Analysis of Unified Modelling Language

Analysis of Unified Modelling Language Chapter 1: Introduction Context of the Problem The Unified Modeling Language is a graphical modeling language used for the visualization, specification, construction, and documentation of object-oriented software systems. It has been adopted by the Object Management Group (OMG) and is widely accepted as a standard in industry and research. The UML provides thirteen types of diagrams for different purpose. This thesis focuses on sequence and class diagram known as structure diagram and behavior diagram. Sequence forms concentrate on the presentation of dynamic aspects of a software system, and class forms the structural view of software system. Sequence diagrams stress time ordering while Class focus on static. In Model-driven Architecture (MDA), class diagram is the source for code generation in object-oriented development (Pender, 2003), so how to map what we find in the interaction diagram back to class diagram become an important subject if we want to develop system from behavior aspect initially. There are some existing relatively modest tool supports exploiting the logical dependencies of UML diagrams. Some systems maintain method lists across class diagrams and sequence diagrams and the transformation between sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams. However, nowadays, the two diagrams that sequence and Class are draw divided and can not be transformed between each other. And there is no comprehensive framework that would support such mechanisms throughout these two diagram types in a systematic way (Selonen et al., 2003). That waste much time to maintain system and often make the system development documents should rewrite again and again. To solve these problems, a transformation theorem which proposed by Selonen et al. (2003) is cited in this paper. Selonen et al. (2003) propose a framework and categorize meaningful transformation operations between different diagram types in UML. These operations can be used, for example, for model checking, merging, slicing and synthesis (Selonen et al., 2003). The transformation operation can be used as a basis of tool support in UML-based modeling tools. With these operations, we can get the benefits as follows: Class Diagram becomes easier and faster to create because they can be achieved as results of automated operations. Class Diagram becomes more consistent and correct because they are either produced or updated automatically, or checked against each other exploiting the transformation operations. Improve the software development process. The process of agile modeling become from use case to sequence diagram and then translated to class diagram. It will be more simply and efficiency. Research Question and sub-questions How does the transformation between sequence and Class diagrams make systems easier to develop and maintain and avoid system development documents to be rewritten all the time? What are meta-modeling, Meta Object Facility and Object Constraint language? How to operate the transformation? How does the transformation work in the real world (Examples)? Significance of the Study Sequence diagrams provide a natural and easy medium for designing the examples of typical dynamic interactions of objects, often as refined representations of use cases. After modeling examples of interactions, the designer should add the information implied by the sequence diagrams to the static view (class diagrams), or check that the static view conforms to the sequence diagrams (Selonen et al., 2000). The sequence diagram and class diagram derived from the same use case and can not be transformed between each other. This paper discusses a particular UML transformation operation mentioned in (Selonen et al., 2003), which transforms from a sequence diagram into a class diagram. The transformation operation is based on the UML 2.0 Specification (OMG, 2003), which defines the syntax and semantics of UML. The thesis defines the rules on the phases of this transformation operation and gives a transformation example to show the result of transformation. This paper will concentrate on the conceptual research of UML semantics, and do not concentrate on any development tool. However, OCL will be used to describe the transformation rules and hoped can be used in UML-based modeling tools development. I hope that the steps of modeling will improve; Support for synthesizing a new class diagram from an existing sequence diagram can provide significant help for the designer. Such synthesis operation helps the designer keep the two diagrams consistent because the synthesized class diagram can be compared with existing class diagram. The transformation operation also speeds up the design process, and to decrease the risk of human errors. In UML CASE tool vendors can implement this transformation operation in their tools to get the benefits described above. Research Design and Methodology The protocol for this research project is mostly using qualitative by design. A Case study will be used as the most important a strategy of research methodology in the study. The research process consists of six steps. It collects and analysis the documents and papers which are corresponding to the UML transformation thesis, OCL and MDA transformation theory. Then proposing a transformation framework for transformation from sequence diagram to class diagram and concluding transformation mapping rules. This paper will testify and revise the transformation mapping rules via implement a real case of agile modeling development process. And finally proposing the research result, and discuss the conclusion and future work. Organization of the Study Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter one introduces the research. This chapter will present the context of the problem, the problem statement, the main research question, the significance of the study, and the research methodology used to address the main research question. Chapter 2: Review of the Literature Chapter two gives an overview of the background literature for the thesis. Chapter 3: Meta-modeling, Meta Object Facility and Object Constraint language Chapter three will give the brief introduction of UML, MDA, meta-model, transformation and OCL are described at first, followed are the separate meta-models of sequence and class diagram. Chapter 4: Operation of the Transformation Chapter four will propose a framework of transformation from Sequence diagram to Class diagram. Also, a rule will be defined on every phase of transformation, using OCL to describe transformation rules. Chapter 5: Example of the Translations Chapter five will be working on a Case Study, and demonstrating the transformation for a true case in the real world. Chapter 6: Conclusion Chapter six will present the summery and conclusion. Chapter 2: Review of Literature 2.1 UML The complexity in software development process of getting from a set of requirements to a proper abstraction of the solution leads people to develop models. A model is a simplification of something so we can view, manipulate, and reason about it, and so help us understand the complexity inherent in the subject under study (Mellor et al., 2004). The UML is a family of graphical notations, backed by single meta-model, that help in describing and designing software systems, particularly software systems built using the object-oriented (OO) style (Fowler, 2003). The Unified Modeling Language (UML), since adopted as a standard (UML 1.1) by OMG in 1997, has become a widely accepted as standard for modeling a software system. The latest UML version 2.0 has been formally adopted in June 2003, and it will be applied throughout this thesis. UML 2 describes 13 official diagram types which fall in two categories depending on whether they describe structural or behavioral aspects of a software system. The UML can capture an array of processes and structures which related to business and software. UML has such power that a modeler can use it for the general architecture of any construction that has both a static structure and dynamic behavior. A project can rely on UML as the standard language to express requirements, system design, deployment instructions, and code structure (Eriksson et al., 2004). 2.2 Agile Modeling Test case modeling and an evolutionary approach are two major and strongly related techniques to model transformation (Rumpe, 2004). UML nowadays has become popular modeling language for software intensive systems used. Models can be used for a variety of purposes. One advantage of using models for test case description is the application specific parts which are modeled with UML-diagrams, such as connection to frameworks, error handling, persistence, or communication are handled by the parameterized code generator (Rumpe, 2004). This allows us to develop models which can be independent of any technology or platform, such as PIM. When the technology changes, we only need to update the generator, and the application defining models can directly be reused. This concept also directly supports the above mentioned MDA-Approach (OMG, 2005) of the OMG. Another important merit is that both of the production code and automatically executable tests are modeled by the same UML diagrams. Therefore developers could use a single homogeneous language to describe implementation and tests. This will enhance the availability of tests at the beginning of the coding activities. Analogously to the â€Å"test first approach† (Beck, 2001), sequence diagrams are used for test cases and can be taken from the previously modeled requirements. When we start software modeling by drawing classes in a class diagram does not mean we are developing a class model. Instead, we are developing a software model by defining static aspects through a static view. If we start our development by drawing a dynamic diagram, like the state or sequence diagram, we are developing a software model by defining dynamic aspects through a dynamic view. The class and sequence diagrams could better be called structural and dynamic views. They are all written in the same language: UML (Kleppe et al, 2003). In Agile modeling (Ambler, 2002), we develop an Information system in following steps by using UML. System Use Case Models UI Prototypes UML Class Diagrams UML Sequence Diagrams UML Activity Diagrams Use case diagram shows a number of external actors and their connection to the use cases that the system provides. A use case is a description of a functionality (a specific usage of the system) that the system provides. The description of the actual use case is normally done in plain text or as a document linked to the use case. The functionality and flow can also be described using an activity diagram. The use case description only views the system behavior as the user perceives it and does not describe how the functionality is provided inside the system. Use cases define the functional requirements of the system. Sequence diagrams address an interaction and may be used to model flows within use cases (Booch et al., 1999). They show how the objects interact to execute operations, emphasis on the time ordering of the messages. Class diagrams shows a collection of declarative (static) model elements, such as classes, types, and their contents and relationships. Once we have the use cases, the next step is to create the class diagram. This is the heart of the object-oriented model. This paper concentrates on the steps of modeling from Use Case Models to Class Diagrams and sequence Diagrams. 2.3 MDA The MDA is a new software engineering approach developed and published by the Object Management Group (OMG). One fundamental observation in the evolution of living software systems over the years is that their basic design models are mostly unchanged. Most changes to evolving software systems take place only at engineering level, forced by the introduction of new technologies and platforms (BAohme et al., 2005). MDA promotes simply the usage of models for the whole software system development. To capture the problem of technology evolution MDA defines two categories of models. The first one is for abstract modeling of the software systems at the design level. This model class is called Platform Independent Model (PIM). The second category is related to specific platforms and technologies. It contains mainly engineering aspects of the software system and is called Platform Specific Model (PSM). Between these two classes of models, MDA defines a relation in the form of several transformations, which ensure the structural equivalence of PIM and PSM. Another key issue of MDA is a technology framework for different kinds of model handling (storage, exchange, mapping of models, etc.). The Meta Object Facility (MOF) (OMG, 2000) is convenient for this purpose. Historically modeling languages were defined by abstract grammars. MOF instead defines modeling languages on the base of so-called Meta-Models. Meta-Models are models (instances) of built-in MOF concepts. Using this framework the developer can focus more on the definition of mappings between models rather than having to struggle with ordinary model handling. This is due to the fact that MOF comes with a method for the definition of model classes (Meta-Models) and for the exchange of models using the XML Metadata Interchange (XMI). In addition, MOF provides mappings of Meta-Models to repository interfaces as well. Such a repository holds all necessary information about model instances. The above argument is correct for most of todays component technology. To show the real application we have to choose concrete Meta-Models for PIM and PSM. This also leads to the selection of appropriate Meta-Models and notations for PIM and PSM. One requirement for both is the support of the component concept as a first class concept. Moreover, the Meta-Model for the PSM should be part of a well-defined and established component technology. Because the spread industrial usage is a process consuming several years, the suitable technologies have traditional syntax based languages for component definition. MDA exploits the emergence of a class of tools, which support model translation and allow meta-model manipulation. Meta-models are models of the formalism used to build models. They define the various kinds of contained model elements and the way they are arranged, related and constrained. The process of developing a model results in the creation of instances of the model elements defined in the meta-model – the meta-model is â€Å"populated† with instance data. Model transformation is the process of converting a model expressed in one formalism to another model of the same system expressed using a different formalism. This can be achieved by building a meta-model of each of the source and target model representations and then defining a mapping between them. The meta-model of the source model is populated with instance data of the specific source model to be transformed. The mapping rules are applied as a set of operations invoked on the source meta-model, which results in a meta-model of the target model populated with instance data. This populated target meta-model is then used to generate the target model (or possibly the target text in the case of code generation. (Bloomfield, 2005) 2.4 Models, modeling, and MDA Models and model-driven software development are at the heart of the MDA approach. So it is appropriate to start by looking at what is being practiced when enterprise application developers take advantage of modeling. In the software engineering world, modeling has a rich tradition from the earliest days of programming. The most recent innovations have focused on notations and tools that allow users to express system perspectives of value to software architects and developers in ways that are readily mapped into the programming language code that can be compiled for a particular operating system platform. The current state of this practice employs the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as the primary modeling notation (Rumbaugh et al.,1999). The UML allows development teams to capture a variety of important characteristics of a system in corresponding models. Transformations among these models are primarily manual, with tool support for managing traceability and dependency relationships among modeling elements, supported by best practice guidance on how to maintain synchronized models as part of a large-scale development effort. One useful way to characterize current practice is to look at the different ways in which the models are synchronized with the source code. Each category identifies a particular use of models in assisting software practitioners to create running applications (code) for a specific runtime platform, and the relationship between the models and the code. Today, most of software developers still take a code-only approach, and do not use separately defined models at all. They rely almost entirely on the code they write, and they express their model of the system they are building directly in a 3rd generation programming language such as Java, C++, or C# within an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) such as IBM WebSphere Studio, Eclipse, and Microsoft VisualStudio. Any â€Å"modeling† they do is in the form of programming abstractions embedded in the code (e.g., packages, modules, interfaces, etc.), which are managed through mechanisms such as program libraries and object hierarchies. Any separate modeling of architectural designs is informal and intuitive, and lives on whiteboards, in PowerPoint sides, or in the developers’ heads. While this may be adequate for individuals and very small teams, this approach makes it difficult to understand key characteristics of the system among the details of the implementation of the business logic. Furthermore, it becomes much more difficult to manage the evolution of these solutions as their scale and complexity increases, as the system evolves over time, or when the original members of the design team are not directly accessible to the team maintaining the system. An addition is to provide code visualizations in some appropriate modeling notation. As developers create or analyze an application, they often want to visualize the code through some graphical notation that aids their understanding of the code’s structure or behavior. It may also be possible to manipulate the graphical notation as an alternative to editing the text based code, so that the visual rendering becomes a direct representation of the code. Such rendering is sometimes called a code model, or an implementation model, although many feel it more appropriate to call these artifacts â€Å"diagrams† and reserve the use of â€Å"model† for higher levels of abstraction. Some tools that allow such diagrams (e.g., IBM Web Sphere Studio and Borland Together/J), the code view and the model view can be displayed simultaneously; as the developer manipulates either view the other is immediately synchronized with it. In this approach, the diagrams are tightly coupled representations of the code and provide an alternative way to view and possibly edit at the code level. Further advantage of the models can be taken through roundtrip engineering (RTE) between an abstract model of the system describing the system architecture or design, and the code. The developer typically elaborates the system design to some level of detail, then creating a first-pass implementation from the code generated by applying model-to-code transformations, usually manually. For instance, one team working on the high level design provides design models to the team working on the implementation (perhaps simply by printing out model diagrams, or providing the implementation team some files containing the models). The implementation team converts this abstract, high-level design into a detailed set of design models and the programming language implementation. Iterations of these representations will occur as errors and their corrections are made in either the design or the code. Consequently, without considerable discipline, the abstract models and the implementation models usually and quickly – end up out of step. Tools can automate the initial transformation, and can help to keep the design and implementation models in step as they evolve. Typically the tools generate code stubs from the design models that the user has to further refine. As changes are made to the code they must at some point be reconciled with the original model. To achieve this some approach to recognize generated versus user defined code is used such as placing markers in the code. Tools adopting this approach, such as IBM Rational Rose, can offer multiple transformation services supporting RTE between models and different implementation languages. In a model-centric approach, models of the system are established in sufficient detail that the full implementation of the system can be generated from the models themselves. To achieve this, the models may include, for example, representations of the persistent and non persistent data, business logic, and presentation elements. Any integration to legacy data and services may require that the interfaces to those elements are also modeled. In some cases much more than code stubs can be generated depending on the fidelity of the models of patterns to transform the models to code, frequently allowing the developer some choice in the patterns that are applied (e.g., among various deployment topologies). To further assist in the code generation, this approach frequently makes use of standard or proprietary application frameworks and runtime services that ease the code generation task by constraining the styles of applications that can be generated. Hence, tools using this approach typically specialize in the generation of particular styles of applications (e.g., IBM Rational Rose Technical Developer for real-time embedded systems). However, in all cases the models are the primary artifact created and manipulated by developers. A model-only approach is at the far-right end of the modeling spectrum. In this approach developers use models purely as thought aids in understanding the business or solution domain, or for analyzing the architecture of a proposed solution. Models are frequently used as the basis for discussion, communication, and analysis among teams within a single organization, or across multi-organizational projects. These models frequently appear in proposals for new work, or adorn the walls of offices and cubes in software labs everywhere as a way of understanding some complex domain of interest, and establishing a shared vocabulary and set of concepts among disparate teams. In practice the implementation of a system, whether from scratch or updating an existing solution, may be practically disconnected from the models. An interesting example of this approach can be seen in the growing number of organizations who outsource implementation and maintenance of their systems while maintaining contr ol of the overall enterprise architecture. 2.5 Transformations between UML diagrams UML provides different diagram types supporting the development process from requirements specification to implementation (Selonen et al., 2001). The models presented by different diagrams view a system from different perspectives or from different abstraction levels. Therefore, the various UML models of the same system are not independent specifications but strongly overlapping: they depend on each other in many ways. For Instance, changes in one model may imply changes in another, and a large portion of one model may be synthesized on the basis of another model. So far there exists relatively modest tool support exploiting the logical dependencies of UML models. Some systems (e.g. Rational Rose) maintain, for instance, method lists across class diagrams and sequence diagrams: adding a call of a new method in a sequence diagram automatically causes the corresponding updating of the class symbol in a class diagram. Another example is the transformation between sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams, also supported by Rational Rose. However, there is no comprehensive framework that would support such mechanisms throughout Class diagram and Sequence diagram in a systematic way. This paper studies the relationships of Class diagram and Sequence diagram in UML, and transformation operations that are based on those relationships. A transformation operation takes a UML diagram as its operand (the source diagram), and produces another diagram of another type as its result (the target diagram). It considers such transformation operations as an essential part of a UML- based software design environment. The transformation operations can be used for example in the following ways: Model checking:Are two diagrams consistent with each other? It is much easier to find inconsistencies between two diagrams of the same type than between two diagrams of different types. If the diagrams are of different types, transformation operations can be first applied to obtain two diagrams of the same type, which are then compared for consistency. Model merging:Add the information contained in one diagram to another diagram. Merging the modeling information of two diagrams is much easier when the diagrams are of the same type (Alanen and Porres, 2003). If the diagrams are of different types, transformation operations can be first applied to obtain two diagrams of the same type, which are then merged. Model slicing:Create a partial view of a diagram showing only a particular aspect. Often the aspect can be presented in the form of another diagram (of some other type). For example, one may want to see a dynamic slice of a static diagram. The diagram representing the slicing criterion (for example, a dynamic diagram) can be first transformed into the type of the target diagram (for example, a static diagram). An intersection of the two diagrams of the same type then shows the desired slice. Model synthesis:Produce a diagram on the basis of an existing diagram of another type. This is the most straightforward usage of transformation operations. Such synthesis can be useful for two purposes: to obtain automatically an initial form of a diagram needed in a subsequent phase of the software development process, or to obtain a different view of the information contained by a diagram. The latter may be used just as a transient view on a model, rather than as a persistent design artifact. 2.6 Phase of Transformation Operation Selonen et al. (2003) use the UML meta-model to define the transformation between UML diagrams. Since diagram types are only very loosely defined (the same notation may represent different meaning on different diagrams), we need to establish a precise mapping from a graphical view representing a diagram type to a model; i.e. we must define a model that corresponds to a given diagram. This model contains exactly the logical information exposed by the diagram, needed by the transformation operations. We will call this model the minimal model of the diagram. As we do this for all diagram types, we are able to define transformations between diagram types as functions from the meta-model of a diagram type to the meta-model of another diagram type. Such a function takes the minimal model of the source diagram as its argument, and produces the minimal model of the target diagram. They call the transformation rules the interpretation of the transformation. Assuming that the mappings from the source diagram into its minimal model, from this minimal model into the minimal model of the target diagram, and finally into the target diagram, are all defined uniquely, the transformation between two diagram types becomes fully defined (Selonen et al.,2003). First, take a given sequence diagram and map the sequence diagram to its minimal model. Then transform this minimal model to a minimal model of a class diagram. Finally, this minimal model is mapping to a class diagram in model level. This thesis will base on this process to introduce a definite transformation operation. Reference Tom Pender. (2003). UML Bible (1st edition). Wiley, ISBN: 0764526049 Martin Fowler. (2004). UML Distilled (3rd edition), Wesley, ISBN: 0321193687 Hans-Erik Eriksson, Magnus Penker, Brain Lyons, and David Fado. (2004). UML 2 Toolkit, Wiley, ISBN: 0471463612 Ambler. (2002). Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process, Wiley, ISBN: 0471202827 Jos Warmer, Anneke Kleppe.(2003). The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA (2nd Edition), Wesley, ISBN: 0321179366 Grzegorz Rozenberg.(1997). Handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Foundations (1st edition), World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN: 9810228848 James Rumbaugh, Grady Booch, and Ivar Jacobson. (1999). The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Wesley, ISBN: 020130998X Jams R Rumbaugh, Michael R. Blaha, William Lorensen, Frederick Eddy. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall; United States Ed edition, ISBN: 0136298419 Rumpe, B.(2004). Agile Modeling with the UML, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Petri Selonen, Kai Koskimies and Markku Sakkinen. (2001). How to Make Apples from Oranges in UML. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from: http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2001/0981/03/09813054.pdf Petri Selonen, Kai Koskimies and Markku Sakkinen. (2003). Transformations between UML diagrams. Journal of Database Management. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23439697_ITM Petri Selonen (2000). Scenario-based Synthesis of Annotated Class Diagrams in UML. Tampere University of Technology, Retrieved February 21, 2008, from: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/462963.html Mellor, S. J., Scott, K., Uhl, A., and Weise,D., MD. (2004). a Distilled: Principles of Model-Driven. Wesley, Retrieved February 22, 2008, From: http://www.metamodel.com/,2005 OMG. (2003). UML 2.0 OCL Specification, Retrieved February 22, 2008, from: http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-10-14.pdf,2003 Tony Bloomfield. (2005). MDA,Meta-Modelling,and Model Transformation: introduction New Technology into the Defence Industry, Retrieved February 22, 2008, from: http://www.enabler.com/en/skills/ecmda/PAPER_Bloomfield.pdf

How Does Steinbeck Presents Curley’s Wife in of Mice and Men Essay

Curley’s wife is a significant personality in the novel. John Steinbeck presents her in different ways during the novel and uses different methods to influence the reader’s judgement, for instance through her look, as she is a complex character. Significantly Steinbeck makes it clear that nurture turns her into the person she is in the novel, her nature is different. He uses language to show us who she is as revealed by colour and light symbolism; incongruity of her appearance and the setting; simile. For the majority of the book she is labelled in a negative way as a treacherous, kittenish character which could be interpreted as a replication of the way civilization observed the character of women in the novel. Sometimes, Steinbeck includes thoughts denouncing Curley’s wife. He also points out some of her good qualities. Due to this, readers can interpret for themselves if Steinbeck thinks highly of her, or if he does not like her. Nevertheless later in the book Steinbeck deploys the reader into seeing her as complex, and feeling consideration for Curley’s wife; revealing her as a victim, anxious and secluded in a man’s world. Although he may go back and forth on Curley’s wife, in the end, Steinbeck is mainly condemning her. Steinbeck explores her as attractive towards man through her beauty and an attention seeker. In the passage the first words that Steinbeck uses are that â€Å"Both men glanced up,† and through this we are introduced to Curley’s wife through her effect on men and not through any notion of herself, which Steinbeck does to show us she is only worthy for the use of men. The word glanced up shows that she want men to look at her for she is has the beauty of an actress. Not extended moment when Steinbeck exaggerates â€Å"the rectangle of sunshine in the doorway way cut off. † Here, Steinbeck uses the light symbolically to highlight how imposing she is and present the idea that she is the obstacle to a better life. The image of Curley’s wife casting a shadow across the bunkhouse hints at trouble to come later in the novel. It soon becomes apparent that Curley’s wife is an outsider of the group when it states, â€Å"A girl was standing there looking in,† hence is a metaphor for the segregation she senses. It could be insightful of the gender roles at the time; women were only desired for men’s erotic desires rather than their company. One could also deduce it as how likewise to a ‘girl’, (which she ironically is no longer), she is in search of thoughtfulness and requires all eyes to be on her by standing in the sight of the whole world and might be realised as attempting to listen in on their conversation – both very juvenile schemes. Therefore Steinbeck presents Curley’s Wife in â€Å"Of Mice and Men† as someone who is very eye-catching and courtesy inquirer. On the other hand, he portrays her as isolated and discriminated by men as she is excluded for being female, which sometimes lead to violence. This is illustrated when she is called ‘tart’, ‘jailbait’, and ‘bitch’ by the men on the ranch; henceforth the ranch is a very hostile and misogynistic place. Curley’s Wife is an outsider and seems very out of place. She is frequently found in examine for companionship on the ranch as her recently found marriage does not give her the warmth she desires, as she states to Lennie â€Å"I don’t like Curley he aint a nice fella,† and due to this she often tries to cooperate with the other men although she is never allowed as they think a â€Å"ranch aint no place for a girl. † Carlson also states of how a â€Å"women should be at home where she belongs. † The fact that she is excluded from a place of physical work is symptomatic of how women were exposed during the 1930’s. They were not predictable to do work, but in its place stay at home and raise a family. Curley’ wife feels apprehensive because of the solitude she feels and it is made clear she is exasperated with this condition, â€Å"none of them care how I gotta live. † Nonetheless, the reader is presented with a side to an apparently playful and occasionally vindictive character. In chapter 5, Steinbeck permits Curley’s Wife’s character to eloquent emotions of loneliness, â€Å"I get lonely† and â€Å"I get awful lonely†. The use of repetition is used to give emphasis to the remoteness and frustration of not being able to talk to â€Å"nobody but Curley†, her hindrance which incessantly exteriors as she speaks to Lennie. Moreover, for the period of the scene Steinbeck describes as such â€Å"And then her words tumbled out in a passion of communication, as though she hurried before her listener could be taken away†. The word â€Å"tumbled† recommends her frantic need to communicate to people, at the same time as the expression â€Å"passion† demonstrates her authority and strength needed to interconnect. Yet, what is predominantly conspicuous is she is used to people walking away from her when she speaks, this generates such consideration for her. In this chapter she is also presented as a moderate and approachable character, as Steinbeck describes â€Å"she consoled him. ‘Don’t you worry any’ [†¦] she moved closer to him and spoke soothingly. † The fact that she spoke â€Å"soothingly† suggests that she has a kind nature, and asked in a maternal way when Lennie needed such gentleness. The reader can then relate this sudden behaviour transformation and her upcoming, but the syrupiness she bounces off blurs the reader’s sight to floral it. All the way through the novel as similar to Crooks, Curley’s Wife is not named. This highlights her lack of identity on the ranch and how she is viewed as the property of her husband as well as the word â€Å"live† indicates that she also is a living human being who wants to fulfil her dreams and desires but it would be impossible for her. As a result of her insecurities, she tries to combat her loneliness and sequestration by resorting to violence. Her vicious attacks on Crooks to getting him â€Å"strung up on a tree† and the attacks on Lennie due to his mental disability show how loneliness can not only change a person, but destroy them. All of the emotions Curley’s Wife encounters come as a result of the loneliness she feels, and these clearly represent of what a terrifying character she is. Therefore Steinbeck describes Curley’s wife as isolated and discriminate due to her gender of a female throughout the novel. Equally, at the end of the novel, she is presented as innocent and purified from all the trouble through the description of her appearance. This can be seen in chapter 6 when Steinbeck explains â€Å"Curley’s wife lay with a half-covering of yellow hay. And the meanness and the plannings and the discontent and the ache for attention were all gone from her face. She was very pretty and simple, and her face was sweet and young. Now her rouged cheeks and her reddened lips made her seem alive and sleeping very lightly. The curls, tiny little sausages, were spread on the hay behind her head, and her lips were parted. As happens sometimes, a moment settled and hovered and remained for much more than a moment. And sound stopped and movement stopped for much, much more than a moment. † From this passage, the reader can acknowledge the real Curley’s wife but at the same time feel sorry for her as her dream was unfulfilled. The phrase â€Å"meanness (†¦ ) plannings (†¦) discontent (†¦) were all gone from her face† shows that she is no longer vicious and dangerous as all the negativity vanished. Most importantly the phrase â€Å"roughed cheeks and reddened lips† conveys that her dream is unfulfilled and the repetition of â€Å"stopped† to emphasise stillness and the feelings of time standing still. Therefore Steinbeck does not present her as a negative character, but at the time of her death he shows the reader the real her as it was not her nature but nurture that made her what she was. In contrast Curley’s Wife at first is portrayed as a revolting unpleasant woman. Curley’s Wife is described by Steinbeck many times as â€Å"roughed lips and wide-spaced eyes. Her fingernails were red. † this causes the reader to think of her as he says so. Nonetheless, despite these brutal views of her, the reader is presented with a side to a seemingly flirtatious and sometimes malevolent character. The repetition of the colour â€Å"red† denotes the fact that she is very dangerous and cause lot of trouble as the colour red is frequently associated to blood and murder which foreshadows the scenes later on in the novel. An alternative interpretation could be that red is also represent as the colour of love and she is wanting to be love, but many readers would link it to her actress personality as most actress love to dress a lot. Not so long, Steinbeck describes her hair as â€Å"her hair hung in little rolled clusters, like sausages,† and this simile shocks the reader because sausages are disliked and filthy, so linking it to her means that she is also disliked. Furthermore as sausages do not match with hair, the same way she is not suitable for a place like the ranch. Therefore Steinbeck portrays Curley’s wife as a woman who is dangerous and disliked by linking her with words that supports the point. John Steinbeck points out many flaws in Curley’s wife. For example, he does this when he writes, â€Å"she leaned against the door frame so that her body was thrown forward† (Page 51). In this statement, Steinbeck is pointing out that Curley’s wife always tries to instigate something. He also describes her body image and how provocative she is, always looking for attention. Steinbeck says many more things to condemn Curley’s wife, but that is not all that he says about her. Steinbeck also defends Curley’s wife. He writes of how lonely she is, and describes her as innocent as the rabbits and puppy killed by another character, Lennie. For instance, Curley’s wife says, â€Å"Think I don’t want to talk to somebody ever’ once in a while? Think I like to stick in that house alla time? †(Page 77). In this statement, Curley’s wife implies that she is tired of being lonely and wants to talk to other people. As much as Steinbeck appears to flip-flop on his view of Curley’s wife, readers can draw different conclusions.

Descriptive Art History Essay

Jade Richards-Butler Professor Jonathon Farris ARTH 100 Descriptive Essay This work resembles a four-legged animal wearing a mask with human features. It is a sculpture in the round created using an additive method. The smooth, highly polished texture and reddish colour of the sculpture give the impression that the material is ceramic. The sculpture’s head displays both human and animal qualities. The ears are positioned symmetrically, slightly off center of the head.They are of a triangular shape and stand erect in a pointed manner resembling ears similar to those of some dog breeds. They are slightly concave and face frontwards. Around the face there is a raised layer of the material creating the illusion that a mask has been superimposed onto the sculpture. The â€Å"mask† is a slightly different colour than the head and covers what would be the sculpture’s face. Right in the center of the â€Å"mask† are human features. The eyebrows are slightly raised and low set, sitting unusually close to the eyes.The eyes protrude slightly from their sockets. They are almond shaped with incisions outlining the eyeballs. The top of the nose begins between the two eyes, lengthwise it occupies about a third of the â€Å"mask†. It is highly protruding with a sharply defined bridge. Under the nose there are two raised areas denoting lips. There is an indentation representing the space in between the lips, which is curved slightly upwards suggesting a smile. The ears sit half way down the â€Å"mask†, they are proportional to the mask features with slightly exaggerated ear lobes.There is a hole in the right lobe that appears to be an artistic choice rather than a preservation problem. The inner edges of the hole seem scratched, perhaps there was previously an item sitting in the hole. The front legs are short in comparison to the rest of the body. There is an outward bend half way down each leg. The base of the legs taper off slightly , resembling paws. There are three equally distributed indentations on each paw, the indentations span from the where the legs begin to taper to the tip of the paws.These indentations delineate toes on the paws. The stomach is not in proportion with the rest of the body as it is quite wide and sits slightly off the ground. It is a bulbous shape and suggests that the dog is overweight. This could be a signal of the domestication of this particular breed of dog. The breed was probably native to the area of the artwork and consequently domesticated, serving as companions to humans. The rotundness may suggest that they were pampered, idolized animals. Unlike the two front legs, the two back legs are completely straight.They do not have bends or indentations to resemble paws, instead they slightly flare out towards the bottom. The tail also does not resemble the tail of any known animal. In proportion to the rest of the statue the tail is extremely wide. It is rounded and appears hollowe d out. It appears to be diagonally sliced downwards, the highest point being at the back of the tail. This suggests the sculpture could have a dual purpose as an ornament and a storage vessel. The tail could be an opening to a hollowed out stomach that would provide an appropriate storage facility for grain or liquid.The sculpture’s purpose of creation could be symbolic of shamanism. The mixed representations of human and animal features are possibly the artist’s way of exploring the relationship between these life forms. The human mask could be demonstrating the shamanist practices in which animal spirits work in harmony with a human host through ritualistic trance states. In summary it could be concluded that the artwork could be used both for decorative purposes and for a deeper spiritual use within the rituals of its social setting.

Poverty Is The Mother Of Crime - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1491 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/04/16 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Poverty Essay Did you like this example? Poverty isnt the mother of crime. However it is one noteworthy benefactor. Crime exists, since individuals need something they dont have, and are not willing to comply with the law(s) on the books to get it. What poverty does is, it decreases the things needy individuals have accessible to them, along these lines offering undeniably more things for needy individuals to want†and substantially more inspiration to them to carry out a crime to get it. Along these lines, more needy individuals perpetrate crimes than individuals who arent. Be that as it may, this is definitely not a causal relationship, it is a parallel one. Similar variables that reason poverty are the elements that expansion crime rates among poor populaces. That is the reason just tossing cash at poor networks doesnt help. Until the point that we address the elements that reason the poverty itself, we cant address the existing together crime rates. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Poverty Is The Mother Of Crime" essay for you Create order Poverty isnt the mother of crime. It is just home to it. Poverty isnt having a job, fear for the future and living for one day at a time. Poverty is feebleness, absence of opportunity. Individuals in evident poverty come up short on the fundamental things of being a living person. This makes them frantic. Urgent individuals will effectively get what they require. It is science. I have a straightforward investigation that may encourage you (or anybody with a similar inquiry) to get it. Think about a food that you truly dont like. I am not discussing the food that disturbs or sickens you, however one that you just truly dont like and that you could never eat. Presently, go three or four days without eating anything. Toward the finish of that period, get a portion of that food that you dont like. How would you respond to it now? Its obvious, while a few criminals are greedy and unenergetic, and keeping in mind that a few people appear to be conceived terrible, numerous individuals in poverty have no real way to get what they require as people outside of taking it. Along these lines, they swing to crime. Not all time Poverty is mother of all crimes and in some cases the rich people also commit crime due to their wealth as they think that their wealth can hide their all crimes. So we can say that crimes are not only associated with poverty as it also have involvement of wealthy and rich people. However there may be a little of positive connection among poverty and crimes. suppose that if you are a poor or an employee with salary , salary that even cannot fulfill your basic needs ,what you will do, you could get baffled or pressured; this pressure would explode any time. Suppose you have children and they are hungry and you dont have cash, what might you do? You might steal cash to feed them. According to relative-deprivation theory, individuals commit crimes to send a signal to the State that the system they are forced to live in is inherently biased against them and their socio-economic standing in the society (Chester, 1976; Hughes and Carter, 1981; Stack, 1984). In this manner, even people with business and real salary gaining opportunity will be slanted towards carrying out crime in light of hardship of essential needs and general imbalance in the public arena. In any case, not all exploration around there passes on that financial variables and crime are positively related. Certain theories hypothesize a negative connection between total or relative poverty and property crime with the under lying clarification that crime dies down with boundless perpetual poverty by bringing returns down to crime. Cohen, Kluegel and Land (1981: 511) state that income inequality results in housing, employment and activity patterns by upper income individuals that lower criminal opportunity. Returns to crime and opportunity theories contend that, controlling for the general income distribution, a reduction in absolute poverty is associated with a proportional growth in all income groups including that of the potential victims and offender. Poverty cant prompt crime or originate from the demonstration of being stupid. No one will want to born poor. It is a power a lot more prominent than what we can imagine that has the ability to compose or change predetermination. Good and bad is given. It is educated. Not all underprivileged take, murder, explicitly assault or perpetrate crime. A perfect example is Oprah Winfrey. She was naturally introduced to poverty in rustic Mississipi. She didnt assault or carry out a crime; rather she ended up a standout amongst the most practiced ladies on the planet. Helping other people who used to resemble her. JK Rowling, a creator of the smash hit, Harry Potter was once on welfare installments. She too did not perpetrate any criminal demonstrations in spite of being poor. Here and there being with next to nothing make oneself more propelled to run, to escape from poverty. As hard and as quick as one can run, in some cases there is no chance to get exit. In all nations and countries there will be a considerable measure of crime and natives breaking a lot of laws. However , this may just occur in times of distress. A period where one can never have enough pay to pay for the necessities throughout everyday life. Along these lines, it is right to take from others with the end goal to get by, to ensure family. Thus poverty is equipped for crime. It is just human nature to do as such. By and by not all poverty prompts crime. Particularly in nations, for example, Australia. Australia being one of the simple not many that give welfare installments to the individuals who dont acquire enough to help themselves or their family. It is up to the low salary workers to utilize and ensure that cash admirably. A simple way out. A getaway course from poverty, the mother of crime. rich individuals likewise do enormous crimes however are not been rebuffed on account of their cash influence. Whats more, the poor ones victimize or take to feed their family as the rich one dont offer occupations to them and subsequently it makes them to be a criminal itself. Numerous individuals who are rich have been picked up that cash by crimes like burglary and so forth. The needy individuals additionally get rebuffed on their crimes and will in general take in an exercise from it however the rich ones utilize their cash to pay the attorneys and to decrease or complete their discipline. The best killers, ruffians and exchanging weapons were truly well off some were previous specialists hijackers seize for no particular reason it might unravel some crime, however greed is dependably around the corner. Mostly are those who were abused by their folks or family members and take out their rage on others. Insights demonstrate that 90% of the time their friends, folks or somebody near them have had a criminal record. A popular thing to say, may be it is true or not, is that, People who rob, rape, and murder do so because they lack a functioning conscience and moral self-control. It is not poverty that causes violent crime, but poor character.2 Different sorts of Poverty, Physical Poverty does not cause crime. Generally, Immigrants are dependably the poorest, however in truth the absolute most joyful to be here. Poverty of the Spirit is the causal factor. Absence of guardians, awful guardians, absence of direction in life prompts Poverty of the soul, which leads to crime. Physical poverty can contribute, however isnt a main driver. Being poor has never been the catalyst for somebody to act criminally. There are numerous crimes propelled by sheer insatiability and which are frequently carried out by individuals who are as of now well-to-do or even inside and out rich. Additionally, there are yet different classifications of crimes which are propelled by various things inside and out. Sex crimes, fo r example, might be the consequence of impulses caused by clinical conditions like paraphilias, or by different sorts of psychological instability. Many top achievers worldwide come from a underprivileged background. The enormous corruption in our country is not committed by the poor, but by people with jobs, food, houses and cars. Wealthy and sometimes very wealthy individuals and even companies commit crime. Who said needy individuals cant be greedy? Some destitute individuals are far more greedy than the rich. Its simply the ethical conviction and control that has the effect. Thinking that the reduction of poverty will solve our crime problem is pie in the sky. The main thing that will change is the criminal will currently have a full stomach when he goes out to murder, assault and take. Crime is digging in for the long haul except if our administration actualizes more serious ramifications for offenders and responsibility. Poverty does not cause crime. Crime causes poverty. If poverty is the mother of crime, lack of good sense is its father.