisfy our criterion. When that is the case, they may be included in future editions of this report. Candidates for future editions might include new fields that don‟t yet have such guidelines (e.g., bioinformatics) and more established fields that have not recently issued such guidelines (e.g., computer engineering technology).The foundation of this report is the set of curriculum standards that exist for undergraduate degree programs in the five major computing-related fields mentioned above. Each one of the five discipline- specific curricula volumes represents the best judgment of the relevant professional, scientific, and educational associations and serves as a definition of what these degree programs should be and do. While some of these reports may be scheduled for revision, we have made no effort to update their contents as that is beyond our mission and authority. Rather, we have taken what is given in the five current curricula volumes, compared their contents to one another, and synthesized what we believe to be essential descriptive and comparative information. The five curricula volumes contain a great deal of detailed information not included here. Readers who want detailed information about any of the five disciplines covered in this report should consult the original sources. The computing curricula volumes can be found at /education/curricula.html and /curriculum.In addition to using these five reports as the basis for this report, we have referred to the computing professions and other supporting information as necessary. We have not focused on other kinds of undergraduate computing degree programs, on graduate education in computing, or on the identities of the computing research communities. Nor have we included any information or comment about non- traditional computing education such as provided in conjunction with vendor-specific certification programs; those arenas are deserving of evaluation, but such work is beyond the scope of this project. The remainder of this report includes the following,∙ In Chapter 2, we characterize each of the five major disciplines of computing.∙ In Chapter 3, we flesh out the characteristics of each of these five kinds of degree program and compare them to each other. We also compare and contrast the kind of professional capabilities expected of the graduates of each kind of degree program.∙ In Chapter 4, we conclude by alerting educators, administrators, and other responsible parties to some issues that may emerge in the creation of new fields of computing.∙ In Chapter 5, we tell you how to obtain online copies of the five discipline-specific curriculum reports and offer guidance about how to use them.Following publication of this report, we will prepare and publish a Guide to Undergraduate Programs in Computing. This will be a shorter stand-alone document to be distributed more widely than the Overview Report. In it, we will provide information for prospective students, and for those who advise them, to help them make well-informed choices.Computing itself will continue to evolve. In addition, new computing-related fields are likely to emerge. As we update the existing discipline-specific reports and, as additional reports for new fields of computing emerge, you can expect to see updated versions of this report. To find out if this document (CC2005-Overview) is the most recent edition of the Overview Report on Computing Curricula, go to http://www/education/curricula.html or /curriculum. From either of these sites, you will be able to determine if a newer version exists. If a newer version exists, you may download the newest version from either site.1.3. Background and HistoryOver the last forty years, four major organizations in the U.S. have developed computing curriculum guidelines for colleges and universities:∙ The Association for Computing Machinery (generally called ACM or the Association for Computing) is a scientific and professional organization founded in 1947. It is concerned with the development and sharing of new knowledge about all aspects of computing (the word machinery in its name is ahistorical artifact). It has traditionally been the professional home of computer scientists who devise new ways of using computers and who advance the science and theory that underlies both computation itself and the software that enables it. ACM began publishing curriculum recommendations for CS in 1968 (a preliminary version appeared in 1965) and for IS in 1972.∙The Association for Information Systems (generally called “AIS”) was founded in 1994. It is a global organization serving academics who specialize in Information Systems. Most academic members of AIS are affiliated with Schools/Colleges of Business or Management. AIS began providing curriculum recommendations for IS in cooperation with ACM and AITP in 1997.∙ The Association for Information Technology Professionals (often referred to as AITP) was founded in 1951 as the National Machine Accountants Association. In 1962, it became the Data Processing Management Association (or DPMA). It adopted its present name in 1996. AITP focuses on the professional side of computing, serving those who use computing technology to meet the needs of business and other organizations. It first provided curriculum recommendations for IS in 1985.∙ The Computer Society of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (often referred to as IEEE-CS or the Computer Society) originated in 1946 as the committee on Large Scale Computing Devices of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) and, in 1951, as the Professional Group on Electronic Computers of the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE). The AIEE and the IRE merged in 1964 to become the IEEE, and the two subunits joined to become the Computer Society. The Computer Society is a technical society within the IEEE that is focused on computing from theengineering perspective. Today the Computer Society's members include computer engineers, software engineers, computer technologists, and computer scientists. It began providing curriculumrecommendations in 1977. In recent years, there has been a large overlap in membership between ACM and the Computer Society.Prior to the 1990s, each society produced its own curriculum recommendations. Over time, the advantages of cooperative work among them became obvious. Today, the societies cooperate in creating curriculum standards, and, in this way, send a single message to the computing community. Many researchers and teachers belong to more than one of the societies.ACM and IEEE-CS joined forces in the late 1980s to create a joint curriculum report for computing. Published in 1991 and known as Computing Curricula 1991or CC‟91 [CC91], it provided guidelines for curricula for four-year Bachelor‟s degree programs in computer science and computer engineering. Throughout the 1990s, various efforts were made to produce curricula guidelines for other programs in computing education. By 1993, ACM had produced five reports for two-year Associate degree programs, one report each for computer science, computer engineering technology, information systems, computer support services, and computing for other disciplines. [AssocDeg] Also in 1993, ACM produced curriculum recommendations for a high school curriculum [HS]. In 1997, ACM, AIS, and AITP [AIS] published a model curriculum and a set of guidelines for four-year Bachelors degree programs in information systems [IS97]. The 1990s also saw newer computing fields such as software engineering gain increased prominence in the U.S.By the end of the 1990s, it was becoming clear that the field of computing had not only grown rapidly but had also grown in many dimensions. The proliferation of different kinds of degree programs incomputing left many people confused. Given the growing number of kinds of computing degree programs, confusion was perhaps inevitable. This diversity of computing degrees was a problem that had not existed in a significant way prior to the explosion of computing‟s impact in the 1990s. Because it was a new problem, there was no established way of coordinating and simplifying the choices that suddenly seemed to be appearing everywhere.When ACM and IEEE-CS again joined forces in the late 1990s to produce an up-to-date curriculum report to replace CC‟91, these organizations could no longer ignore the problem. The original plan called for the two societies to form a joint task force that w ould update the CC‟91 report. ACM and IEEE-CS created a joint task force and its goal was to produce Computing Curricula 2001 [CC2001], a single report that would provide curriculum guidelines for degree programs for the various computing disciplines. However, the members of the task force soon recognized the new reality: computing had grown in so many dimensions that no single view of the field seemed adequate. The days when the field of computing consisted of only computer science, computer engineering and information systems were over, and the richness and breadth provided by the various computing disciplines called for a new way of defining what computing curricula should be.The CC2001 Task Force faced this challenge by making four important decisions.1. There should be a curriculum report (or volume) for each of the major computing disciplines,including computer engineering, computer science, information systems, and software engineering.2. The number of computing-related disciplines is likely to grow. The curriculum report structure mustaccommodate not only the four computing disciplines that were established at that time (enumerated above) but also new computing disciplines as they emerge.3. The growing number of computing disciplines naturally causes confusion. Therefore, in addition tothe various discipline-specific volumes, there must also be an Overview report to serve as a practical umbrella guide to the discipline-specific volumes.4. The pace of change in computing is sufficiently rapid that a process must be established for theorganizations to update curriculum guidelines more frequently than once per decade.The Task Force recognized that its members were primarily computer scientists and deemed itself qualified to produce a report only for computer science. It called for ACM, IEEE-CS, AIS, and other professional societies to undertake a cooperative effort to create the volumes for computer engineering, information systems, and software engineering. The work of this task force, known as Computing Curricula 2001 (CC2001), was published in December 2001 [CC2001]. The CC2001 Report contains two important components:∙ a new structure for computing curriculum guidelines encompassing the decisions taken by the Task Force described above and henceforth referred to as the CC2001 model, and∙ detailed curricula guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in computer science.Because the CC2001 report included CS curriculum guidelines, those who refer to it for its computer science content might think of as CS2001. Beginning with the publication of the CC2005 report, the title “Computing Curricula 20xx” will be used for Overview reports. New editions of the CS curriculum guidelines will be called “Computer Science 20xx”. In all cases, “20xx” wi ll be the year of publication.In response to the CC2001 model, work soon began on other discipline-specific volumes:∙ The information systems community published its updated IS2002 report in 2002 [IS2002].∙ The software engineering community published its first report, SE2004, in 2004 [SE2004].。

中国风险投资研究院 China Venture Capital Research Institute （CVCRI）风险投资 （Venture Capital）每周简讯总第110期（2007年3月24日～3月30日）《内部传阅》中国风险投资研究院研究中心摘编二零零七年三月三十日VC每周简讯 2007年总第110期目录募集/私募信息 (1)科星创业投资基金在沪成立专注于生物医药领域 (1)Axiom Asia完成FOF基金募集规模达到4.4亿美元 (1)新濠国际发起1亿美元PE基金投资休闲娱乐领域 (1)高盛拟集资200亿美元进军私人股权投资 (2)西部首个“天使基金”筹备组建 (2)投资案例 (3)人人网罗柏盛卷土重来创业交友网完成首轮融资 (3)正保远程教育获晨兴创投和兰馨亚洲联合投资 (3)PPStream获启明和策源千万美元联合注资 (3)福建元盛获里昂证券2500万美元注资 (4)IDGVC投资华康金融2500万美元豪赌金融中介 (4)中资源网络获日本网络营销公司600万美元投资 (4)世纪佳缘获启明创投千万美元投资 (5)资本市场信息 (5)荣信股份登陆深圳中小板深港产学研净赚5.8亿元 (5)政策法规及重要评论 (6)风险投资进军上海浦东物流业将获补贴 (6)上海黄浦区设风投基金扶持“科技京城” (6)其他相关信息 (7)VC在成都遭冷遇蓉企拒绝与风投合作 (7)募集/私募信息科星创业投资基金在沪成立 专注于生物医药领域经国家商务部批准，由上海科技投资公司、新加坡星展银行和香港思格资本集团共同发起设立的科星创业投资基金，3月26日在沪成立。

科星创投基金规模为5000万美元，首期资金为1500万美元，三方股东各出资500万美元。

该基金委托思格资本集团旗下的思新格创投管理（上海）公司管理，将专注投资于生物医药、IT等高科技领域。

据统计，上海现有注册创业投资企业240余家，资金规模达30多亿美元。