C.A. Ellis. Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proc. International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge (GROUP'97), pages 415-424. ACM Press, 1997.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....data, con gurations, and actions, but describe the system solely in terms of (pushdown) automata. The team pushdown automata (team pda s) we introduce here are in many ways a continuation of two such attempts, viz. the distributed pushdown automaton model [13, 14, 18] and the team automaton model [7, 15]. However, team pda s also borrow ideas from other models, in particular from the theory of grammar systems [10, 23] Grammar systems consist of a set of grammars that, by interacting according to a protocol of communication and cooperation, generate one language. Best known are the sequential ....

....unit has reached a nal state. If, on the other hand, the word on the tape can be completely read in this way and all stacks are empty, then it is part of the language accepted by a CD pda accepting by empty stack. Team automata form a formal framework capable of modelling groupware systems [15], multi user software systems used in CSCW [1, 16] Inspiration came from a call for models capturing concepts of group behaviour [24] Technically, team automata are an extension of I O automata [19] Team automata consist of a set of component automata interacting in a coordinated way by ....

C.A. Ellis, Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge, ACM Press, 1997, 415-424.

....may be applied for verifying that P satis es GNDC when speci c conditions are met. Here we intend to take some preliminary steps towards formulating a TA version of GNDC. TA form a exible framework for modelling communication between system components [1, 2, 3] originally introduced in [5]. A TA is composed of component automata (CA) which are ordinary automata without nal states and with a distinction of their sets of actions into input, output and internal actions. TA model the logical architecture of a system by describing it solely in terms of an automaton, the role of ....

C.A. Ellis. Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proc. International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge (GROUP'97), pages 415-424. ACM Press, 1997.

....context within which knowledge about how people work can be embedded. Team Automata In the previous section we have sketched how a hierarchical team structure can be induced by the structure of the model under development. Here we discuss how we can model this structure in terms of team automata [6, 1]. For their formal details we refer the reader to [1] Team automata were introduced in the field of Computer Supported Cooperative work (CSCW) as a modelling tool for capturing groupware notions such as coordination, collaboration, and cooperation in a mathematically precise way [7] Team ....

C.A. Ellis. Team automata for groupware systems. In J. Clifford, B. Lindsday, and D. Maier, editors, Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge (GROUP'97), Phoenix, Arizona, pages 415 -- 424, 1997.

....metaphors (e.g. the desktop metaphor) that aid in end user understanding of computing phenomena. This document is concerned with a model and a metaphor. The model is team automata, which were created explicitly for the specification and analysis of CSCW phenomena and collaborative systems [11]. The metaphor is spatial access control, which is based upon current notions of virtual reality, and helps demystify concepts of access control matrices and capability structures for the end user [8] Many of the concepts and techniques of computer science, such as concurrency control, user ....

....a rigorous specification of the components of a collaborative system and presents mechanisms to describe the synchronous and asynchronous interaction of these components. It has been proposed as a formal framework for modeling both the conceptual and the architectural level of groupware systems [11]. It is not a message passing model, nor a shared memory model, but a shared action model. Two (or more) automata may simultaneously perform a shared action. Our experience has shown that the team automata model is capable of naturally and succinctly describing many interesting group phenomena and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

C.A. Ellis, Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proceedings of the GROUP'97 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge, Phoenix, Arizona (J. Clifford, B. Lindsday, and D. Maier, eds.), ACM Press, 1997, 415 -- 424.

....Computer Science, Universiteit Leiden P.O. Box 9512, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands fmtbeek,kleijn,rozenberg liacs.nl 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Campus Box 430, Boulder, CO 80309 0430, U.S.A. skip colorado.edu Abstract. Team automata have been proposed in [Ell97] as a formal framework for modeling both the conceptual and the architectural level of groupware systems. Here we de ne team automata in a mathematically precise way in terms of component automata which synchronize on certain executions of actions. At the conceptual level, our model serves as a ....

....such concepts. At a conceptual level, CSCW clearly has a need for developing a precise and consistent terminology. At a lower, architectural level, CSCW has been searching for a rigorous framework to describe, compare and contrast groupware systems. The concept of team automata was introduced in [Ell97] and was shown to be useful at the conceptual and architectural levels. The present paper is a direct continuation of [Ell97] we elaborate here further the concept of a team automaton. In particular, we o er precise de nitions of when automata are collaborating and when they are cooperating, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

C.A. Ellis, Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proceedings of the GROUP'97 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge, Phoenix, Arizona, ACM Press, 1997, 415 - 424.

....groupware systems, abstractions tend to be especially useful. Thus, CSCW has a need for developing a precise and consistent terminology. Moreover, at the architectural level, CSCW needs a rigorous framework to describe, compare and contrast groupware systems. Team automata have been introduced in [13] explicitly for the speci cation and analysis of CSCW phenomena and groupware systems. The set up of the model makes it possible to clarify and capture precisely notions related to coordination and collaboration in distributed systems. Team automata consist of an abstract speci cation of the ....

....strictly local visibility and can thus not be used for communication with other components, whereas external actions are observable by other components. These external actions can be used for communication between components and are divided into input actions and output actions. As formulated in [13]: input actions are not under the local system s control and are caused by another non local component, the output actions are under the system s control and are externally observable by other components, and internal actions are under the local system s control but are not externally ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

C.A. Ellis, Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proceedings of the GROUP'97 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge, Phoenix, Arizona (J. Cliord, B. Lindsday, and D. Maier, eds.), ACM Press, 1997, 415 - 424.

....system that provides mainly keeper functionalities, a keeper; and a groupware system that provides mainly communicator functionalities, a communicator; and similarly to coordinators. But more modern groupware system have other functionalities besides the ones defined by three aspects above. In [Ell97] these functionalities are grouped into the agent aspect. The term agent is used in a much broader sense than in domains such as Artificial Intelligence and Social Sciences. Agents, in our sense, are functionalities, that may be implemented by an program that can be considered autonomous and can ....

C. Ellis. Team automata for groupware systems. In ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP'97), pages 415--424. ACM Press, 1997.

....and improving the time and space complexities of existing algorithms. In [1] a Calculus for Concurrent Update (CCU) has been derived from the dOPT algorithm as a tool for the purpose of formal modeling and verification of consistency preserving operational transformation. The Team Automata [6] is another mathematical model for describing the interaction of a groupware system components. More work needs to be done in developing and applying innovative theoretical tools to verify operational transformation algorithms and systems. Future research should distinguish and explore two types ....

C. A. Ellis: "Team Automata for Groupware Systems," In Proc. of ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp.415-424, Nov. 1997.

No context found.

C.A. Ellis. Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proc. International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge (GROUP'97), pages 415-424. ACM Press, 1997.

No context found.

C.A. Ellis, Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proceedings of the GROUP'97 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge (S.C. Hayne and W. Prinz, eds.), ACM Press, New York, 1997, 415 - 424.

No context found.

C.A. Ellis, Team Automata for Groupware Systems. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Supporting Group Work: The Integration Challenge (S.C. Hayne and W. Prinz, eds.), ACM Press, 1997, 415-424.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC