Full Chapter Intelligent Systems Design and Applications 19Th International Conference On Intelligent Systems Design and Applications Isda 2019 Held December 3 5 2019 Ajith Abraham PDF

Intelligent Systems Design and
Applications 19th International

Conference on Intelligent Systems
Design and Applications ISDA 2019
held December 3 5 2019 Ajith Abraham
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-design-and-applications-19th-inter
national-conference-on-intelligent-systems-design-and-applications-isda-2019-held-d
ecember-3-5-2019-ajith-abraham/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Intelligent Systems Design and Applications: 18th

International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design
and Applications (ISDA 2018) held in Vellore, India,
December 6-8, 2018, Volume 1 Ajith Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-design-and-
applications-18th-international-conference-on-intelligent-
systems-design-and-applications-isda-2018-held-in-vellore-india-
december-6-8-2018-volume-1-ajith-abraham/
Intelligent Systems Design and Applications: 18th

and Applications (ISDA 2018) held in Vellore, India,
December 6-8, 2018, Volume 2 Ajith Abraham
systems-design-and-applications-isda-2018-held-in-vellore-india-
december-6-8-2018-volume-2-ajith-abraham/
Hybrid Intelligent Systems 19th International

Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems HIS 2019 held
in Bhopal India December 10 12 2019 Ajith Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-19th-
international-conference-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-
his-2019-held-in-bhopal-india-december-10-12-2019-ajith-abraham/
Intelligent Systems Design and Applications Ajith

Abraham
applications-ajith-abraham/
Intelligent Systems Design and Applications 16th
and Applications ISDA 2016 held in Porto Systems and
Computing 557 Band 557 Ana Maria Madureira (Editor)
systems-design-and-applications-isda-2016-held-in-porto-systems-
and-computing-557-band-557-ana-maria-madureira/
Hybrid Intelligent Systems Ajith Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-
ajith-abraham/
Hybrid Intelligent Systems 15th International

Conference HIS 2015 on Hybrid Intelligent Systems Seoul
South Korea November 16 18 2015 1st Edition Ajith
Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/hybrid-intelligent-systems-15th-
international-conference-his-2015-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-
seoul-south-korea-november-16-18-2015-1st-edition-ajith-abraham/
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on

Hybrid Intelligent Systems HIS 2016 1st Edition Ajith
Abraham
https://textbookfull.com/product/proceedings-of-the-16th-
international-conference-on-hybrid-intelligent-systems-
his-2016-1st-edition-ajith-abraham/
Intelligent Systems and Applications: Proceedings of

the 2020 Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys)
Volume 3 Kohei Arai
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-and-
applications-proceedings-of-the-2020-intelligent-systems-
conference-intellisys-volume-3-kohei-arai/
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 1181
Ajith Abraham
Patrick Siarry
Kun Ma
Arturas Kaklauskas Editors
Intelligent
Systems Design
and Applications
19th International Conference
on Intelligent Systems Design and
Applications (ISDA 2019) held
December 3–5, 2019
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
Volume 1181
Series Editor
Janusz Kacprzyk, Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland
Advisory Editors
Nikhil R. Pal, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Rafael Bello Perez, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Computing,
Universidad Central de Las Villas, Santa Clara, Cuba
Emilio S. Corchado, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Hani Hagras, School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering,
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
László T. Kóczy, Department of Automation, Széchenyi István University,
Gyor, Hungary
Vladik Kreinovich, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas
at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
Chin-Teng Lin, Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Jie Lu, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Patricia Melin, Graduate Program of Computer Science, Tijuana Institute
of Technology, Tijuana, Mexico
Nadia Nedjah, Department of Electronics Engineering, University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Ngoc Thanh Nguyen , Faculty of Computer Science and Management,
Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland
Jun Wang, Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
The series “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” contains publications
on theory, applications, and design methods of Intelligent Systems and Intelligent
Computing. Virtually all disciplines such as engineering, natural sciences, computer
and information science, ICT, economics, business, e-commerce, environment,
healthcare, life science are covered. The list of topics spans all the areas of modern
intelligent systems and computing such as: computational intelligence, soft comput-
ing including neural networks, fuzzy systems, evolutionary computing and the fusion
of these paradigms, social intelligence, ambient intelligence, computational neuro-
science, artificial life, virtual worlds and society, cognitive science and systems,
Perception and Vision, DNA and immune based systems, self-organizing and
adaptive systems, e-Learning and teaching, human-centered and human-centric
computing, recommender systems, intelligent control, robotics and mechatronics
including human-machine teaming, knowledge-based paradigms, learning para-
digms, machine ethics, intelligent data analysis, knowledge management, intelligent
agents, intelligent decision making and support, intelligent network security, trust
management, interactive entertainment, Web intelligence and multimedia.
The publications within “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” are
primarily proceedings of important conferences, symposia and congresses. They
cover significant recent developments in the field, both of a foundational and
applicable character. An important characteristic feature of the series is the short
publication time and world-wide distribution. This permits a rapid and broad
dissemination of research results.
** Indexing: The books of this series are submitted to ISI Proceedings,
EI-Compendex, DBLP, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Springerlink **
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11156

Ajith Abraham Patrick Siarry
• •
Kun Ma Arturas Kaklauskas

•
Editors
Intelligent Systems Design

and Applications
19th International Conference on Intelligent
Systems Design and Applications
(ISDA 2019) held December 3–5, 2019
123
Editors
Ajith Abraham Patrick Siarry
Scientific Network for Innovation Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Ma
and Research Excellence Creteil Cedex, France
Machine Intelligence Research Labs (MIR)
Auburn, WA, USA Arturas Kaklauskas
Department of Construction Management
Kun Ma and Real Estate
School of Information Science Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
and Engineering Vilnius, Lithuania
University of Jinan
Jinan, Shandong, China
ISSN 2194-5357 ISSN 2194-5365 (electronic)

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
ISBN 978-3-030-49341-7 ISBN 978-3-030-49342-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49342-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
Welcome to the 19th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and

Applications (ISDA’19) held in the World Wide Web. ISDA’19 is hosted and
sponsored by the Machine Intelligence Research Labs (MIR Labs), USA. Due to
the xenophobic attacks, which spread in South Africa during early September 2019,
several authors requested us to withdraw their papers. Hence, we had to change the
venue to online mode.
ISDA’19 brings together researchers, engineers, developers and practitioners
from academia and industry working in all interdisciplinary areas of computational
intelligence and system engineering to share their experience, and to exchange and
cross-fertilize their ideas. The aim of ISDA’19 is to serve as a forum for the
dissemination of state-of-the-art research, development and implementations of
intelligent systems, intelligent technologies and useful applications in these two
fields.
ISDA’19 received submissions from 33 countries and each paper was reviewed
by at least five or more reviewers, and based on the outcome of the review process,
62 papers were accepted for inclusion in the conference proceedings (40% accep-
tance rate).
First, we would like to thank all the authors for submitting their papers to the
conference, for their presentations and discussions during the conference. Our
thanks go to program committee members and reviewers, who carried out the most
difficult work by carefully evaluating the submitted papers. Our special thanks to
the following plenary speakers, for their exciting plenary talks:
• Michael Pecht, University of Maryland, USA
• Yukio Ohsawa, University of Tokyo, Japan
• Karim Djouani, University Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), Paris, France
• Mourad Fakhfakh, National School of Electronics and Telecommunications of
Sfax, Tunisia
• Kaushik Das Sharma, University of Calcutta, India.
• Ali Siadat, Ecole Nationale Superieure d’Arts et M tiers (ENSAM), France
• Fabio Scotti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
v
vi Preface
We express our sincere thanks to the organizing committee chairs for helping us
to formulate a rich technical program. Enjoy reading the articles!
Ajith Abraham
Patrick Siarry
General Chairs
Kun Ma
Arturas Kaklauskas
Program Chairs
Organization
Program Committee
Ajith Abraham Machine Intelligence Research Labs, USA

Laurence Amaral Federal University of Uberlandia
Babak Amiri The University of Sydney
Mauricio Ayala-Rincon Universidade de Brasilia
Nashwa El-Bendary Arab Academy for Science, Technology
and Maritime Transport, Egypt
Heder Bernardino Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora
José Everardo Bessa Maia State University of Ceará - UECE
Mohammad Reza Bonyadi The University of Adelaide
János Botzheim Budapest University of Technology
and Economics
Alberto Cano Virginia Commonwealth University
Paulo Carrasco University of Algarve
Oscar Castillo Tijuana Institute of Technology
Turgay Celik University of the Witwatersrand
Isaac Chairez UPIBI-IPN
Lee Chang-Yong Kongju National University
Francisco Chicano University of Máalaga
Mario Giovanni C. A. Cimino University of Pisa
Phan Cong-Vinh Nguyen Tat Thanh University
Gloria Cerasela Crisan “Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacau
Haikal El Abed German International Cooperation (GIZ) GmbH
El-Sayed M. El-Alfy King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Wilfried Elmenreich Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt
Carlos Fernandez-Llatas Universitat Politècnica de València
Amparo Fuster-Sabater Institute of Applied Physics (C.S.I.C.),
Serrano 144, 28006 Madrid, Spain
Terry Gafron Bio-Inspired Technologies
vii
viii Organization
Elizabeth Goldbarg Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte

Stefan Gruner University of Pretoria
Biju Issac Teesside University
Isabel Jesus Institute of Engineering of Porto
Jerry Chun-Wei Lin Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Simone Ludwig North Dakota State University
Ana Madureira Departamento de Engenharia Informática
Vukosi Marivate University of Pretoria
Efrén Mezura-Montes University of Veracruz
Jolanta Mizera-Pietraszko Wroclaw University of Technology
Paulo Moura Oliveira UTAD University
Ramzan Muhammad Maulana Mukhtar Ahmad Nadvi Technical
Campus
Akila Muthuramalingam KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology
Janmenjoy Nayak Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology
Varun Ojha University of Reading
George Papakostas Human–Machines Interaction (HMI) Laboratory,
Department of Computer and Informatics
Engineering, EMT Institute of Technology
Konstantinos Parsopoulos University of Ioannina
Carlos Pereira ISEC
Eduardo Pires UTAD University
Dilip Pratihar Department of Mechanical Engineering
Radu-Emil Precup Politehnica University of Timisoara
Oscar Gabriel Reyes Pupo UCO
José Raúl Romero University of Cordoba
Keun Ho Ryu Chungbuk National University
Ozgur Koray Sahingoz Istanbul Kultur University
Neetu Sardana Jaypee Institute of Information Technology
Mansi Sharma Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
Tarun Kumar Sharma Amity University, Rajasthan
Mohammad Shojafar University of Padua, Italy
Patrick Siarry Universit de Paris 12
Antonio J. Tallón-Ballesteros University of Huelva
Shing Chiang Tan Multimedia University
Sanju Tiwari NIT
Jih Fu Tu Department of Electronic Engineering,
St. Johns University
Eiji Uchino Yamaguchi University
Leonilde Varela University of Minho
Gai-Ge Wang School of Computer Science and Technology,
Jiangsu Normal University
Lin Wang University of Jinan
Organization ix
Additional Reviewers
Adly, Mohammad Goyal, Ayush
Ahuactzin, Juan-Manuel Kassem, Abdallah
Bagnall, Anthony Mckinlay, Steve
Barbudo Lunar, Rafael Pérez, Eduardo
Berkich, Don Ramírez, Aurora
Crisan, Gloria Cerasela Salado-Cid, Rubén
Das Sharma, Kaushik Tiago Da Cunha, Italo
Diniz, Thatiana Timm, Nils
Gabriel, Paulo
Contents
Data Jackets as Communicable Metadata for Potential

Innovators – Toward Opening to Social Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Yukio Ohsawa, Sae Kondo, and Teruaki Hayashi
A Proposal Based on Instance Typicality for Dealing with Nominal
Attribute Values in Instance-Based Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . 14
S. V. Gonçalves and M. C. Nicoletti
Dataset for Intrusion Detection in Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks . . . . . . . . . 24
Rahma Meddeb, Bayrem Triki, Farah Jemili, and Ouajdi Korbaa
Visual Password Scheme Using Bag Context Shape Grammars . . . . . . . 35
Blessing Ogbuokiri and Mpho Raborife
Peak Detection Enhancement in Autonomous Wearable
Fall Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Mario Villar and Jose R. Villar
Automated Detection of Tuberculosis from Sputum Smear
Microscopic Images Using Transfer Learning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Lillian Muyama, Joyce Nakatumba-Nabende, and Deborah Mudali
Comparative Performance Analysis of Neural Network Base
Training Algorithm and Neuro-Fuzzy System with SOM
for the Purpose of Prediction of the Features of Superconductors . . . . . 69
Subrato Bharati, Mohammad Atikur Rahman, Prajoy Podder,
Md. Robiul Alam Robel, and Niketa Gandhi
Automatic Detection of Parkinson’s Disease from Speech Using
Acoustic, Prosodic and Phonetic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Rania Khaskhoussy and Yassine Ben Ayed
xi
xii Contents
A Deep Convolutional Neural Network Model for Multi-class

Fruits Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Laith Alzubaidi, Omran Al-Shamma, Mohammed A. Fadhel,
Zinah Mohsin Arkah, and Fouad H. Awad
Distributed Architecture of Snort IDS in Cloud Environment . . . . . . . . 100
Mondher Essid, Farah Jemili, and Ouajdi Korbaa
Turing-Style Test Approach for Verification and Validation
of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Marwa Brichni and Said El Gattoufi
Big Data Processing for Intrusion Detection System Context:
A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Marwa Elayni, Farah Jemili, Ouajdi Korbaa, and Basel Solaiman
Hardware Accelerator for Real-Time Holographic Projector . . . . . . . . . 132
Mohammed A. Fadhel, Omran Al-Shamma, and Laith Alzubaidi
Automatic Lung Segmentation in CT Images Using Mask R-CNN
for Mapping the Feature Extraction in Supervised Methods
of Machine Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Luís Fabrício de F. Souza, Gabriel Bandeira Holanda, Shara S. A. Alves,
Francisco Hércules dos S. Silva, and Pedro Pedrosa Rebouças Filho
Structures Discovering for Optimizing External Clustering
Validation Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Marcos A. Spalenza, Juliana P. C. Pirovani, and Elias de Oliveira
The Influence of NER on the Essay Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Elias Oliveira, James Alves, Jessica Brito, and Juliana Pirovani
Evaluation of Acoustic Features for Early Diagnosis
of Alzheimer Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Randa Ben Ammar and Yassine Ben Ayed
P-Median Problem: A Real Case Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
M. B. Bernábe-Loranca, R. González-Velázquez,
Erika Granillo-Martinez, M. Romero-Montoya,
and Ricardo A. Barrera-Cámara
Towards Context-Aware Business Process Cost Data Analysis
Including the Control-Flow Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Dhafer Thabet, Nourhen Ganouni, Sonia Ayachi Ghannouchi,
and Henda Hajjami Ben Ghezala
Drone Authentication Using ID-Based Signcryption
in LoRaWAN Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Sana Benzarti, Bayrem Triki, and Ouajdi Korbaa
Contents xiii
Extrinsic Plagiarism Detection for French Language

with Word Embeddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Maryam Elamine, Fethi Bougares, Seifeddine Mechti,
and Lamia Hadrich Belguith
Using Opinion Mining in Student Assessments to Improve
Teaching Quality in Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Aillkeen Bezerra de Oliveira, André Luiz F. Alves,
and Cláudio de Souza Baptista
Automated Threat Propagation Model Through a Topographical
Environment Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Kilian Vasnier, Abdel-Illah Mouaddib, Sylvain Gatepaille,
and Stephan Brunessaux
Solving Lorenz ODE System Based Hardware Booster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Hassan Al-Yassin, Mohammed A. Fadhel, Omran Al-Shamma,
and Laith Alzubaidi
Object Recognition Software Using RGBD Kinect Images
and the YOLO Algorithm for Mobile Robot Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Douglas Henke dos Reis, Daniel Welfer,
Marco Antonio de Souza Leite Cuadros,
and Daniel Fernando Tello Gamarra
Paper Co-citation Analysis Using Semantic Similarity Measures . . . . . . 264
Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb, Mohamed Ben Aouicha,
and Houcemeddine Turki
Assessment of the ISNT Rule on Publicly Available Datasets . . . . . . . . . 278
J. Afolabi Oluwatobi, Gugulethu Mabuza-Hocquet,
and Fulufhelo V. Nelwamondo
An Autonomous Fallers Monitoring Kit: Release 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Enrique de la Cal, Alvaro DaSilva, Mirko Fáñez, Jose Ramón Villar,
Javier Sedano, and Victor Suárez
Random Forest Missing Data Imputation Methods:
Implications for Predicting At-Risk Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Bevan I. Smith, Charles Chimedza, and Jacoba H. Bührmann
Noise Reduction with Detail Preservation in Low-Dose Dental CT
Images by Morphological Operators and BM3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Romulo Marconato Stringhini, Daniel Welfer,
Daniel Fernando Tello Gamarra, and Gustavo Nogara Dotto
An Effective Approach to Detect and Prevent Collaborative Grayhole
Attack by Malicious Node in MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Sanjeev Yadav, Rupesh Kumar, Naveen Tiwari, and Abhishek Bajpai
xiv Contents
Hand-Crafted and Learned Features Fusion for Predicting Freezing

of Gait Events in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Hadeer El-ziaat, Nashwa El-Bendary, and Ramadan Moawad
Signature of Electronic Documents Based on Fingerprint
Recognition Using Deep Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Souhaïl Smaoui, Manel Ben Salah, and Mustapha Sakka
Comparison of a Trajectory Controller Based on Fuzzy Logic
and Backstepping Using Image Processing for a Mobile Robot . . . . . . . 355
Rodrigo Mattos da Silva, Thiago Rodrigues Garcia,
Marco Antonio de Souza Leite Cuadros,
and Daniel Fernando Tello Gamarra
The Use of Area Covered by Blood Vessels in Fundus Images
to Detect Glaucoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
J. Afolabi Oluwatobi, Gugulethu Mabuza-Hocquet,
and Fulufhelo V. Nelwamondo
Complexity of Rule Sets Induced from Data with Many Lost
Values and “Do Not Care” Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
Patrick G. Clark, Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse, Zdzislaw S. Hippe,
Teresa Mroczek, and Rafal Niemiec
ReLU to Enhance MDLSTM for Offline Arabic
Handwriting Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
Rania Maalej and Monji Kherallah
Histogram Based Method for Unsupervised Meeting
Speech Summarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
Nouha Dammak and Yassine BenAyed
Deep Support Vector Machines for Speech Emotion
Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Hadhami Aouani and Yassine Ben Ayed
Biometric Individual Identification System Based
on the ECG Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
Sihem Hamza and Yassine Ben Ayed
Bayesian Anomaly Detection and Classification for Noisy Data . . . . . . . 426
Ethan Roberts, Bruce A. Bassett, and Michelle Lochner
How to Trust the Middle Artificial Intelligence:
Uncertainty Oriented Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
Marwa Brichni and Said El Gattoufi
Design the HCI Interface Through Prototyping for the Telepresence
Robot Empowered Smart Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
Ramona Plogmann, Qing Tan, and Frédérique Pivot
Contents xv
Ant Colony Optimization on an OBS Network with Link Cost

and Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
Francois Du Plessis, M. C. Du Plessis, and Tim Gibbon
The Categorical Integration of Symbolic and Statistical AI:
Quantum NLP and Applications to Cognitive and Machine
Bias Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
Yoshihiro Maruyama
Vehicle Routing Problem with Fuel Station Selection (VRPFSS):
Formulation and Greedy Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
Jhonata Soares de Freitas and André Gustavo dos Santos
Requirements Change Requests Classification:
An Ontology-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
Zaineb Sakhrawi, Asma Sellami, and Nadia Bouassida
An Efficient MPLS-Based Approach for QoS Providing in SDN . . . . . . 497
Manel Majdoub, Ali El Kamel, and Habib Youssef
HoneyBees Mating Optimization Algorithm for the Static Bike
Rebalancing Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
Mariem Sebai, Ezzeddine Fatnassi, and Lilia Rejeb
A Hybrid MAC Protocol for Heterogeneous M2M Networks . . . . . . . . . 520
Abdelfetteh Lachtar, Marwa Lachtar, and Abdennaceur Kachouri
Hybrid Approach for Trajectory Identification of Mobile Node via
Lagrange Interpolation and Kalman Filtering Framework . . . . . . . . . . 530
Pranchal Mishra, Ayush Tripathi, Abhishek Bajpai, and Naveen Tiwari
Post-Truth AI and Big Data Epistemology: From the Genealogy
of Artificial Intelligence to the Nature of Data Science as a New
Kind of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
Yoshihiro Maruyama
Interoperable Decision Support System Based on Multivariate Time
Series for Setup Data Processing and Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
M. L. R. Varela, Gabriela Amaral, Sofia Pereira, Diogo Machado,
António Falcão, Rita Ribeiro, Emanuel Sousa, Jorge Santos,
and Alfredo F. Pereira
Cross-Model Retrieval Via Automatic Medical Image
Diagnosis Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Sabrine Benzarti, Wahiba Ben Abdessalem Karaa,
and Henda Hajjami Ben Ghezala
Gap-Filling of Missing Weather Conditions Data Using Support
Vector Regression Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
Heba Osman, Nashwa El-Bendary, and Essam El Fakharany
xvi Contents
Automating the Process of Faculty Evaluation in a Private

Higher Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
Adewole Adewumi, Olamide Laleye, Sanjay Misra, Rytis Maskeliūnas,
Robertas Damaševičius, and Ravin Ahuja
A Web Based System for the Discovery of Blood Banks
and Donors in Emergencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
Babajide Ayeni, Olaperi Yeside Sowunmi, Sanjay Misra,
Rytis Maskeliūnas, Robertas Damaševičius, and Ravin Ahuja
Smart City Waste Management System Using Internet of Things
and Cloud Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
Aderemi A. Atayero, Segun I. Popoola, Rotimi Williams, Joke A. Badejo,
and Sanjay Misra
Employability Skills: A Web-Based Employer Appraisal System
for Construction Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
Afolabi Adedeji, Afolabi Ibukun, Ojelabi Rapheal, Sanjay Misra,
and Ravin Ahuja
A Prognosis Method for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Based on CT Image and Three-Dimensional Convolutional
Neural Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622
Kaipeng Fan, Jifeng Guo, Bo Yang, Lin Wang, Lizhi Peng,
Baosheng Li, Jian Zhu, and Ajith Abraham
Age Distribution Adjustments in Human Resource Department
Using Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632
Tarun K. Sharma and Ajith Abraham
Selection of Cloud Service Provider Based on Sampled
Non-functional Attribute Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Mehul Mahrishi, Kamal Kant Hiran, and Ruchi Doshi
Image Processing Techniques for Breast Cancer Detection:
A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649
Mahendra G. Kanojia, Mohd. Abuzar Mohd. Haroon Ansari,
Niketa Gandhi, and S. K. Yadav
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661

Data Jackets as Communicable Metadata
for Potential Innovators – Toward Opening
to Social Contexts
Yukio Ohsawa1(B) , Sae Kondo2 , and Teruaki Hayashi1

1 Department of Systems Innovation, School of Engineering,
The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
ohsawa@sys.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2 Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology,
The University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan
Abstract. Data Jackets are human-made metadata for each dataset, reflecting
peoples’ subjective or potential interests. By visualizing the relevance among
DJs, participants in the market of data think and talk about why and how they
should combine the corresponding datasets. Even if the owners of data may hes-
itate to open their data to the public, they can present the DJs in the Innovators
Marketplace on Data Jackets that is a platform for innovations. Here, participants
communicate to find ideas to combine/use/reuse data or future collaborators. Fur-
thermore, explicitly or implicitly required data can be searched by the use of tools
developed on DJs, which enabled, for example, analogical inventions of data anal-
ysis methods. Thus, we realized a data-mediated birthplace of seeds in business
and science. In this paper, we show a new direction to collect and use DJs to fit
social requirements externalized and collected in living labs. The effect of living
labs here is to enhance participants’ sensitivity to the contexts in the open society
according to the author’s practices, and the use of DJs to these contexts means to
develop the process of evidence-based innovation, i.e., the loop of living humans’
interaction to create dimensions of performance in businesses.
Keywords: Innovation · Data jackets · Living lab
1 Introduction
Since innovation appeared as such changes of the combinations of the factors of produc-
tion as cannot be affected by infinitesimal steps or variations on the margin [1], it does
not mean just inventing a product. Innovation is the process of commercial applications
of new technology, combining with material, methods, and resources, toward opening
up a new market. Rogers, after his theory of the diffusion of innovation involving various
stakeholders in the process of innovation and expansion of the opened market, pointed
out leading consumers play the role of innovators [2]. Here, not only the creators or
developers of new products but also users play the important role to discover new value
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
A. Abraham et al. (Eds.): ISDA 2019, AISC 1181, pp. 1–13, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49342-4_1
2 Y. Ohsawa et al.
of a product via using it and diffuse the value to the majority in the market. According to
von Hippel [3], leading consumers invent, not only use and diffuse, technologies. All in
all, innovation evolved to be a term referring to the thoughts and the interaction of stake-
holders in the market including consumers. This point distinguishes innovation from a
child’s talent of value sensing acquired in the growth of mind [4] or a part of sense-
making that can be supported by information systems using data [5]. That is, innovation
is the interaction of stakeholders of potential markets via combining elements and “do-
ing” the ideas in the real life, to cause a change that creates a dimension of performance
[6] of products, the life of users, or the society.
Innovators Marketplace on Data Jackets (IMDJ [7]) is a method following the above
redefinition of innovation, where participants interact with combining data jackets shown
in Sect. 2 to invent and execute ideas of data usage. In IMDJ, participants communicate
to create solutions to satisfy data users’ requirements by sharing, combining, and using
data without violating constraints of owners (e.g., data protection and confidentiality as
a business resource). IMDJ has been used in science and business as stated in Sect. 2
and is now at the stage to prevail to daily human lives.
In this paper, Living Lab on Data Jackets (LLDJ) is proposed as a modification of
IMDJ for opening the communication and thoughts to a deeper and wider range of latent
requirements than in IMDJ. We still aim at aiding innovations, that is not about sheer
inventions but means the process of the humans’ interaction to externalize new dimen-
sions of performance. The role of the living lab here is to open participants’ sensitivity to
the requirements of people in the society who may not attend the workshop. In Sect. 2, a
logical description of data jackets and humans’ process of communication for reasoning
toward satisfying requirements are shown. IMDJ is briefly reviewed as a method to real-
ize this process, and its limit is shown from the point of the gap between the requirements
and the theory obtained in the reasoning. The living lab is introduced in Sect. 3 as an
approach to coping with this limit by deepening and widening participants’ sensitivity
to requirements. LLDJ is proposed in Sect. 4. This is not necessarily an improvement to
replace IMDJ with, but an addition of a new direction from the viewpoint of daily living
of people. The visualized sequence of utterances in a round-table discussion shown as
preliminary evidence implies the effect of LL in LLDJ.
2 Data Jackets as Communicable Metadata

2.1 Data Jacket: The Definition and Its Role in Satisfying Requirements
A data jacket (DJ hereafter, first introduced in [7]), is a piece of digest information of
a dataset, that does not open the content of the data, but includes the title, the abstract,
and variables, that may represent the subjective expectation of data owner or potential
data users about the utility of the data. The idea comes from a jacket of a movie DVD
in a shopping store, where only superficial information about the movie is shown for
an exhibition. The content of data should be hidden to reduce the risk of being leaked
to anyone who may harm the benefits of stakeholders. Such a policy of secure data
management has been used in IMDJ where each data owner takes part in submitting
DJs introduced below. In contrast to real data, DJs are easy to write and disclose for
appealing the latent utility of corresponding data, via showing potential links between
datasets. For example, DJs about personal health and food consumption can be disclosed
Data Jackets as Communicable Metadata for Potential Innovators 3
although the data may be confidential and combined for understanding the relevance of
weather and health linked via “time” and “place” that are common variables between
the two datasets or via the concept “daily behavior” common between them (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. A snapshot of on-line IMDJ [9]. Solutions (squares e.g., “We can have..”) are proposed
combining DJs (large cards e.g. DI1039) responding to requirements (e.g., “what are….”).
See Fig. 2 to find examples of simple DJs. More formally, a DJ is defined as follows
by relaxing the constraint on V i and the redundancies in [8].
DJ i (i ∈ [1, N]): The i-th data jacket (N: the number of datasets in the market of
data)
DJ i : = {V i , F i , Pi }, where elements are defined as follows.
V i : the set of variables in DJ i

F i : elements of V i expressed as functions over other elements of V i
Pi : the set of predicates that relate elements of V i
G: The goal, i.e., the requirement incompletely defined as the relation over terms
corresponding to events or entities in the target world
T: The theory, i.e., a model described by a set of Horn clauses, each of which is
given using predicates in PG below. T is represented over elements of PG , F G , and V G ,
that compose the set of DJs in DJcom(G) in Eq. (1), that satisfies Eq. (2) (where [v]
for variable v means the range of the value of variable v), if a conclusion G’ derived by
theory T subsumes goal G. This means a formal expression G’ is related to the informal
expression G of goal, and T is completely defined that intuitively means all the clauses
in T are supported by data corresponding to some DJcom(G).
DJcom(G) := {DJa , DJb , . . . DJL } ⊆ {DJ1 , DJ2 , . . . DJN } where

VG := Va ∪ Vb ∪ . . . ∪ VL , FG := Fa ∪ Fb ∪ . . . FL , PG := Pa ∪ Pb ∪ . . . PL , (1)
4 Y. Ohsawa et al.
∃
v ∈ VG [∀ Vx ∈ {Va , Vb , . . . VL }, ∃ vx ∈ Vx |[v] ∩ [vx ] = ∅]. (2)
For example, suppose G is the requirement to know the influence of weather on
health, represented as “health ← weather”. By relating health to g-GTP_high(person
ID, date) and weather to hot(date), G corresponds to G’ in clause (3).
G :∃ person ID{γ − GTP_high(person ID, date) ← hot(date)} (3)
G’ can be derived by the combination of clauses (4) and (5) by which T is formed.
γ − GTP_high(person ID, date) ← beer_consume(person ID, date) (4)
∃
person ID{beer_consume(person ID, date) ← hot(date)} (5)
Here hot(date) and γ-GTP_high(person ID, date) can respectively mean
air_temperature (date) - air_ temperature (date −10) > α [deg] and γ-GTP(date)-
γ-GTP(date −10) > β [u/l] for constants α and β. The values α and β are obtained using
data represented by DJs. For example, a can be obtained from Data B below.
Data B, represented by DJ 1 ) that is DJ(B) in Fig. 2) weather: variables {date, address,
air temperature, etc.}, a function such as air_temperature(date) in F 1 is also in V 1
defined over date in V 1 , and a predicate such as hot in P1 is defined on air_temperature
and date.
In Fig. 2(a), each dotted line connects the appearances of the same variable in multiple
DJs to combine predicates, corresponding to sharing a variable among all V x used for
deriving G’ as in Eq. (2). If the obtained T is not satisfactory (here the low confidence
in Fig. 2(a) and (b)), other variables such as address in Fig. 2(b) in a DJ used so far as in
Fig. 2 (a) are additionally used. Furthermore, as in Fig. 2 (c), new DJs may be added to
DJcom(G) to obtain a satisfactory T and evaluate it by data corresponding to the DJs.
2.2 Innovators Marketplace on Data Jackets

Our approach toward realizing such reasoning as in 2.1 or Fig. 2 has been IMDJ as
summarized in the introduction. For aiding participants’ thought about the connectivity
among DJs, a gaming board is made using KeyGraph [10] where some words or variables
shared by multiple DJs are highlighted and positioned on bridges between the DJs.
IMDJ starts with the set of DJs and the gaming board obtained from the set, followed
by the process to propose and evaluate solutions based on combined DJs to meet the
requirements of data users following the procedure exemplified in 2.1.
Below let us show a few of the results obtained so far, that externalized the dimension
of performance in decisions using data in businesses, that is the explanation of changes
rather than the detection or prediction realized using machine learning technologies.
Here, a TJ stands for a Tool Jacket [11] where a tool for using data (a method of AI, data
visualization, or simulation) is summarized in the form of DJ i.e., the title, the abstract,
and the input/output variables. Example 3 was realized on the analogy from the basis
of Example 2 using DJ store [12], where the links between DJ3 and Req 2 had been
learned from past IMDJ logs, by diverting the idea to use TJ1 to chance explanation
from purchases in the market to earthquakes.
Fig. 2. The connection of DJs for combining data in IMDJ. To refine the performance of data
mining, variables as “address” in (a) to (b) or data as DJ(B) or DJ(D) are in/exported.
6 Y. Ohsawa et al.
Fig. 3. Innovators’ Marketplace on Data Jackets of two types. Solid arrows mean without action
planning, whereas dotted arrows with action planning. Action planning may cause requirement
revision, which breaks the ideas created in IMDJ
Example 1, Skill development in sports) Req 1: Evaluate and improve the defense
skill of a soccer team [13]
DJ1: wide-view video

DJ2: body direction
Sol1: visualize “lines” of teammates on which to quickly pass a ball, that explains the
skill of a defensive team to manage the changes in the offensive team
Example 2, Change explanation in businesses) Req 2: Detect and explain causes of

customers/investors’ behavioral shifts [14, 15]
DJ3: data on the market e.g., position of the sale in a supermarket or stock prices
TJ1: Tangled String or Graph-based entropy
Sol2: user interface for explaining changes in the consumption market with visualized
“explanatory” changes implying the latent dynamics in the market
Example 3: Change explanation in nature) Req: Detect precursors of and explain

changes in earthquakes [16]
DJ4: Sequence of earthquakes in Japan

DJ5: Location of seismographs in Japan
DJ6: (The way of using) Position of sale data (as in Example 3)
TJ2: Regional entropy on seismic information based on the idea of TJ1
Sol3: Entropy-based detection of precursors from the sequence of earthquakes
However, it turned out that solutions tend not to be satisfactory enough to attract
participants in IMDJ to realize the proposed solutions even if they were highly evaluated
by the participants. We hypothesize here that the problem was in the lack of correspon-
dence between G and a predicate in G’ derived by T, because we provided no explicit
user interface to urge subscribers of DJs to write their subjective expectations meaning
the predicates, i.e., elements of P, but just to fill the DJ with their expectations about
the utility of the data in natural language. Such expectations may partially cover some
potential relations among variables, and the post-process of IMDJ called Action Plan-
ning introduced additional details of the planned use of data. In the Action Planning
phase, the latent requirement that may be the reason of requirements presented as G in
IMDJ was obtained and the solution corresponding to T was revised to meet this new
goal. However, the new goal was just one level deeper (higher in Fig. 3) than G which
may not reach the level of DJ, and the solution T obtained in IMDJ may get lost due to
the goal revision. In such a case, it has been difficult to reach a shared awareness of the
value of the data-based solutions to be obtained.
3 Living Lab for Enhancing the Sensitivity to the Open Society
We expect to satisfy the requirements not satisfied by the previous IMDJ for the reason
in 2.2, by inviting citizens to join the workshop in Living Labs discussed below to both
deepen and widen causal desires to explain the originally presented requirements. In this
section, let us discuss the expectations of the effects of combining LL and DJs.
3.1 Living Labs and Its Effects
In recent years, the living lab (LL hereafter) has been attracting the attention of indus-
try, government, and academia to create new solutions services by solving problems
together. LL was born as a social participatory method that works from the viewpoint
of consumers, mainly in northern Europe, and is regarded as a framework for the par-
ticipation of various stakeholders supporting innovation and sustainable development
in the community. Therefore, LL is expected as a mechanism for promoting wide-
ranging social participation and changing individual consciousness near living spaces
by introducing new, sometimes deepened aspects into communication about problems
and solutions in the daily life. By this effect of LL, the proposed LLDJ below aims to
overcome the problem of IMDJ mentioned in Sect. 2.2 inviting citizens and working
people in the target region to (1) widen the scope of communication, and also (2) deepen
the communication about potential requirements to reinforce the possibility of presented
goals to reach the level of DJs.
The studies so far on LL have been preceded by Europe. In particular, in recent years,
interest has been attracted to the LL that aims to create innovations and infiltrate users
with ICT as the core. Følstad (2008), who organized 32 references on this type, pointed
out the elucidation of processes and methods [17]. In response, Leminen (2012) and
Almirall & Wareham (2011) conducted analysis from the perspectives of management
and participation methods and the roles of the parties involved [18, 19]. Neither method
has yet been elucidated because the definition of innovation has not been explicitly
clarified for each study. In other words, since the effect of LL is not clear, the evaluation
index has not been established. This point is improved, and the meaning of introducing
LL for the improving IMDJ comes to be clear in 3.2.
8 Y. Ohsawa et al.
3.2 Lessons for Livings from Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Living lab activities are considered as voluntary and organized social contribution activ-
ities, and as an evaluation viewpoint of their effects, we focus on the effects of LL
that contribute to Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). OCB has been defined
as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of
the organization [20]. In the sense that OCBs are not parts of the job description but
are performed by an employee’s personal choice for positive contribution to the overall
organizational effectiveness, Contextual Performance (non-task related work behaviors
and activities contributing to the social and psychological aspects of the organization
[21]) and Extra-role Behavior (behavior attempting to benefit the organization beyond
existing role expectations [22]), are all in our target here to realize by LL. The explana-
tory scales on the five-factor model in [20] has also been developed, specified or extended
in applying to industrial and governmental organizations. For example, the mediating
effect of political skills as a scale includes the ability to sense the influence of individuals
on others and the intentions of others, as well as the ability to build social agility and
human relations [23].
On the other hand, it is known that the LL activities can result in the networking of
participants and the expression of potential requirements. Since these results are thought
to be related to the above-mentioned regulatory and explanatory factors of OCB, it
is hypothesized that LL contributes to the enhancement of OCB using these factors.
By introducing LL, via enhancing OCB and taking advantage of its effects, we can
expect it raises the sensitivity of participants to deep and wide potential requirements
that did not work well in the conventional IMDJ. As shown in Fig. 4, the abstracts of
OCB and LL respectively collected from Wikipedia are visualized into one graph by
KeyGraph to see the contact points between them, among the 117 words visualized. The
words “work” “social” “personal” “life”, “experience”, “evaluation” and “context” are
shared between OCB and LL, to which concepts related to collaborative problem solving
such as “problem” “conflicts” “multidisciplinary” are linked. This implies, although
the abstracts are weak as evidence, that the concept of evaluating the performance of
individual persons in social contexts in the problem detection (i.e. requirement sensing)
and of the organization to solve problems from multidisciplinary viewpoints are parts
of the effects of living lab that can be expected from the perspective of the OCB. It was
a lacking point. Thus, in the future workshops, we plan to introduce the process of the
next chapter as Living Lab on Data Jackets (LLDJ) in Sect. 4.
4 Living Lab on Data Jackets

The presented new process is the simple four steps below.
Step 0) Set the topic Z, without a solution for requirements. Collect the initial participants
in LL Step 1 (PLL ).
Step 1) Open the LL relevant to topic Z (from the viewpoint of daily life, which means to
communicate requirements and to propose solutions for the requirements. The require-
ments are deepened to latent requirements by asking the reasons for the requirements
before proposing any solution (see the regulation mentioned below).
Fig. 4. The KeyGraph visualization of LL (right half) and OCB (left)
Step 2) Make the set RLL of requirements obtained in Step 1 (KeyGraph can be used
here as stated later in Fig. 6).
Step 3) Search DJs using words in the requirements in RLL as the query to DJ store [11],
on which an IMDJ starts applying RLL as the initial requirements. Collect the participants
in IMDJ (IMDJ ) relevant to these DJs and to the initial requirements.
Step 4) The solution(s) and added requirements in Step 3 are returned to Step 1. Call
participants relevant to these added items additionally to LL .
For externalizing deeper requirements, the communication is regulated by setting a

rule that each solution in Steps 1 and 3 must be proposed after asking a deep reasoning
question i.e., “why is do you require it?”, based on the limit-handling framework in [24,
25]. LLDJ and IMDJ are compared in Fig. 5 and Table 1. As in Fig. 5, LLDJ contributes
to solutions for more general social issues than sheer IMDJ where each requirement is
shown by a participant and a solution is usually addressed to a few requirements.
For externalizing deeper requirements, the communication is regulated by setting a
rule that each solution in Steps 1 and 3 must be proposed after asking a deep reasoning
question i.e., “why is do you require it?”, based on the theory of questions for design in
[24]. LLDJ and IMDJ are compared in Fig. 5 and Table 1. As in Fig. 5, LL.
Let us use KeyGraph in Fig. 6 to visualize utterances in the first, second, third, and
the last quarter of utterances in a round-table discussion held for two hours inviting
five workers in the Ota ward in Tokyo, two governmental workers, and three professors
from universities in Tokyo. Ota has more than 3000 manufacturing firms 50% of which
have less than four workers, that makes hard to employ young staff members. The topic
10 Y. Ohsawa et al.
Fig. 5. The structure of Living Lab with Data Jackets (LLDJ)
Table 1. The comparison of IMDJ versus LLDJ.
Elements of a workshop IMDJ LLDJ

Participants Fixed members including Members revised by cycles (Step
data providers/experts, data 1 to 4), including ordinary
users, data scientists citizens in LL, and others similar
to IMDJ
Visualization as common KeyGraph showing DJs and KeyGraph of words in LL and
reference for participants links between them co-occurrence links between
them, in addition to the graph for
IMDJ. Both are revised by cycles
The communication Proposing to use multiple Presenting and deepening
data, corresponding DJs requirements in the living context
connected in KeyGraph, of people in LL, followed by
combined into one IMDJ initiated by the
requirements in LL
Structure of requirements One or two layers Can exceed two layers
of the discussion was “Networking of Young People and Middle/small Firms,” and had
340 utterances. The white rectangles show words proposing requirements (or suggesting
problems) in the region from either side (young people or firm managers), and the black
ones the solutions or deepened latent requirements behind the requirements presented
in the previous quarter. For example, it was pointed out that there are problems in the
education of students in the 1st quarter, which was deepened to the requirement to clarify
the utility of lessons in schools for working in each job category. About the words in
the questionnaires by the government (2nd quarter), participants came to require the
clarification of influence of students’ concerns about the mood in workplaces and the
evaluation of workers to the students’ choice of things to learn and places to work
(3rd ). In the 4th , methods for education (e.g. OJT) and managements are proposed, with
open problems corresponding to deepened requirements. This result shows an example
where a communication inviting real living sites works to meet our aim to deepen the
requirements, and this effect can be aided by visualization of words as in Step 2.
Fig. 6. A sequence of graphs on KeyGraph for the four segments of a round-table discussion
5 Conclusions
We first redefined innovation based on the original definition by Schumpeter, and rede-
fined also data jackets on which the effect of IMDJ for innovation and the problem
12 Y. Ohsawa et al.
for IMDJ are shown. Then LLDJ is proposed as a method to deepen and widen the
requirement to be shown from communication inviting local aspects in daily living to
externalize general issues that can be closer to DJs than a requirement in IMDJ. This
effect is not only due to covering a wider range of requirements, but also due to the
tendency that data tends to be collected for general purposes. In future work, we plan to
design new DJs, that are revisable and extensible reflecting new expectations about data
usage to further reinforce the effects of and take advantage of LLDJ.
Authors Contributions. Ohsawa invented DJ and IMDJ, and organizes this project of LLDJ.
Kondo has been executing Living Lab at the University of Tokyo, which lead her to the finding that
the effects of Living Lab go via the enhancement of the participants’ sensitivity to the interests in
the open society. Hayashi contributed to the creation of technologies supporting IMDJ, e.g., the
DJ Store and Action Planning.
References
1. Schumpeter, J.A., Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Duncker & Humblot (1912)
2. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press (2003)
3. von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. New edn. The MIT Press (2006)
4. Donaldson, M.: Human Minds: An Exploration. The Penguin Press, Allen/Lane (1992)
5. Dervin, B.: From the mind’s eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative method-
ology. In: Glazier, J.D., Powell, R.R. (eds.) Qualitative Research in Information Management,
Englewood, CO, pp. 61–84 (1992)
6. Drucker, P.F.: The discipline of innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 63(3), 67–73 (1985)
7. Ohsawa, Y., Kido, H., Hayashi, T., Liu, C.: Data jackets for synthesizing values in the market
of data. Procedia Comput. Sci. 22, 709–716 (2013)
8. Ohsawa, Y., Hayashi, T., Kido, H.: Restructuring incomplete models in innovators marketplace
on data jackets. In: Magnani, L., Bertolotti, T. (eds.) Handbook of Model-Based Science,
pp. 1015–1031. Springer (2017)
9. Iwasa, D., Hayashi, T., Ohsawa, Y.: Development and evaluation of a new platform for accel-
erating cross-domain data exchange and cooperation. New Gener. Comput. 38(1), 65–96
(2019)
10. Ohsawa, Y.: KeyGraph: visualized structure among event clusters. In: Ohsawa, Y., McBurney,
P. (eds.) Chance Discovery, pp. 262–275. Springer (2003)
11. Hayashi, T., Ohsawa, Y.: Data jacket store: structuring knowledge of data utilization and
retrieval system. Trans. Japan. Soc. Artif. Intell. 31(5), A-G15_1 (2016)
12. Hayashi, T., Ohsawa, Y.: Meta-data generation of analysis tools and connection with structured
meta-data of datasets. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing
and Integrated Networks, pp. 226–231 (2016)
13. Takemura, K., Hayashi, T., Ohsawa, Y., Aihara, D., Sugawa, A.: Computational coach support
using soccer videos and visualization. IEICE-TR 117(440), 93–98 (2018). in Japanese
14. Ohsawa, Y.: Graph-based entropy for detecting explanatory signs of changes in market. Rev.
Socionetw. Strat. 12(2), 183–203 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12626-018-0023-8
15. Ohsawa, Y., Hayashi, T., Yoshino, T.: Tangled string for multi-timescale explanation of
changes in stock market. Information 10(3), 118 (2019)
16. Ohsawa, Y.: Regional seismic information entropy for detecting earthquake activation
precursors. Entropy 20(11), 861 (2018)
17. Følstad, A.: Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication
technology: a literature review. EJ. Virtual Organ. Netw. 10, 99–131 (2008)
18. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Nyström, A.G.: Living labs as open-innovation networks.
Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2(9), 6–12 (2012)
19. Almirall, E., Wareham, J.: Living labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation. Technol.
Anal. Strateg. Manag. 23(1), 87–102 (2011)
20. Organ, D.W.: A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. J. Manag. 14(4),
547–557 (1988)
21. Borman, W.C., Motowidlo, S.J.: Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In: Schmitt, N., Borman, W.C., (eds.) Personnel Selection in
Organizations, pp. 71–98. Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco (1993)
22. Dyne, V.L., Cummings, L.L., McLean Parks, J.: Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct
and definitional clarity. Res. Organ. Behav. 17, 215–285 (1995)
23. Ohshima, R., Miyazaki, G., Haga, S.: The mediating effect of political skill in influencing the
effect of the big five personality domains on organizational citizenship behavior. Jpn. Assoc.
Ind./Organ. Psychol. J. 32(1), 31–41 (2018)
24. Eris, O.: Effective Inquiry for Innovative Engineering Design. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
(2004)
25. Eris, O., Bergner, D., Jung, M., Leifer, L.: ConExSIR: a dialogue-based framework of design
team thinking and discovery. In: Ohsawa, Y., Tsumoto, S. (eds.) Chance Discoveries in Real
World Decision Making (SCI30), pp. 329–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER XIX
ARE WE CITIZENS?
“The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by

the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy.” (Fed. No. 85).
Those were the words of Hamilton, in a final appeal to the people of
America, as they were about to assemble in their “conventions.”
As he thought it a prodigy that their voluntary consent should be
secured to that constitution of government contained in the First
Article, he frankly added that he looked forward “with trembling
anxiety” to their own determination as to whether or not they would
give that necessary consent to the enumerated grants in that First
Article. We know how the patriotic efforts of himself and Madison and
his other colleagues were later rewarded by the giving of that
consent. We know where those average Americans of that day gave
that consent, where they made that constitution of their national
government which is that First Article. “It is true, they assembled in
their several states—and where else should they have assembled?
No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down
the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the
American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when
they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not,
on that account, cease to be the measures of the people
themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.”
In the many other Supreme Court decisions, telling the tale of the
completion of the “prodigy” and all stating the same legal fact, is
there a more apt and accurate expression of the knowledge of the
American people, who were better acquainted “with the science of
government than any other people in the world,” that the
“conventions” in the respective states, assembled to constitute their
American government by grants like those in the First Article and the
Eighteenth Amendment, are the Americans themselves and that the
state governments never are the American people themselves and
never represent those people for national purposes. It was natural
that such apt and accurate expression of that concept should have
been voiced by Marshall in the Supreme Court. He had been one of
those people, fighting on the battle-field with them to wrest from all
governments in the world any ability to constitute government by
making grants like those in the First Article or the Eighteenth
Amendment. He had been one of those people in one of those
“conventions,” in their respective states, where they made the only
Article of that kind which ever entered their and our national
American Constitution. Later it became his privilege and duty (and
our great good fortune) to explain who alone could make and did
make that First Article and who alone can ever validly make Articles
like it or the Eighteenth Amendment, namely, the American people
themselves, assembled in convention in their respective states.
When, therefore, we read the Fifth Article, made by him and his
fellow Americans in those “conventions,” we recognize at once and
we will never forget or ignore their mention of themselves, in the very
word by which he and they then described themselves,
“conventions” in their respective states.
In making the Eighteenth Amendment grant of power to interfere
with American freedom, we—the American citizens and
“conventions” of this generation—have been ignored as completely
as if we were not named in the Fifth Article.
We have been trying to ascertain “when” and “how” the American
human beings, now ourselves, ceased to be “citizens of America”
and again became “subjects” of governments. We have gone to the
record of our Congress on those days in 1917, in which it acted on
the assumption that the “when” and “how” were already history. We
have found no Senator or Congressman who vouchsafed any
information or displayed any knowledge of this matter, so vitally
important to us who were born citizens and free men. We have seen
the leader of the House advocates of the new constitution of
government, the Eighteenth Amendment, read a Fifth Article in which
the “conventions” of those who made it and the First Article are not
mentioned. We have seen the leader of the same advocates in the
Senate complacently assert the repudiated thought that the states
made the First Article, our constitution of our government. We have
seen him follow up this error with the Tory mistake of assuming that
the government of the state is the state. We have seen him point out,
to our American amazement, the remarkable and hitherto unknown
fact, never mentioned by the people who made the Fifth Article, that
the state governments are the only tribunal in which our national
constitution of government can be changed, that those governments
are a tribunal in which new enumerated power can be given by
government to government to interfere with our own individual
freedom.
Fresh from our education with the Americans who made that Fifth
Article in “conventions” of the very kind mentioned therein, we see
that those legislators of 1917 know naught of American history or law
or constitution of government of men, that from them we cannot
learn “when” or “how” we ceased to be “citizens” and became
“subjects.” But, there assembled in the Supreme Court in March,
1920, many renowned “constitutional” lawyers. Some came to
challenge, some to uphold the new Amendment, the new
government-made constitution of government right to interfere with
individual human freedom.
To the reading of all their briefs and arguments we bring our
knowledge that the new Amendment never entered our Constitution
unless we were “subjects” before 1917 or unless the new
Amendment was itself a revolution (by government against citizens)
which made us “subjects.”
We expect the lawyers against the new Amendment to challenge
its existence with the facts and knowledge we bring from our
education with the Americans who made themselves free men and
citizens.
We expect the lawyers for the new Amendment to point out the
day and the manner in which they claim that government of the
American people by the American people did disappear from
America.
Unless these lawyers for the Amendment do point out that day and
manner and sustain their claim as to both, we know that the
existence of the new Amendment is successfully challenged by the
facts which we have acquired in our education. Before we listen to
the expositions of these facts by the lawyers against the new
Amendment, let us briefly review the facts themselves as they bear
upon the supposed existence of the new Amendment.
When 1776 opened, the American people were subjects in
rebellion against their omnipotent government. By direct action of
themselves, in July, 1776, they made themselves free men, made
their former colonies independent states and made each of
themselves a citizen of some one of those states. Almost
immediately, the Statute of ’76 having declared the actual fact that
the supreme will in America was possessed by the American people,
at their suggestion and with their permission, the citizens of each
state constituted their own government with its national powers to
interfere with the individual freedom of its own citizens. In strict
conformity to the Statute of ’76 and to the sole American concept of
the relation between government and human being, those grants of
power to interfere with individual freedom, like every other grant of
that kind until the Eighteenth Amendment, were made by the
respective citizens to their respective governments.
In 1777 the committee of the American people known as the
Second Continental Congress proposed a union of states or political
entities and a general government to govern states but not to
interfere directly with the human freedom of the individual. Because
there is a vital distinction between the ability to govern states and the
ability to interfere with individual freedom, those Americans knew
that states or political entities could make federal Articles but that
only citizens could ever validly make national Articles. It was
impossible for these Americans not to know this difference between
the respective abilities of states and citizens of America. Their
Statute of ’76 had declared this sole American concept of the law
controlling the relation of government to human being. They were
actually engaged in their Revolutionary War for the very purpose of
making it forever American law that no governments could ever grant
national power in any matter. Because, therefore, the proposed
Articles of 1777 were only federal Articles with grants of federal
power, it was “felt and acknowledged by all” that the state
legislatures were competent to make those Articles. So we recall,
with intent to remember, that those federal Articles were made in the
exercise of that legislative government ability to make federal
Articles, which is mentioned in our own Fifth Article.
In 1787, from the same Philadelphia, there came the proposal that
the American people, collectively the possessors of the supreme will
in America, create a new nation, with themselves as its members or
citizens and, as its members, constitute its government with national
powers to interfere with their own individual freedom. Because the
legal necessity of deriving powers of that kind from the people
themselves was “felt and acknowledged by all,” the inevitable legal
decision was reached at Philadelphia that the existing ability of
legislative governments to make federal Articles neither then did nor
ever could include the ability to make national Articles like the First
Article and the supposed Eighteenth Amendment. By reason of that
legal necessity and its then recognition by all, because the First
Article contained grants of national power, “by the convention, by
Congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was
submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in
which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely on such a subject,
by assembling in convention.” The reasoning and the decision itself
were embodied in Article VII and in the Resolution which went from
Philadelphia with the proposed seven Articles, including the Fifth
Article.
As the Supreme Court has definitely settled, the Tenth
Amendment merely declares what was in that original proposed
Constitution. Therefore the Constitution gave no new government
ability anywhere except to the government at Washington. It gave to
that government only specific ability to govern human beings, in
certain matters. It merely reserved to each state government some
of its former ability to govern its own citizens. It gave neither to any
state government nor to all state governments collectively any new
ability to govern. And it reserved to the American people themselves
all ability to exercise or to grant any national power to interfere with
the freedom of American citizens except those enumerated powers
in the First Article. The Supreme Court has definitely settled that this
reservation of such power exclusively to themselves, by the makers
of the Fifth Article, is the most important factor in our constitutional
distribution of that kind of power among our American government,
our state governments and, most important of all, ourselves, the
citizens of America. For which reason, until this generation, it has
always been axiomatic that the mention of that exclusive ability of
our own, “conventions” of Americans in their respective states, is the
most important factor in the Fifth Article.
In strict conformity with the Statute of ’76 and without usurping the
reserved powers of the most important factor in both the Tenth
Amendment and the Fifth Article, seventeen federal changes were
made, between 1789 and 1917, in the federal part of our
Constitution, which is both a federal and a national Constitution. The
situation in 1917 was exactly the same as it had been since July 4,
1776, when it was known even to the humble townsmen of Concord
that governments could not make national Articles in American
constitutions. Or rather, the situation in 1917 was the same unless,
somewhere prior to 1917, the Statute of ’76 had been repealed and
the most important factor in both Articles had been eliminated from
the Fifth Article and Tenth Amendment of the American Constitution,
which is the security of the American citizen against usurpation of
power even by governments in America.
We know that Gerry moved to strike that important factor from the
Fifth Article in September, 1789, and that he failed in his effort. We
know that Webb and the legislative advocates of the new Eighteenth
Amendment had a Fifth Article in which that most important factor
was not present. Apparently they based their government proposal
and government ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment upon a
Fifth Article which did not contain that most important factor, the
reference of the makers of the Fifth Article to themselves as the
makers of all future Articles of a national kind, the reference of those
makers to themselves in the words “conventions” of the American
people, assembled in their respective states.
Keeping all these settled facts clearly in our minds, we now take
up the arguments and the briefs in which, in March, 1920, the
constitutional lawyers of America, who disputed the presence of the
new Amendment in our Constitution, should have presented these
irresistible facts. Then we shall take up the arguments and briefs of
those other renowned lawyers in which they presented those other
facts (still unknown to us average Americans) which can alone refute
our knowledge that the new Amendment never went into our
Constitution, because we are still citizens and governments are yet
unable to create government power to interfere with our individual
freedom.
CHAPTER XX
LEST WE FORGET
“The important distinction so well understood in America, between

a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the
government, and a law established by the government and alterable
by the government, seems to have been little understood and less
observed in any other country.... Even in Great Britain, where the
principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and
where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained
that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and
uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the
ordinary objects of legislative provision. They [the legislature] have
accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative
acts, some of the most fundamental Articles of the government.”
(Fed. No. 53.)
Coming from Madison or Hamilton, this is the best kind of
testimony that the earlier Americans, who established that
constitution of government which is the First Article, knew that it was
“unalterable by government.” And it is the best kind of testimony that
the same American makers of the Madison Fifth Article knew that it
did not grant to state governments any ability to add to or subtract
from the First Article enumerated and constituted powers in
government to interfere with the freedom of American citizens. If
Madison and Hamilton had been with us in our Congress of 1917,
their statement would have been slightly altered. They would have
spoken of “the important distinction so well understood in America” in
1787, as one which “seems to have been little understood and less
observed in any other country” and not known or observed at all by
our Senators or Congressmen of 1917.
The Americans of 1787, who “so well understood” the important
distinction, made their knowledge a noticeable thing in the language
of their Statute of ’76 and of their Constitution. With their knowledge
of the important distinction, they permitted the respective states,
through the respective legislatures thereof, to constitute the
government of states, to make the federal Articles of 1781. With their
knowledge of the important distinction and in deference to their own
clear Statute of ’76, these intelligent Americans refused to permit the
states or the legislatures of the states to establish the government of
men, to make the national Article—the First Article—which is the
constitution of government power to interfere with individual human
freedom. Moreover, by their knowledge of the important distinction
and of the Statute, they knew that Constitution, that enumerated
grant of national power over themselves, to be “unalterable by
government.” And that we and all later Americans might also know it,
they, the American people or “conventions” of that day, insisted that
the Tenth Amendment expressly declare that they, those
“conventions” of the American people, reserved to themselves and
their posterity, the “conventions” of any later day, exclusive ability to
alter that constitution of national power, the First Article. And, for the
same purpose, they, the “conventions,” mentioned themselves, the
particular reservee of the exclusive ability to alter that grant of
national power, in one particular earlier part of the Articles they
made, the part we know as the Fifth Article. Naturally, the two men,
who worded that Article at Philadelphia and who paid its later makers
the deserved tribute to their knowledge of the important distinction,
mentioned those makers, “conventions,” in that Fifth Article as future
makers of all grants of national power and mentioned the
legislatures, in the Fifth Article, as competent future makers of
Articles that do not constitute new national government.
Because we have lived through the experience of the Americans
to whom the tribute was paid, we know the distinction between a
constitution of national government, “unalterable by government,”
and Articles constituting government of political entities or states,
alterable by the states or the legislatures of the states. Moreover, by
reason of our experience, we sense the clear recognition of the
distinction in the Fifth Article distinct mention of the people or
“conventions,” as sole makers of national Articles, and the similar
mention of the “legislatures” as competent makers of federal Articles.
To our regret, we have found that our Congress, in 1917, knew
naught of the distinction and naught of its recognition in the language
of the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Article. It is with relief,
therefore, that we turn to the great litigations in the Supreme Court of
1920, in which the lawyers of the America, where the important
distinction was once so clearly known, attacked and defended the
proposal from the Congress of 1917 and the action of the state
legislatures on that proposal. Fresh from the utter legislative
ignorance of that distinction, it is with relief that, in our first glance at
the briefs of those lawyers, we find what seems the clear echo of the
accurate knowledge we have acquired in the company of those
earlier Americans.
“There is only one great muniment of our liberty which can never
be amended, revoked or withdrawn—the Declaration of
Independence. In this regard, it ranks with the Magna Charta.”
The clear tribute to the unrepealed Statute of ’76 excuses, while it
does not explain, the error of the allusion to Magna Charta. Graduate
students of the history of the advance of Americans from subjects to
free men, we average citizens grasp the error of the statement, “in
this regard [that neither can ever be revoked] the Statute of ’76 ranks
with the Magna Charta.” We know that the Statute was the
revocation of the basic doctrine on which Magna Charta rested.
Magna Charta was the grant of privilege from an omnipotent
government to its subjects. All that subjects ever have are the
revocable privileges granted by the master government. The Statute
of ’76 states the basic American law that there are no subjects in
America, that the human members of any political society or state or
nation, except as they directly grant power over some of their human
rights to secure enjoyment of the rest, need obey the command of no
one except Him who gave them their human rights. In a free nation,
such as the earlier Americans made of themselves, no man has any
privileges granted by a master government. In a free nation, citizens
or members of the society (and the supreme will therein) have their
servant governments to which those citizens give whatever national
powers those governments ever have. Except for the grants of such
power which those citizens so make, the human beings retain, not as
a gift or privilege of government but as the gift of Him Who created
them, all human freedom of action. As citizens, they also possess
the particular privileges which arise from membership in that
particular society of men; but even those privileges are not the gift of
government but the creation and effect of the society itself, just as
every power of the government is also the gift of the society.
We pardon the error of the reference to Magna Charta, however,
when we read on in the brief and find it immediately quoting from our
Statute: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the Governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers on such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
At last, in this brief, we are getting the clear echo of our own
knowledge that, until this Statute is revoked, it is not the right of
“government or governments” to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form
as to “governments” shall seem most likely to effect the safety and
happiness “of governments.” Moreover, in this brief, we are getting
the clear echo of our own knowledge that this Statute can never be
revoked, while we remain free men and citizens instead of the
subjects we were until that Statute was enacted.
And when we turn to another brief for a moment, we are cheered
to find the refutation of the Sheppard ignorance of the identity of
those who made our Constitution, “We, the people of” America, in its
Preamble and its most important factor of the Tenth Amendment, the
“conventions” of ourselves in its Seventh and its Fifth Articles. With
gratification that some “constitutional” lawyers still know and observe
the important distinction between the ability of ourselves, the
“conventions” of the Seventh and Fifth Articles, and the lack of ability
in the “legislatures” of the Fifth Article to give to government national
powers, we average Americans recognize, in the following challenge
of this brief, the challenge we would have made to the Sheppard
proposition that legislatures attempt to constitute such new
government over us. This is the challenge of the brief to Sheppard:
“The Constitution is not a compact between states. It proceeds
directly from the people. As was said by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, etc.” Then follows the
Marshall clear exposition of how the people themselves, the
“conventions,” made the constitution which is the First Article and
how, if any other constitution of that kind, such as the Eighteenth
Amendment, is ever to be made “safely, effectively, and wisely” it
must be made by ourselves, assembled in the “conventions” named
in the Fifth Article. The full extract from Marshall has been set out
already herein at page 98.
In a second brief, in a different case, the same distinguished
lawyer of 1920 is found bringing into bold relief another part of our
knowledge so intimately connected with the supposed new
constitution of government, the Eighteenth Amendment. And it is a
part of our knowledge which challenges a new constitution made
entirely by governments without any action by ourselves, the people
or the “conventions” named repeatedly in the Constitution made by
themselves. In that other brief, we find him stating as one of the
propositions on which he bases his argument, “What the expression
‘legislatures of the several states’ meant as used in Article V, when
that Article was adopted as a part of the Constitution, it means now.”
The statement being undeniably true, he immediately proceeds to
urge, with equal truth, that “however popular approval or disapproval
[i.e., the direct action of the people themselves, as, for example, in
the ‘conventions’ whence, as he already stated, our Constitution
proceeded ‘directly from the people’] may be invoked, the people do
not become a ‘legislature.’... As well confound the creator and the
creature—the principal and the agent through which he acts.”
This is the echo of Marshall’s clear statement of the vital
distinction between the same “legislatures” (who never are the
people and never have the reserved ability of the people) and the
“people” or “conventions” (which are the people and have the
exclusive ability of the people). We recall the tribute paid to this
distinction at Philadelphia. We recall the legal decision there, a
decision based squarely on that distinction, that the legislative ability
to make federal Articles could not constitute new government of
men, as did the First Article, and that all Articles like it or the new
Eighteenth Amendment must go to the “people” of the Tenth
Amendment, the “conventions” of the Seventh and Fifth Articles. We
recall Marshall’s appreciation of the accuracy of that legal decision,
when he mentioned that the ability of the state governments or
legislatures had been competent to make the federal Articles of 1781
but, when it was proposed to constitute government of men, to vest
the national powers of the national First Article, “the necessity of
deriving those powers directly from the people [the “conventions” of
the Seventh Article] was known and recognized by all.” We
remember that the “people” or “conventions,” so recognizing and
knowing, mentioned themselves in the Fifth Article so that no one
ever should forget the similar legal necessity that every Article like
the First, such as the new Article, must always be made by those
“conventions” so mentioned.
It is, therefore, with considerable satisfaction that we read, in this
brief of 1920, the clear echo of all these settled facts, the knowledge
that “legislatures” never are the people and never become the
people. “As well confound the creator and the creature—the principal
and the agent.”
In our gratitude for such remembrance, we ignore the inaccuracy
of a suggestion that the “legislatures” of the Fifth Article are the
agent of the principal therein mentioned, the “people” of America, the
“conventions” which made the Constitution. Each of those
“legislatures” is an agent of one particular reservee among those
named collectively in the reservation of the Tenth Amendment in the
words “to the states respectively,” while the “conventions” in the Fifth
Article is the one most important reservee in that Tenth Amendment,
“the people” of America, the most important factor in that Tenth
Amendment and in America. For the purpose of making any Articles,
whether federal or national, that important reservee has no
legislative agents. For any purpose, it has but one legislative agent,
the Congress; and to that one legislative agent it has given no power
to make any constitutional Articles; but it has, in the Fifth Article, left
with that agent the mere ability to draft and propose a new Article of
either kind and, as did the Philadelphia Convention, from the nature
of the Article it drafts, whether within the ability of “legislatures” or
within the exclusive unlimited ability of the people or “conventions,”
to ascertain and propose which shall make the drafted Article.
That the state legislatures are not agents of the American citizens,
in that capacity, is self-evident. Each legislature is chosen by the
citizens of a state. Moreover, the Constitution itself distinctly states
that the “conventions” of the American citizens grant no power of any
kind therein to the state “legislatures.”
When the American people created a national legislature,
with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor
proper to define the powers retained by the states. These
powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the
people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of
the Constitution, what they were before, except so far as they
may be abridged by that instrument. (Marshall in Sturges v.
Crowinshield, 4 Wheat. 122.)
That is why anything which these “legislatures” do, when it comes
in conflict with a valid action of our legislature, the Congress, must
always yield. We have the supreme will in America, and when our
agent, the Congress, speaks with authority from us, it speaks for us,
while the inferior agents of other lesser wills never speak for us. That
clear distinction does not detract from the ability of those legislatures
to make federal Articles in our Constitution. They do not get that
ability from us, the citizens of America. They had that ability from
those respective inferior wills, when we made our Constitution. By its
exercise, they had made the federation of states and the federal
Articles of its government. When we made our national Constitution,
we continued that federation and the ability of its component
members to make its federal Articles and put them in our
Constitution, which is both our national Constitution and their federal
Constitution. The ability to make those federal Articles is one of the
powers reserved to those inferior wills by the reservation of the Tenth
Amendment which reads “to the states respectively”; and it is not an
ability to make Articles which is granted in the Fifth Article. No ability
to make Articles is granted in that Fifth Article.
Inasmuch, however, as the writer of the brief in 1920 has known
that “legislatures” do not ever become “the people,” it is quite
probable that his reference did not intend to suggest that the
legislatures of which he spoke and who are the agents respectively
of other citizens, were the agents, for any purpose, of the citizens of
America. With his recognition that legislatures never are the people
and with the other quoted extracts of those briefs of 1920 before us,
echoing the knowledge we have acquired, we feel at least that in the
court of 1920, from the debate of men who know, we will learn
whether and “when” and “how,” we, between 1907 and 1917,
became subjects instead of the free men and citizens which we
clearly were up to 1907.
At least such was the thought of one American citizen, when he
read this quotation, in one of the briefs of 1920, “that the people do
not become a legislature.... As well confound the creator and the
creature—the principal and the agent through which he acts.” It was
almost incredible to this particular American citizen that he found this
statement and the statement that—“The Constitution is not a
compact between states. It proceeds directly from the people.”—both
in the briefs of the foremost champion of the new Amendment. And it
seemed equally incredible to him to find the quotation about the
Statute of ’76 being “one great muniment of our liberty which can
never be amended, revoked or withdrawn” in the brief of the counsel
for the political organization which dictated the new state
government command to the citizens of America.
An unusual method had been adopted for the hearing of what
were later reported under the one title the “National Prohibition
Cases,” 253 U.S. 350. In that hearing, which continued for days,
seven different litigations were argued because all dealt either with
the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment or with the meaning of its
remarkable second section or with the statute enacted under that
section and known as the Volstead Act. For the same reason, the
briefs on both sides of the various litigations were clearly the result of
conference and collaboration. Nearly all of the briefs, challenging the
new Article, made their challenge on the same two main points and
in the expression of those two challenges, made constant reference
to the different expression thereof in the other briefs.
In the litigation and argument of that March, appeared many of the
best known lawyers in America. Among them were distinguished
counsel, appearing on behalf of those legislative governments who
claim and, in the new Article, have attempted to exercise the
omnipotent supremacy over the citizens of America which was
denied by the people of America to the British Parliament. Among
them were other distinguished counsel, appearing on behalf of what
had always been known as the supreme legislative government in
America, our government with its enumerated powers and without
omnipotence over us. Among them were still other distinguished
counsel, appearing on behalf of some separate states or political
entities to contend that there existed no constitutional ability
anywhere, even in ourselves, to take from their particular state any
more of its sovereignty than it had surrendered in those early days
when the states made the Constitution, as Sheppard claimed in the
Congress of 1917. Among them were still other distinguished
counsel, some of them the most distinguished of all, appearing to
oppose, as best they knew how, the total destruction of all legitimate
industry in a business in which it was the human right of Americans
to engage even before Americans wrote their Statute of ’76 and
consequently not a privilege of the citizen of America or the citizen of
any state.
As this fact has been the basis of many errors in that comedy and
tragedy of errors, which is the five-year tale of the Eighteenth
Amendment, we average Americans may well dwell for a moment
upon the certainty of that fact. It is the natural mistake of those, who
have the Tory concept of the relation of men to government, that they
should first confuse the meaning of the words “privilege of a citizen”
with the words “privilege of a subject” and thus believe that the
nature of both privileges, and the source of each are the same. That
mistake is but the echo of the error which confuses the nature of
Magna Charta with that of the Statute of ’76. Magna Charta is the
declaration of certain privileges which government will permit its
subjects to keep as long as the government pleases. The Statute of
’76 is the declaration that destroys the relation of government to
subjects, creates the relation of citizens to their servant
governments, and states that the servants shall have no power to
interfere with the human rights of the masters, given by their Creator,
except such power as the masters choose to give, and that the
servants shall keep that power only so long as the masters will. To
the Tory concept, always concentrated on the relation of subject to
master government, it is difficult of apprehension that the human
being is born with the right to use his human freedom as he himself
wills, so long as he does not interfere with the similar exercise of
human freedom by the rest of us human beings. If men, in the
exercise of their free will, would always obey the defined law of Him
who created them, the exercise of human freedom by one individual
would never interfere with the exercise of human freedom by all
other individuals, and no human government need ever be
constituted.
Among the human rights of Americans, as of all human beings,
when they come into the world, is the human right to do everything
which is forbidden in the first section of the Eighteenth Amendment.
It is true, as we frequently hear stated, that the Supreme Court has
decided that the right to do any of those things is not the “privilege”
of American citizens or of the citizens of any state. It is also equally
true, although the Supreme Court has never been called upon to
decide that very obvious fact, that the right to breathe is not the
“privilege” of an American citizen or of the citizen of a state. Both
rights are among the rights of human beings, as such, and they are
each of them among the rights of themselves, which we, “the people”
of America, established and ordained our Constitution to secure.
When we established that Constitution for that purpose, we
admittedly gave our only American government no power to make
the command of the first section of the Eighteenth Amendment. That
is why the governments of other citizens were asked to make the
command to ourselves, the citizens of America.
Each of the Americans, who created the nation that is America,
already lived as a member and citizen of a state. In that state, when
they had constituted it, the citizens thereof had subjected their
human right (to do what the new Amendment says shall not be done)
to a power in the government of that state (a power which they gave
it and can take back from it) to make that kind of a command to them
in that matter.
We thus have clearly in our minds that the individual in America
has the human right (with which the new Amendment interferes) and
that it is subject to the interference of no government, except as the
citizens of that particular government have given it power so to
interfere with it. The undoubted fact that the right itself is not the
privilege of the citizen of America or the citizen of the state is simply
another way of saying that the original human right itself is not
granted to the human being by government or governments but by
the Creator Who made him. Without the Tory concept, no man would
even make the mistake of believing that a citizen gets any of his
privileges from any government. The privileges of a citizen are the
things which he acquires by his voluntary association with the other
citizens as the members of a political society which is the nation. The
human rights of the same individual are the rights which he brings
into that association and subjects to whatever powers of its
government are granted by himself and those other citizens with
whom he associates as the nation.
Of course, the early Americans, with whom we have now been
educated, not only knew these things clearly and accurately, but on
their knowledge of them based everything that they did in the fifteen
years which we have lived with them. The Americans of today, who
uphold the new constitution of government made entirely by
government, do not know them at all or understand them when they
hear them. Neither would the aristocrats of France, before the
French Revolution, nor the Tories of England, even at the time of our
Revolution, have known or understood them. That is why the
Americans continued their Revolution and won it, so that these
things might be the basis of every government interference with any
human right. Later they made the American Constitution solely to
secure the greatest possible protected enjoyment of all individual
human rights. That security is one of the privileges acquired by
citizenship in the society which that Constitution created. Wherefore,
it is of interest for us to know how clearly Madison, who largely
planned that Constitution and who worded its Fifth Article, did know
and understand these facts in relation even to the very things
forbidden in the new constitution of government made entirely by
government.
In the House of Representatives, in the first session of the new
Congress with the enumerated powers of the First Article, on May
15, there came up for discussion “a proposed bill laying duties on
goods.” Madison “moved to lay an impost of eight cents on all beer
imported. He did not think this would be a monopoly, but he hoped it
would be such an encouragement so as to induce the manufacture
to take deep root in every state of the Union.” (4 Ell. Deb. 345.)
That the knowledge of Madison was not unknown to the Supreme
Court a century later, in 1890, is a matter of record.
That ardent spirits, distilled liquors, ale, and beer are
subjects of exchange, barter, and traffic, like any other
commodity in which a right of traffic exists, and are so
recognized by the usages of the commercial world, the laws
of Congress, and the decisions of courts, is not denied. (Leisy
v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100.)
Returning to the courtroom of 1920, therefore, we are sincerely
glad to note the appearance of quite an array of eminent counsel on
behalf of those legitimately engaged in a business which is just as
legitimate an exercise of human right, as it was when Madison
hoped that it would take deep root in every state of the America he
loved so well, a business which will continue free from unlawful
usurpation of power by government so long as the Constitution
planned by Madison is obeyed by governments in America. It is too
bad that the eminent counsel, who shared Madison’s views in
relation to that legitimate business, did not also have Madison’s
accurate knowledge of the only way in which legitimate government
power can be created to interfere with that or any other human right,
the way which Madison so clearly stated in the Fifth Article—by grant
from the “conventions” of American citizens.
When we average Americans look over the great array of counsel
and the respective clients whose causes they champion, one fact
lends no encouragement to our hope that we may learn the merits of
the claim that, somehow between 1907 and 1917 we became
subjects and lost our status as free men. Although each client is
represented by his own distinguished attorneys and although
eminent counsel argue and file briefs, as amici curiæ, on behalf of
the state governments which claim that we are subjects and on
behalf of some of the litigating other states and individuals, no
amicus curiæ files any brief on behalf of us, the citizens of America,
the reservees of the Tenth Amendment, the “conventions” of the
Seventh and the Fifth Articles.
There is, however, this comfort. If, because the counsel in
opposition to the new Amendment do not know and urge our legal
protection against any new constitution of national government
except by ourselves, the citizens of America, the “conventions” of the
Fifth Article, and if, because of such ignorance on the part of
counsel, the Court should not be called upon either to consider or
pass upon our protection, no decision of the Court will be intended to
have—as no decision of the Court could have—any effect upon our
protection. If counsel fail to bring before the Court the legal facts
which demonstrate that the new Amendment is not in the
Constitution unless we Americans are “subjects,” our day in Court is
merely postponed. And when that day shall come, when that Court is
addressed by counsel who do represent the citizens of America and
who accurately know the constitutional protection which we have for
all our rights, there is not the slightest danger that the Court,
established and maintained by us for the sole purpose of protecting
our individual rights against usurpation by government, will decide
that we are subjects and that governments can create new
government power to interfere with the freedom of the individual
American citizen.
Meanwhile, let us examine the briefs of March, 1920. In them,
despite our regret that not one of them was written in our behalf, it

Full Chapter Intelligent Systems Design and Applications 19Th International Conference On Intelligent Systems Design and Applications Isda 2019 Held December 3 5 2019 Ajith Abraham PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Intelligent Systems Design and Applications 19Th International Conference On Intelligent Systems Design and Applications Isda 2019 Held December 3 5 2019 Ajith Abraham PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intelligent Systems Design and

Applications 19th International

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications: 18th

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications: 18th

Hybrid Intelligent Systems 19th International

Intelligent Systems Design and Applications Ajith

Hybrid Intelligent Systems Ajith Abraham

Hybrid Intelligent Systems 15th International

Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on

Intelligent Systems and Applications: Proceedings of

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11156

Kun Ma Arturas Kaklauskas

Intelligent Systems Design

ISSN 2194-5357 ISSN 2194-5365 (electronic)

Welcome to the 19th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and

Ajith Abraham Machine Intelligence Research Labs, USA

Elizabeth Goldbarg Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte

Data Jackets as Communicable Metadata for Potential

A Deep Convolutional Neural Network Model for Multi-class

Extrinsic Plagiarism Detection for French Language

Hand-Crafted and Learned Features Fusion for Predicting Freezing

Ant Colony Optimization on an OBS Network with Link Cost

Automating the Process of Faculty Evaluation in a Private

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661

Yukio Ohsawa1(B) , Sae Kondo2 , and Teruaki Hayashi1

The University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 153-8904, Japan

Keywords: Innovation · Data jackets · Living lab

2 Data Jackets as Communicable Metadata

V i : the set of variables in DJ i

DJcom(G) := {DJa , DJb , . . . DJL } ⊆ {DJ1 , DJ2 , . . . DJN } where

2.2 Innovators Marketplace on Data Jackets

DJ1: wide-view video

Example 2, Change explanation in businesses) Req 2: Detect and explain causes of

Example 3: Change explanation in nature) Req: Detect precursors of and explain

DJ4: Sequence of earthquakes in Japan

3 Living Lab for Enhancing the Sensitivity to the Open Society

3.1 Living Labs and Its Effects

3.2 Lessons for Livings from Organizational Citizenship Behavior

4 Living Lab on Data Jackets

Fig. 4. The KeyGraph visualization of LL (right half) and OCB (left)

For externalizing deeper requirements, the communication is regulated by setting a

Fig. 5. The structure of Living Lab with Data Jackets (LLDJ)

Table 1. The comparison of IMDJ versus LLDJ.

Elements of a workshop IMDJ LLDJ

“The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by

“The important distinction so well understood in America, between

You might also like