CN105429965A - Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule - Google Patents
Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN105429965A CN105429965A CN201510742063.9A CN201510742063A CN105429965A CN 105429965 A CN105429965 A CN 105429965A CN 201510742063 A CN201510742063 A CN 201510742063A CN 105429965 A CN105429965 A CN 105429965A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- rule
- tag tree
- node
- certificate
- negotiation
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L63/00—Network architectures or network communication protocols for network security
- H04L63/20—Network architectures or network communication protocols for network security for managing network security; network security policies in general
- H04L63/205—Network architectures or network communication protocols for network security for managing network security; network security policies in general involving negotiation or determination of the one or more network security mechanisms to be used, e.g. by negotiation between the client and the server or between peers or by selection according to the capabilities of the entities involved
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Security & Cryptography (AREA)
- Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
- Computing Systems (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Networks & Wireless Communication (AREA)
- Signal Processing (AREA)
- Information Retrieval, Db Structures And Fs Structures Therefor (AREA)
Abstract
The invention provides a conflict handling method of a negotiation trust rule. The method comprises that a minimal certificate set is established; a certificate set held by a request party matches elements of the minimal certificate set; if a set element which is contained in the certificate set held by the request party is found in the minimal certificate set, negotiation is determined to succeed, and a negotiation party agrees resource access of the request party; and if a set element which is contained in the certificate set held by the request party is found in the minimal certificate set, negotiation is determined to failure, and the negotiation party rejects resource access of the request party.
Description
Technical field
The present invention relates to the communications field, more particularly, the present invention relates to a kind of conflict resolution method of consulting to trust rule.
Background technology
In traditional trust negotiation, before negotiation, there is no the process of trusting rule conflict and detecting and clearing up, consult both sides and directly organize negotiation according to the negotiation trust rule made separately.But if trust rule to there is conflict, in negotiations process, conflict is difficult to detected and clears up, and consults according to the trust regular weaves of conflict, has both wasted the mutual time, and result also in unnecessary privacy and expose.Therefore, before negotiation, carry out trusts rule conflict detect, and to conflict work clearing up and be very important to a certain degree.Although researcher has done more work in collision detection, such as someone has attempted to utilize 0-1 to show to describe the method for trust rule to detect conflict, does not provide relevant theoretical foundation and further investigation.In addition, also someone proposes to carry out linear describe and analyzing to trust rule, but this be mostly for theoretic research, not easily apply realization.Somebody implements angle proposition matrix form from algorithm and describes trust rule and give collision detection algorithm, but cannot change flexibly and expansion according to demands such as applied environments.
As a whole, these researchs existing all do not prove the reasonability of its collision detection method, do not provide the method clearing up conflict yet.
Summary of the invention
Technical problem to be solved by this invention is for there is above-mentioned defect in prior art, a kind of conflict resolution method of consulting to trust rule is provided, it can for the problem of deadlock conflict, and utilize the method for rules reduction, the method for the minimum certificate collection of disposable disclosure is cleared up it.
In order to realize above-mentioned technical purpose, according to the present invention, providing a kind of conflict resolution method of consulting to trust rule, it is characterized in that comprising:
First step: set up minimum certificate collection;
Second step: certificate collection requesting party held mates with the element of minimum certificate collection;
Third step: find a set element if concentrated at minimum certificate, it is included in, and certificate that requesting party holds is concentrated, then judge to consult successfully, thus negotiation the other side agrees to the resource access of requesting party;
4th step: do not find a set element if concentrated at minimum certificate, it is included in, and certificate that requesting party holds is concentrated, then judge to fail to consultations, thus consult the resource access of addressee refuses requesting party.
Preferably, described minimum certificate collection comprises multiple element, and wherein each element is the corresponding set of certificates of consulting path and must disclose of the tag tree for negotiation rules.
Preferably, tag tree is a tag tree through simplifying.
Preferably, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if negotiation rules a meta-rule is true, then travel through whole tag tree, the node that this meta-rule of cancellation is corresponding in tag tree.
Preferably, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if negotiation rules a meta-rule is false, then cancellation is by all paths of meta-rule node to the root node of tag tree.
Preferably, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if one of tag tree to the path of root node there is the node of repetition, then only retain in duplicate node.
Preferably, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: the path of every bar to root node traveling through tag tree successively, if find a paths identical with other path, then and this paths of cancellation.
Preferably, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if tag tree node to the path of root node all comprises all in another paths, then another paths described in cancellation.
Preferably, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if tag tree path to root node and another paths only comprise same node point and opposing node, then a cancellation wherein paths, and leave out the opposing node in another paths.
For often there will be in trust negotiation process contradictory, consult deadlock, consult to have no result etc. phenomenon, trusting rule, to there is conflict be the reason causing these problems.Thus, that can conflict to trust rule due to the present invention clears up, thus the negotiation failure can avoided using conflict trust regular in trust negotiation process and cause, thus both saved the mutual time of consulting, it also avoid unnecessary privacy and expose.Thus, the present invention under the prerequisite of protection each side privacy, can solve the problem that trusting relationship is set up effectively.
Accompanying drawing explanation
By reference to the accompanying drawings, and by reference to detailed description below, will more easily there is more complete understanding to the present invention and more easily understand its adjoint advantage and feature, wherein:
Fig. 1 schematically shows the tag tree of trusting rule and describes example.
The absorption that Fig. 2 schematically shows tag tree simplifies example.
The merging that Fig. 3 schematically shows tag tree simplifies example.
Fig. 4 schematically shows the flow chart of trusting the conflict resolution method of rule according to the negotiation of the embodiment of the present invention.
It should be noted that, accompanying drawing is for illustration of the present invention, and unrestricted the present invention.Note, represent that the accompanying drawing of structure may not be draw in proportion.Further, in accompanying drawing, identical or similar element indicates identical or similar label.
Embodiment
In order to make content of the present invention clearly with understandable, below in conjunction with specific embodiments and the drawings, content of the present invention is described in detail.
For the ease of understanding, first introduce the basic syntax structure of trusting logic rules and describing below.
Trust the grammatical symbol related in rule to have:
Propositional variable: s, c
1, c
2..., c
n, wherein s represents corresponding resource, c
irepresent certificate.Special s sometimes also can regard a certificate as.
Propositional constant: true, false, represents that certificate unconditionally can disclose or forever can not disclose respectively.
Conjunction in rule body: ∧, ∨,
represent logical AND between certificate variable or, inverse operations.
Left and right bracket: ().
The dependence functional symbol of resource and rule body: ←, represent that the certificate requirements meeting rule body then discloses the dependence operation of resource.
Thus, the basic syntax structure of trusting the logical description method of rule is as follows: for resource s, the regular p of corresponding trust
sform can be expressed as: s ← f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n), wherein f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be comprise trusted certificate c
1, c
2..., c
n, boolean contant true, false, Boolean operator ∧, ∨,
and the expression formula of bracket.← semanteme be: to satisfy condition f if consult the other side
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n), namely disclose the certificate of requirement, then think s ← f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) set up, namely can successful shared resource s.
In addition, if there are two the trust rules of shape as C ← B, B ← A, then according to logic theory, C ← A can be released and set up.
Therefore, s ← f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) represent that and if only if that the other side discloses trusted certificate c
1, c
2..., c
n, local trusted certificate s could be disclosed.Especially, trust regular s ← true and represent that trusted certificate s is without the need to trusting rule protection, can unconditionally disclose to any negotiator.On the contrary, trust regular s ← false and represent that trusted certificate s in no instance can be disclosed.
The true value that there is the proposition of following some trust logic rules is portrayed:
1. identically true formula (tautology): even f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) ≡ 1, then rule body f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be identically true formula (tautology);
2. contradiction (contradiction formula): even f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) ≡ 0, then rule body f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be contradiction (contradiction formula);
3. probable formula: as certificate c
1, c
2..., c
nwhen taking different assignment respectively, f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) may value 1, also possibility value 0, then rule body f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be probable formula;
4. formula can be met: when having a c at least
1, c
2..., c
nassignment combines, and makes f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) value be true time, claim this assignment { c
i=0 or 1|1≤i≤n} be logical expression f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) solution, expression formula f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be satiable.
From aforementioned, trust rule and can regard as logical proposition one by one, wherein trust and reach the proposition that rule is key, it constitutes a logic system with trust intermediate rule etc.Obviously, in this logic system, the logic property of trusting rule can be carried out, as the analysis of equivalence, harmony, satisfiability etc.
Analyzing in the logic property process of trusting rule, the criterion of some logical deductions by reasoning may be used.Might as well suppose for the regular s ← c of trust
i(1≤i≤n), the deduction criterion of the logical operation between them is listed below:
(L1):(s←c
1)∧(s←c
2)＝(s←c
1∧c
2)
(L2)：(s←c
1)∨(s←c
2)＝(s←c
1∨c
2)
(L3)：(s←c
1)∨((s←c
1)∧(s←c
2))＝(s←c
1)
(L4)：(s←c
1)∨(s←false)＝(s←c
1)
(L5)：(s←c
1)∧(s←true)＝(s←c
1)
(L6)：(s←c
1)∨(s←true)＝s←true
(L7)：(s←c
1)∧(s←false)＝s←false
(L8)：(s←c
1)∧(s←c
2)＝(s←c
2)∧(s←c
1)
(L9)：(s←c
1)∨(s←c
2)＝(s←c
2)∨(s←c
1)
(L10)：(s←c
1)∧((s←c
2)∨(s←c
3))＝(s←c
1∧c
2)∨(s←c
1∧c
3)
(L11)：(s←c
1)∨((s←c
2)∧(s←c
3))＝(s←c
1∨c
2)∧(s←c
1∨c
3)
(L12)：
(L13)：
(L14)：
< trusts regular deadlock conflict >
Suppose C
aand C
brepresent the certificate collection of resources requesting party A and resource provider B respectively, P
aand P
brepresent the trust rule set of A side and B side respectively, negotiations process by requesting party A to resource or service s ∈ C
brequest start, have trust rule as follows, p if consult both sides
ci: c
i← g
ci(s
j) and p
sj: s
j← h
sj(c
i), wherein c
i, s
jthe certificate that negotiation side A and B holds respectively, p
ci, p
sjcomprise certificate c respectively
i, s
jtrust rule, g
ci(s
j) represent comprise certificate s
jlogical expression, h
sj(c
i) represent comprise certificate c
ilogical expression, then claim trust regular p
ci, p
sjthere is deadlock conflict.
Conveniently to the abbreviation of trusting rule, trust rule list is first shown as disjunctive normal form by this section, then uses regular tag tree (ACP-LTree) to be described below:
The root node of each tag tree represents that the resource of trusting for access in rule, other node represent the certificate of trusting and requiring in rule to disclose.Each is arrived by leaf node, and the non-root node comprised in the path of root node forms set expression access resources, the set of the Attribute certificate that must disclose that breaks the wall of mistrust.
Such as, regular s ← (c is trusted
1∧ c
2) ∨ (c
3∧ c
4) ∨ (c
3∧ c
5∧ c
6) ∨ (c
7∧ c
8) can be expressed as shown in Figure 1 tag tree.If for access s, then the certificate requirements that a leaf in tag tree comprises to the path of root node at least should be met, i.e. disclosure certificate collection { c
1, c
2, { c
3, c
4, { c
3, c
5, c
6or { c
7, c
8one of, could access resources s.
It is as follows that the trust rule represented tag tree carries out the rule that abbreviation can follow:
(1) if certain meta-rule is true (true represents that certificate can unconditionally disclose), whole tree is traveled through, the node that this rule of cancellation is corresponding in the tree;
(2) if certain meta-rule is false (false represents and forever can not disclose), then cancellation arrives all paths (comprising limit) of root node by this node;
(3) if one to the path of root node there is the node of repetition, then only one is retained, other node repeated of cancellation;
(4) path of every bar to root node is traveled through successively, if find a paths identical with it, then this path of cancellation;
(5) if a path to root node, its node all comprises all in another paths, then another paths of cancellation, as shown in Figure 2;
(6) if a path to root node, and another paths has identical node and contrary node, then a cancellation wherein paths, and another paths leave out wherein opposing node (symbol "
" represent node negate), as shown in Figure 3.
< minimum certificate collection >
In trust negotiation, reach and consult successfully to consult path and may have n bar, hold consultation according to wherein i-th (1≤i≤n) paths, resources requesting party for access the other side target resource, break the wall of mistrust, at least need the set of certificates disclosed to be designated as { c
i..., then with { c
i... do element form set claim minimum certificate collection, be denoted as { { c
i... ....
When one is trusted the form that rule is described as tag tree, after it about being subtracted according to reduction rules, each is exactly an element of minimum certificate collection by the non-root node comprised in leaf node to the path of root node, and all these elements constitute the minimum certificate collection C meeting this rule
m.
< conflict resolution >
There is minimum certificate collection, can clear up by the method for disposable disclosure minimum certificate collection and trust regular deadlock conflict.In trust negotiation process, according to certificate and trust rule matching algorithm, detect the certificate whether requesting party holds the requirement of minimum certificate collection, thus judge to consult whether can directly reach successfully.Its method is as follows:
According to certificate and trust rule matching algorithm, the certificate collection C that oneself holds by requesting party A
abring respectively with minimum certificate collection C
mmatch of elemental composition, if
and
namely at C
min can find a set element, make it be included in C
ain, then the certificate required by the minimum certificate collection of disposable disclosure, reaches and consults successfully, does not need to disclose other sensitive information by the negotiation step of multistep again.Otherwise requesting party A does not possess the negotiation requirement of the other side, consult the resource access of addressee refuses requesting party.Visible, by credentials match once, can negotiation result be reached, negotiation efficiency and success rate can be improved on the one hand, also can solve on the other hand and progressively disclose in credentialing process, the Deadlock of the certificate Circular dependency that may cause.
Correspondingly, Fig. 4 schematically shows the flow chart of trusting the conflict resolution method of rule according to the negotiation of the embodiment of the present invention.
As shown in Figure 4, trust regular conflict resolution method according to the negotiation of the embodiment of the present invention to comprise:
First step S1: set up minimum certificate collection; Wherein said minimum certificate collection comprises multiple element, and wherein each element is the corresponding set of certificates of consulting path and must disclose of the tag tree for negotiation rules.
Second step S2: certificate collection requesting party held mates with the element of minimum certificate collection;
Third step S3: find a set element if concentrated at minimum certificate, it is included in, and certificate that requesting party holds is concentrated, then judge to consult successfully, thus negotiation the other side agrees to the resource access of requesting party;
4th step S4: do not find a set element if concentrated at minimum certificate, it is included in, and certificate that requesting party holds is concentrated, then judge to fail to consultations, thus consult the resource access of addressee refuses requesting party.
In the present invention, by the method for the minimum certificate collection of disposable disclosure, can avoid in negotiation, use deadlock to trust rule, thus indirectly deadlock conflict be cleared up.To trust rule carry out clearing up of deadlock conflict, can avoid in trust negotiation process use conflict trust rule and cause negotiation failure.Rule conflict digestion procedure is trusted in the negotiation proposed, and corresponds to actual needs, and in automated trust negotiation, under the prerequisite of protection each side privacy, can effectively solve the problem that trusting relationship is set up.For under open network environment, trust guarantee and support resource safe sharing is provided to have Theory and applications meaning.
< certificate and the program example > trusting rule matching algorithm
Implement the present invention for the ease of those skilled in the art, provide certificate and a concrete example of trusting rule matching algorithm program " credencialPolicyMatch " below.
In addition, it should be noted that, unless stated otherwise or point out, otherwise the term " first " in specification, " second ", " the 3rd " etc. describe only for distinguishing each assembly, element, step etc. in specification, instead of for representing logical relation between each assembly, element, step or ordinal relation etc.
Be understandable that, although the present invention with preferred embodiment disclose as above, but above-described embodiment and be not used to limit the present invention.For any those of ordinary skill in the art, do not departing under technical solution of the present invention ambit, the technology contents of above-mentioned announcement all can be utilized to make many possible variations and modification to technical solution of the present invention, or be revised as the Equivalent embodiments of equivalent variations.Therefore, every content not departing from technical solution of the present invention, according to technical spirit of the present invention to any simple modification made for any of the above embodiments, equivalent variations and modification, all still belongs in the scope of technical solution of the present invention protection.
Claims (9)
1. consult a conflict resolution method of trusting rule, it is characterized in that comprising:
First step: set up minimum certificate collection;
Second step: certificate collection requesting party held mates with the element of minimum certificate collection;
Third step: find a set element if concentrated at minimum certificate, it is included in, and certificate that requesting party holds is concentrated, then judge to consult successfully, thus negotiation the other side agrees to the resource access of requesting party;
4th step: do not find a set element if concentrated at minimum certificate, it is included in, and certificate that requesting party holds is concentrated, then judge to fail to consultations, thus consult the resource access of addressee refuses requesting party.
2. method according to claim 1, is characterized in that, described minimum certificate collection comprises multiple element, and wherein each element is the corresponding set of certificates of consulting path and must disclose of the tag tree for negotiation rules.
3. method according to claim 2, is characterized in that, tag tree is a tag tree through simplifying.
4. method according to claim 3, is characterized in that, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if negotiation rules a meta-rule is true, then travel through whole tag tree, the node that this meta-rule of cancellation is corresponding in tag tree.
5. method according to claim 3, is characterized in that, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if negotiation rules a meta-rule is false, then cancellation is by all paths of meta-rule node to the root node of tag tree.
6. method according to claim 3, is characterized in that, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if one of tag tree to the path of root node there is the node of repetition, then only retain in duplicate node.
7. method according to claim 3, is characterized in that, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: the path of every bar to root node traveling through tag tree successively, if find a paths identical with other path, then and this paths of cancellation.
8. method according to claim 3, is characterized in that, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if tag tree node to the path of root node all comprises all in another paths, then another paths described in cancellation.
9. method according to claim 3, it is characterized in that, the rule of simplification of tag tree comprises: if tag tree path to root node and another paths only comprise same node point and opposing node, then a cancellation wherein paths, and leave out the opposing node in another paths.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201510742063.9A CN105429965A (en) | 2015-11-04 | 2015-11-04 | Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201510742063.9A CN105429965A (en) | 2015-11-04 | 2015-11-04 | Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN105429965A true CN105429965A (en) | 2016-03-23 |
Family
ID=55507907
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201510742063.9A Pending CN105429965A (en) | 2015-11-04 | 2015-11-04 | Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN105429965A (en) |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108090803A (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2018-05-29 | 上海电机学院 | A kind of negotiation degree of belief computational methods |
| CN114021857A (en) * | 2021-12-03 | 2022-02-08 | 武汉绿色网络信息服务有限责任公司 | Agent-based self-trust negotiation prediction method, system and device |
Citations (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN101339591A (en) * | 2008-08-29 | 2009-01-07 | 中国科学院软件研究所 | XACML policy rule checking method |
| US20090040020A1 (en) * | 2007-08-08 | 2009-02-12 | Secerno Ltd. | Method, computer program and apparatus for controlling access to a computer resource |
| CN101512505A (en) * | 2006-09-11 | 2009-08-19 | 微软公司 | Security language translations with logic resolution |
| CN101778111A (en) * | 2010-01-21 | 2010-07-14 | 北京航空航天大学 | Automatic trust establishing method for resource security protection and system thereof |
| US8938783B2 (en) * | 2006-09-11 | 2015-01-20 | Microsoft Corporation | Security language expressions for logic resolution |
-
2015
- 2015-11-04 CN CN201510742063.9A patent/CN105429965A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN101512505A (en) * | 2006-09-11 | 2009-08-19 | 微软公司 | Security language translations with logic resolution |
| US8938783B2 (en) * | 2006-09-11 | 2015-01-20 | Microsoft Corporation | Security language expressions for logic resolution |
| US20090040020A1 (en) * | 2007-08-08 | 2009-02-12 | Secerno Ltd. | Method, computer program and apparatus for controlling access to a computer resource |
| CN101339591A (en) * | 2008-08-29 | 2009-01-07 | 中国科学院软件研究所 | XACML policy rule checking method |
| CN101778111A (en) * | 2010-01-21 | 2010-07-14 | 北京航空航天大学 | Automatic trust establishing method for resource security protection and system thereof |
Non-Patent Citations (2)
| Title |
|---|
| 廖振松: "虚拟组织中自动信任协商研究", 《万方数据知识服务平台》 * |
| 汪楠，夏冬梅: "一种基于博弈的自动信任协商模型", 《合肥师范学院学报》 * |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108090803A (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2018-05-29 | 上海电机学院 | A kind of negotiation degree of belief computational methods |
| CN114021857A (en) * | 2021-12-03 | 2022-02-08 | 武汉绿色网络信息服务有限责任公司 | Agent-based self-trust negotiation prediction method, system and device |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Glover et al. | The augmented predecessor index method for locating stepping-stone paths and assigning dual prices in distribution problems | |
| Aydi et al. | Theorems for Boyd‐Wong‐Type Contractions in Ordered Metric Spaces | |
| Hogan et al. | SAOR: template rule optimisations for distributed reasoning over 1 billion linked data triples | |
| Kalathian et al. | Some topological indices in fuzzy graphs | |
| Radenović | Remarks on Some Recent Coupled Coincidence Point Results in Symmetric G‐Metric Spaces | |
| Bhartiya et al. | Issues in achieving complete interoperability while sharing electronic health records | |
| El-Shafei et al. | Some applications of supra preopen sets | |
| Huang et al. | Secure interoperation design in multi-domains environments based on colored Petri nets | |
| Hussain et al. | On neutrosophic vague graphs | |
| CN105429965A (en) | Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule | |
| Al-shami | Soft separation axioms and fixed soft points using soft semiopen sets | |
| Archibald et al. | Conditional bigraphs | |
| Shiri et al. | On the randomized online strategies for the k-Canadian traveler problem | |
| Priyobarta et al. | On Generalized Rational α− Geraghty Contraction Mappings in G− Metric Spaces | |
| Shiri et al. | Competitive analysis of randomized online strategies for the multi-agent k-Canadian Traveler Problem | |
| Brandstädt et al. | Dominating induced matchings in S1, 2, 4-free graphs | |
| Sevegnani | Bigraphs with sharing and applications in wireless networks | |
| CN105469146A (en) | Negotiation trust rule conflict detection method | |
| Shatanawi et al. | Fixed Point Results for Mapping of Nonlinear Contractive Conditions of $\alpha $-Admissibility Form | |
| Odekerken et al. | Precedent-based reasoning with incomplete cases | |
| Khan et al. | Privacy-centric access control for distributed heterogeneous medical information systems | |
| Rehmani et al. | Edge geodesic number of a fuzzy graph | |
| Chakraborty et al. | On three domination-based identification problems in block graphs | |
| Hussain et al. | Generalized Contractive Mappings and Weakly α‐Admissible Pairs in G‐Metric Spaces | |
| Rezapour et al. | A Simple Method for Obtaining Coupled Fixed Points of α‐ψ‐Contractive Type Mappings |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| C06 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| C10 | Entry into substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| RJ01 | Rejection of invention patent application after publication | ||
| RJ01 | Rejection of invention patent application after publication |
Application publication date: 20160323 |