http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
A Compatible Variables Scheduling Algorithm for Register Allocation in Microprogram
이상정,임인칠,Lee, Sang-Jeong,Lim, In-Chil The Institute of Electronics and Information Engin 1987 전자공학회논문지 Vol.24 No.2
This paper proposes a compatible variables scheduling algorithm, which is the process to pack variables into same register without modifying program semantics, for efficient register allocation of microprogram. The algorithm constructs T-V matrix, obtains incompatible variable set and scheduling priority, and schedules compatible groups. By this algorithm, the number of compatible groups can be minimized. The algorithm was implemented with C language on VAX-11/780 computer. By applying the algorithm to practical microprograms, the effectiveness of the algorithm is verified.
연구논문 : 도시하천의 바람 특성 -서울 강남구 양재천을 대상으로-
이상정 ( Sang Jeong Lee ),이원보 ( Won Bo Lee ),김문성 ( Wen Cheng Jin ),이규석 ( Kyoo Seock Lee ) 한국환경영향평가학회 2012 환경영향평가 Vol.21 No.1
Global warming due to the climate change causes environmental problems such as urban heat island (UHI), air pollutant deposition, urban heavy rainfall, etc. Urban stream plays an important role on mitigating UHI as open space as well as an ecological corridor in urban area. In order to investigate the wind characteristics of urban stream in the case of Yangjae Stream at Daechi-dong, Gangnam-gu in Seoul, the wind direction and wind speed data were observed and analyzed using a propellor type RM-Young wind monitor. The results show that the prevailing wind direction was southwest. However, easterly wind is the prevailing one between 8:00 and 12:00. Strong wind whose Beaufort scale is four or more blew frequently from 12:00 to 18:00. In terms of seasonal frequency, the spring shows the highest frequency, then winter was the next.
이상정(Lee Sang Jeong) 경희대학교 경희법학연구소 2006 경희법학 Vol.41 No.2
Our copyright law confers the author the Right of Exhibition The author shall have the right to exhibit the original or reproduction of work of art, etc ( work of art, etc. includes the work of art, the work of photographs and architectural works). And to harmonize the interest of the ownership of copyright and the ownership of material object, the copyright act prescribes that The owner of the original of a work of art, etc. or a person who has obtained the owner s authorization, may exhibit the works in its original form . The problem arises in the case of the copy owner of art, etc (Article 32). The problem arises in the case of the exhibition of the copy of a a work of art, etc.. And it was realized in the case of 「Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003 Na 51230 Delivered on November 11, 2004」. The court ruled that he who exhibited the copy of the photo which was in the calendar, infringed the copyright. I think it s non-sense. In Japan the author of an artistie work or of an unpublished photographic work shall have the exclusive right to exhibit publicly the original of his work. So the copyright owner of published photographic work has no right of Right of Exhibition. In USA the copyright owner of published photographic work has the exclusive right to displayed the copyrighted work publicly (ξ 106(5)). But the copyright act of USA has the limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord. The ξ 109 (c) prescribes as follows: (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a narticular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located, It is one of the first sale doctrine. So I propose that the article 32 should be revised as follows: The owner of the original or reproduction of a work of art, etc, or a persion who has obtained the owner s authorization, may exhibit the works in its original or reproduction form.
이상정 ( Sang Jeong Lee ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2007 서울대학교 法學 Vol.48 No.1
In Korea computer programs are mainly protected by the Computer Programs Protection Act, even though listed as a protectable subject matter of copyright law. So computer programs are protected by sui generis legislation. But the contents of the Computer Programs Protection Act are similar to those of copyright law: the protection of computer programs is based on the mere fact of creation (automatic protection), and registration is not a necessary prerequisite. The term of protection is 50 years from the year following disclosure. The Computer Programs Protection Act excludes Programming languages (characters, signs and a system thereof as a means to express a program), Rules (a specific convention on the usage of programming language in a specific program) and Algorithms (a method of combining instructions and commands in a program) from protection. Exclusion of Algorithms from protection reflects the idea/expression dichotomy. Apart from being protected by the Computer Programs Protection Act, computer programs are also protected by the Patent Law. At first we protected computer programs which met the so-called Freeman-Walter-Abele test. But now we protected the Floppy Disk Claims and the computerized Method of Doing Business as in US and Japan. Even in Japan they regard the computer program as a thing itself. But the term of invention In Korea and Japan Patent Act is a little different from that of US. In Korea and Japan Patent Act the INVENTION means the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing rules of nature. So I think computer programs are not inventions except those which are applied to some physical process or thing. Even though Computer Programs are protectable subject matter, patent protection gives rise to many difficulties as described in the chapter 6 of THE PATENT WARS written by FRED WARSHOFSKY. And cumulative protection also gives rise to many difficulties and contradictions. Because copyright system and patent system are different in many aspects: the philosophy, the requirements, the term of protection, the effect-having block effect or not, and so on. So adequate and appropriate system is needed. Even though we adopted the sui generis legislation, it is limited in form. Legislators have left a room which is filled by appropriate contents from the first. We have to seek the appropriate system. This paper recommends the modified SCPA Approach which is described in a Manifesto as a basic model. But this paper proposes the new act should replace the existing law, even though the Manifesto does not propose a new act should be a substitution of copyright and patent law.
이상정 ( Sang Jeong Lee ) 아세아여성법학연구소 2001 아세아여성법학 Vol.4 No.-
The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual`s name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one`s persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion. In the United States, the Right of Publicity is first recognized in Haelan Case and now largely protected by state common or statutory law. In Korea the Right of Publicity is recognized and mainly protected through the law of tort competition law and Copyright law may apply to the infringement of the Right Publicity. This Paper compose of 5 chapter : 1) Introduction, 2) The Right, 3) The subject and object of the right, 4) Remedies, 5) Conclusion. This paper contains; (1) whether the Right of Publicity is assignable and descendible(inheritable). (2) who has the Right of Publicity: Does only famous person have the Right of Publicity? (3) the scope of the Right of Publicity; Is {Lim, Ggug-Jeong court of Korea} and {Vanna Wbite court of US} right? (4) whether Injunctive Relief is available in Korea Legal System. As to topic (1) I think it`s not assignable but descendible. So general succession is admitted, but singular succession is not permitted. As to topic (2) I think that every (natural and legal) person who has the power to attract the public has the Right of Publicity. As to topic (3) I do not agree with 2 decisions. Both of them go too far. As to topic (4) I think that injunctive relief is available in Korea. As conclusion I suggest it`s more preferable to legislate on the Right of Publicity.