Search results

Semi‐structured data are commonly represented by labeled flat db‐graphs. In this paper, we study an extension of db‐graph model for representing nested semi‐structured data. This extension allows one to have db‐graphs whose vertex labels are db‐graphs themselves. Bringing the data model closer to the natural presentation of data stored via Web documents is the main motivation behind nesting db‐graphs. The importance of nested db‐graphs is similar to the importance of nested tables in relational model. The main purpose of the paper is to provide a mechanism to query nested semi‐structured data and Web forms in a uniform way. Most of the languages proposed so far have been designed as extensions of SQL with, among others, the advantage to provide a user‐friendly syntax and commercial flavor. The major focus of the paper is on defining a graph query language in a multi‐sorted calculus like style.

This chapter is intended to elaborate on the existing academic literature addressing the migration of constitutional ideas. Through an examination of ongoing efforts to enshrine “defamation of religion” as a violation of international human rights, the author confirms that the phenomenon of migration is not restricted to positive constitutional norms, but rather also encompasses negative ideas that ultimately may serve to undermine international and domestic constitutionalism. More specifically, the case study demonstrates that the movement of anti-constitutional ideas is not restricted to the domain of “international security” law, and further, that the vertical axis linking international and domestic law is in fact a two-way channel that permits the transmission of domestic anti-constitutional ideas up to the international level.

In reaching the findings presented herein, the chapter also adds to the universalism–relativism debate by demonstrating that allowances for “plurality consciousness” on the international level may in certain instances undermine fundamental norms previously negotiated and accepted as authoritative by the international community. From this perspective, the movement in favor of prohibiting “defamation of religion” is not merely a case study that helps to expand our understanding of how anti-constitutional ideas migrate, but also indicative of a reenergized campaign to challenge the status, content, and stability of universal human rights norms.

This paper aims to examine some of the broader social consequences of enabling digital rights management. The authors suggest that the current, mainstream orientation of digital rights management systems could have the effect of shifting certain public powers into the invisible hands of private control. Focusing on two central features of digital rights management ‐ their surveillance function and their ability to unbundle copyrights into discrete and custom‐made products ‐ the authors conclude that a promulgation of the current use of digital rights management has the potential to seriously undermine our fundamental public commitments to personal privacy and freedom of expression.

In a democratic system such as the United States, freedom of expression and free speech are core values in the Constitution and fiercely protected by civil liberties organizations and advocates. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to protest and to express what may be considered unpopular or dissenting opinions. However, the right does not extend to incitement of violence and the state is authorized to protect the safety of citizens. One of the most recent movements challenging the country’s recognition of freedom of expression has been the alt-right/white nationalist movement, particularly Richard Spencer who is a vocal white supremacist and president of the National Policy Institute. A number of universities such as Auburn University, Texas A&M, the University of Florida, and Michigan State University recently found themselves in the middle of a free speech and expression event versus the potential for political violence situation because of the rhetoric of Spencer’s White Lives Matter campus tour and possibility of protests or counter-protests following his speeches. This invites the question of to what extent a university can ban controversial speakers out of concern for violence and when must they allow controversial speech? The chapter will start by looking at state control of political protests and speech in the United States and then how similar dissent is addressed in other countries.

Internationally, dissent is often handled differently with much less tolerance and often a more confrontational response by the state. For example, following the Arab Spring and passage of restrictive laws to prohibit influencing public opinion, Saudi Arabia has seen a rise in political arrests as the state uses its authority to suppress political competitors and consolidate power. The State Security Agency, overseen by the king, claimed in September 2017 that a group of academics, scholars, writers, and leading Islamist figures were inciting violence and called for their arrest. This wave of arrests along with several prior ones and state exercise of media control, exemplifies Saudi Arabia’s desire to suppress dissent by exercising state control. In Venezuela, a law prohibiting messages of hate from being transmitted via broadcast and social media was passed, carrying a possible sentence of 20 years in prison if convicted. The Assembly claimed the law was intended to promote “peace, tolerance, equality, and respect,” but it has been criticized for suppressing extremist sectors of right-wing political groups in the country. Additional case studies of Uganda’s use of military forces to control public outcry over corruption and deteriorating public services will also be evaluated.

On Inauguration Day 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos gave a talk sponsored by the University of Washington College Republicans entitled “Cyberbullying Isn’t Real.” This chapter is based on participant-observation conducted in the crowd outside the venue that night and analyzes the violence that occurs when the blurring of the boundaries between “free” and “hate” speech is enacted on the ground. This ethnographic examination rethinks relationships between law, bodies, and infrastructure as it considers debates over free speech on college campuses from the perspectives of legal and public policy, as well as those who supported and protested Yiannopoulos’s right to speak at the University of Washington. First, this analysis uses ethnographic research to critique the absolutist free speech argument presented by the legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman. Second, this essay uses the theoretical work of Judith Butler and Sara Ahmed to make claims concerning relationships between speech, vulnerability, and violence. In so doing, this chapter argues that debates over free speech rights on college campuses need to be situated by processes of neoliberalization in higher education and reconsidered in light of the ways in which an absolutist position disproportionately protects certain people at the expense of certain others.

The paper sets out to develop the T(x) model, based on well known principles and using the free energy of the ferromagnetic binary system as a starting point.

With the inclusion of the coercive and the intermolecular forces the model fully describes the hysteretic process for both major and minor loops, with exchange field between adjacent magnetic moments.

The paper formulates the dependence of the hysteretic system's normalised free energy on parameters such as the temperature, coercivity, other magnetic and materials properties of the ferromagnetic medium.

Experimental verification will still be needed as to the accuracy of the model and the applicability to the various magnetic materials.

The paper provides an easy mathematical and visual method to present the energy state and its variation of the magnetic materials during magnetisation, including non‐saturation conditions. It has a great value to people engaged in theoretical research in magnetism.

So far free energy calculations were only possible for major hysteresis loops. The T(x) model, as presented here, is applicable to the calculation of the free energy flow of any symmetrical minor loops as well.

This chapter discusses the challenges of safeguarding academic freedom during leadership transitions and organizational change in universities. Examples from a large public university illustrate current challenges and provide perspective for proactive measures to protect academic freedom. While the context and details are unique to the institution featured in the chapter, the lessons gleaned from each vignette offer valuable insight to faculty and university leaders who are motivated to better understand and uphold the principles of academic freedom and, more broadly, protected speech with higher education. To support academic leaders in achieving these goals, a conceptual framework for shared leadership through shared governance to support academic freedom is presented. The chapter concludes with recommendations for leveraging shared leadership to foster a university culture that supports of academic freedom.

The paper seeks to explore the rights of researchers to use facts gathered from previous authors, even when there are only one or a small number of sources, and also to explore the limits of non‐literal copying of textual materials.

The paper consists of a conceptual analysis of legislation and cases that illustrate the effects of the law.

The paper finds that the charge of non‐literal copying of factual literary works is not accepted because of low levels of originality in structure of the material. Public policy based on the needs of scholarship provides a more predictable level of access to the contents of works.

Originality arguments are always open to try again. Only a policy statement will give a degree of certainty.

The paper aids in distinguishing the originality and policy arguments and who benefits from each, and also relates this problem to the more familiar one of the protection of free speech.