Social Micromachine: Origin and Characteristics
Brunno Wagner Lemos de Souza and Sílvio Romero de Lemos Meira
Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
Keywords: Information Systems. Social Machines. Relationship-aware. Microservices. Social Micromachine.
Abstract: The incorporation of computing into society through personal devices has led to the discussion of Social
Machines and social computing, that is, has guided the even greater existence of relationships between people
and machines to solve problems. Social Machines represent information systems that establish connections
through certain constraints to deal with the complexity of services and operations because with the spread of
the web as a software development platform along with increased interactivity and application connectivity,
the understanding of the nature of computing has been modified. Software architecture is a description of how
a software system is organized whether the large or small scale and is currently highly interconnected because
interactions, relationships, and their constraints are considered in software behavior, including the service
granularity that is used to measure the depth of abstraction that has been applied to existing services. In this
research, some specific definitions of Social Machines are presented, extending the focus of the different
relationship visions and their restrictions. Using a methodology based on technical goals, the understanding
of the relationship-aware is presented, adding it to the Social Machine and to term Social Micromachine,
highlighting the Microservice architecture as one of the types of service-oriented relationship.
1 INTRODUCTION
The first definitions of Social Machines were made
by Hendler and Berners-Lee (2009), suggesting that a
Social Machine is a computational entity that
combines computational and social processes.
Next came the definition of Meira, Buregio,
Nascimento, Figueiredo, Encarnação e Garcia (2011),
presenting a Social Machine as a pluggable entity that
contains an internal processing unit and an interface
that awaits requests and responds to other Social
Machines. Social Machines represent a connection
system to deal with the complexity that the Internet
suggests, since, for Meira et al.(2011), the internet
today is a programmable, open platform, where
applications and services are increasingly used to
transform industry and society.
For Sommerville (2011), a System is a significant
collection of interrelated components that work
together to achieve some goals. It is organized to
perform a specific method, procedure, or control
when processing information. Automates or supports
human activities through information processing.
According Laudon and Laudon (2018) states that
an information system can be defined technically as a
set of interrelated components that collect (or
retrieve), process, store, and distribute information to
support decision making, coordination, and control of
an organization. In addition to providing such
support, these systems also assist managers and
workers in analyzing problems, viewing complex
issues and creating new products.
About relationship, it establishes a connection
with something (components), according to Dicio
(2009), which expresses the dependencies and
requirements between them, that is, constraints and
that can also be a connection between theory and
practice. In a relationship, it must contain its function,
its representation, rules, and exceptions of its
establishment, its occurrence, and when it may cease
to exist.
The term Relationship-aware, however, is part of
the Relationship Awareness Theory, which is based
on the premise that the traits of behavior are
consistent with what is gratifying in interpersonal
relationships and with concepts or beliefs about how
to interact with others to achieve these gratifications
(Porter, 1976).
Software architecture is a description of how a
software system is organized. These business systems
are distributed over several computers, which can be
owned and managed by different companies
788
Lemos de Souza, B. and Meira, S.
Social Micromachine: Origin and Characteristics.
DOI: 10.5220/0009580507880796
In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2020) - Volume 1, pages 788-796
ISBN: 978-989-758-423-7
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

(Sommerville, 2011). In this context, Social
Machines can be used in conjunction with service
architecture. The "Service granularity" is used to
measure the depth of abstraction that has been applied
in services. It can be divided into two parts: fine-
grained and coarse-grained granularity, where the
former determines that there are services with few
operations, but these operations are divided by
several services; while in the second, there are few
services, but each will contain a much more
significant portion of operations (Pinto, 2014).
2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
In this section, we mention a little of the context
related to systems, information systems, Social
Machines, relationships, Relationship-aware Theory,
relationship types and their constraints.
2.1 System
According to O'Brien and Marakas (2010), the
concept of the system is implicit in the field of
information systems. In this way, an explanation of
how the generic concepts of systems apply to
enterprises and the components and activities of
information systems helps to understand many other
concepts in technology, applications, development,
administration of information systems, social rights.
Also, according to O'Brien and Marakas (2010),
System can be defined simply as a group of
interrelated or interacting elements that form a unified
whole. However, the generic concept of the system
presented in Figure 1 provides a more appropriate
framework for describing such systems.
Figure 1: Generic Representation of a System.
The input stage involves the gathering and
gathering of elements that enter the system to be
processed. The processing step involves
transformation processes (subsystems) that convert
input (input) into output. The output stage involves
the transfer of elements produced by a transformation
process to its final destination. Finished products,
human services, and management information should
be passed on to their users. The Feedback / Control
stage is data about the performance of a system;
involves monitoring and evaluating the feedback to
determine if a system is heading towards the
achievement of its goal. Next, the control function
makes the necessary adjustments to the input and
processing components of a system to ensure that
adequate production is achieved (O'Brien & Marakas,
2010).
In general, a Social Machine, Figure 2, represents
a pluggable entity, containing an internal processing
unit. It receives inputs, produces outputs and has
states; and their connections intermittently or
permanently define relationships with other SMs,
these connections being established on top of a
specific set of constraints and a communication
interface, that is, a communication layer through
which SM outsources its services and allows
interactions with other SMs on the web. In this case,
developed APIs can be considered a wrapper
interface; these represent an instance of interactions
(Meira et al., 2011).
Figure 2: Representation of a Social Machine. Source:
Meira, 2011.
2.2 Information System
According to O'Brien and Marakas (2010), the
information system is an organized set of people,
hardware, software, communication networks, and
data resources that collect, transforms, and
disseminates information in an organization.
To gain a complete understanding of information
systems, it is necessary to understand their
dimensions, which are: organization, management,
and technology, according to Figure 3, since an
information system creates value for the company, an
organizational solution and to the challenges inserts
by the environment (Laudon & Laudon, 2018).
Social Micromachine: Origin and Characteristics
789

Figure 3: Dimensions of an Information System. Source:
Laudon & Laudon, 2018.
An organization coordinates the work through its
hierarchy and business processes. The key elements
of an organization are people, structure, business
processes, politics, and culture. The role of
management is to give meaning to the many
situations faced by organizations, make decisions,
and formulate action plans to solve problems.
Technology is one of the tools that managers use to
deal with change, whether these tools, platforms
(hardware, software) used by companies (Laudon &
Laudon, 2018).
Second Burégio, Meira and Rosa (2013) states
that Social Machines represent a promising paradigm
for dealing with the complexity that the Internet
imposes around society, as well as being a practical
way of explaining the connected entities that exist in
it. In this way, in Figure 4, the authors Burégio et al.
(2013) characterizes the Social Machines paradigm as
the result of the convergence of three different
visions: social software; people as computer units;
and software as sociable entities.
Figure 4: "Social Machines" as a result of the convergence
of different views. Source: Burégio et al, 2013.
In the Social Software view, systems are changing
the way software is developed (Burégio et al., 2013).
This is because companies such as Twitter, Google,
Facebook, Instagram, expose their functionality as
services in the form of APIs. In the view of people as
computing units, the idea is accepted that social
computing is based on systems that use human skills
in computing to solve problems that are trivial to
human and complex to machines (Yuen, Chen and
King, 2009). In the software view, as sociable
entities, the socialization of software is allowed,
mainly in terms of social relationships with other
software (Burégio et al., 2013).
2.3 Relationship
Knowing that a Social Machine is an information
system that is related through restrictions with other
information systems, through its communication
interface, in this subsection, the relationship question
is discussed, once the systems have been identified, it
must and then define how the relationship between
them occurs. In general, relationships are named with
verbs or expressions that represent how the entities
interact or the action that one exerts on the other
(Rodrigues, 2014).
For Silberschatz, Korth and Sudarshan (2011), a
relationship is an association between several entities.
Already Elmasri and Navathe (2005) says that the
relationship between two or more entities shows an
association between these. Still Elmasri and Navathe
(2005) states that "types of relationships often have
certain constraints that limit the combinations of
entities that can participate in the corresponding set
of relationships."
According to Elmasri and Navathe (2005), these
restrictions are established according to the reality
that is modeled. It was when Meira et al. (2011)
defined a Social Machine stating that it contains
relations, interfaces, requests, responses, state,
constraints, input, processing, and output of data,
shown in Figure 2.
The concept of relationships to which Meira et al.
(2011) refers is analogous to the concept of the
relationship of Silberschatz et al. (2011) and Elmasri
and Navathe (2005); these last two authors use the
word "entity" as "something" that relates. These
relationships can occur with people, in the case of
Meira et al. (2011), deals with the relationship
between Social Machines, that is, a Social Machine
that can communicate with another Social Machine,
followed by any well-defined communication
protocol. Interfaces are defined as a layer of
communication through which a Social Machine
outsources its services and allows interactions with
other Social Machines existing on the internet.
Already requests are defined as a remote
procedure call for services provided by the Social
Machine interface. Responses are defined as a remote
response to other machines, also through the
ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
790

interface. In turn, the state is defined as the current
situation of the Social Machine. Constraints are
defined as rules to be considered when establishing
relationships between different Social Machines.
Finally, Meira et al. (2011) states that every Social
Machine must receive input data, perform processing,
and generate data for output.
According to Burégio et al. (2013), the
relationship, in general, can be defined as "the way
things are connected" and, in this sense, is often used
as an interchangeable term like "connection,"
"association," "link," "relationship." The same still
affirms that the relationship is an essential element in
the model of the Social Machine. For him, a Social
Machine can connect with other Social Machines
following any well-defined protocol. The concept of
relations between SMs is similar to that of
relationships between people. We can view them as
reliable relationships between different SMs,
satisfying the established constraints. In this way, it
was defined: "a relationship is a particular type of
connection that restricts the way two or more Social
Machines are associated or interact with one another
(Burégio et al., 2013)."
Therefore, we identified the need for the term
Relationship-aware, whose idea was to identify the
need for its understanding to connect better the
relationship with the model and, consequently, to
better satisfy the ownership of sociable software
(Burégio et al., 2013).
Initially, the Theory of Relationship Awareness,
by Porter (1976), analyzes how relationships are
established and maintained so that one has a positive
sense of self and of our value as a person; reinforces
people's ability to choose behaviors that meet their
underlying values while respecting the values of
others. In this regard, it is a valuable tool to build
trust, empathy, and productive and effective
relationships through better communication.
Understanding the term Relationship-aware is a
process that depends on the ability of participants in
their activities to self-control and organizes with one
another. It is fundamental how participants establish
these perceptions within a context of social
interaction. However, relationship-aware is not just a
"feedback process." It consists of two greatnesses:
recognition and receptivity. The first refers to how
project structures anticipate the fact that participants
need to establish or maintain their "social positions,"
and how that position is recognized and made
available as a kind of resource to other participants.
The second refers to the quality and speed of reaction
to the participant's activity regarding other people and
technologies (Burégio et al., 2013).
In this context of relationship-aware, systems that
are aware of their relationship to other systems, have
restrictive aspects that are considered. In Meira et al.
(2011) and Brito, Abadie, Muniz, Marques, Buregio,
Vinicius, and Meira (2012), the idea of the Social
Machine is as a unifying mental model to understand,
describe, and project each connected entity
concerning web points as a fundamental element of
that model. Turning software into web services means
that it can interact with a host of other (and sometimes
unknown) applications and services, and possibly
establish a myriad of "social" relationships with them.
In this sense, a system can be seen as a sociable entity,
whose interactions are determined by its "social"
relationships as people. Social Machines can interact
in various ways, depending on the types of
relationships that occur, in some cases, generating
new Social Machines, competing or cooperating
(Meira et al., 2011).
2.4 Types of Relationship
Knowing that a Social Machine, through the view of
Meira et al. (2011) and Burégio et al. (2013), are
systems that use relationships with constraints and, at
the same time, Burégio et al. (2013) addresses a new
type of relationship called Relationship-aware. The
latter is not yet shown in Figure 5, which Burégio et
al. (2013) exposes the different types of relationships,
and in this research, the different constraints in each
type of relationship will be signaled.
Figure 5: Different views of relationships. Source: Burégio
et al, 2013.
In the data-oriented view, the relationship is a
tuple of entities (entity-relationship model), and its
existing constraints are allowed values (cardinalities)
for specific attributes and the functional dependencies
of entities in a relationship (Chen, 1976).
In the object-oriented view, relationships
represent different dependency forces between object
classes. Object orientation and UML (Unified
Modeling Language) allow relationships to be much
more done with classes than just simple statements,
and you can apply constraints to class diagrams that
describe how objects in a class can be used by
restricting objects using the OCL language (Object
Constraint Language), simply a language for
Social Micromachine: Origin and Characteristics
791

specifying constraints on objects (Miles & Hamilton,
2006).
In the architecture-oriented view, relationships
are introduced as a basis for constraints on the
software structure and formal arrangements of its
structural elements. Formal relationships can be used
to define different topologies of network
architectures, components, and associations of data
elements. Most of the time, system constraints are the
requirements (system description) by the principle of
software engineering and software architecture. Each
system is, in essence, a new architecture, a new
architectural style. The constraints on architectural
elements and styles can be used as constraints on an
architecture (Perry & Wolf, 1992).
In the user-oriented view, the relationships
correspond to connections between users. They form
graphs of relationships between people,
organizations, states, and other units. User-oriented
design (UOD) - that transforms a technology package
with the ability to deliver functionality into a
"product" that people want to interact with and from
which they derive benefits (Veryzer & Mozota,
2005); that is, it is the process that focuses on the
needs and desires of users for the development of
applications (services or products).
In the service-oriented view, concerning
distributed and service-oriented systems, the
relationship underlies the reasoning on reliability. In
these systems, trust relationships are used to infer
access to reputation and control of services and
resources (Suryanarayana, Erenkrantz, Hendrickson
& Taylor, 2004). Although there are different
architectural styles, none of them is the issue of trust
in decentralized environments explicit. An
architectural style is the combination of distinct
characteristics in which the architecture is executed
or expressed (Open Group, 2006).
3 METHODOLOGICAL
PROCEDURES
This research was done to acquire specific and
structured knowledge regarding the concepts and
understanding of Social Machines and the Social
Micromachine with the Microservices architecture.
The present research is based on the following
question: what relations between the social Micro-
machine with Microservices architecture and the
concept of relationship-aware?
This search for possible relations between the
Social Micromachine with Microservices and the
term relationship-aware has the ultimate objective of
discovering possible effects that may exist of this
interaction.
It was made a survey of available research
relevant to a particular issue, in this case, are the
relationship of Social Machines with the concept of
relationship-aware and Microservices, and is related,
in principle, to the area of interest in software
engineering.
Initially, subjects related to the subject matter
were investigated in the databases, and possible
authors who have developed similar works were
verified. Already in this first moment, a study of
bibliographical revision was elaborated, obtaining
theoretical references for the research in question.
With this, it is intended to present the
understanding of the relationship-aware, adding to a
architecture of Microservices and an architecture of a
Social Machine, specifically, of a Social
Micromachine.
The research was approached from the technical
goals proposed below.
M1) Definition on Social Machines;
M2) Definition on Systems;
M3) Definition on Information Systems;
M4) Definition of relationships, their constraints
and types of relationships, including relationship-
aware;
M5) Definition of software architecture,
especially service architecture, scalability and service
granularity;
M6) Definition of Social Micromachine.
4 RESULTS
Comparing the generic system itself, presented by
O'Brien and Marakas
(2010) in Figure 1, and the
Social Machines presented by Meira
et al. (2011) in
Figure 2, we have Figure 6, where the Social
Machines interact through their interfaces of
communication or a relationship between them.
The relationship is the centerpiece of the web,
which can be seen as a "dynamic set of relations"
between a collection of information and services
(Fowler & Lewis, 2014). There is a need to create new
mental models to describe and design this emerging
sociable software and its relationship awareness
capabilities.
The semantics of the relationship is now explicit
and, in addition to representing static connections and
dependencies, establishes constraints that are
influential in the way Social Machines interact
dynamically (Burégio et al., 2013).
ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
792

Figure 6: Representation of a Social Machine in the System
Approach.
The relationship is the centerpiece of the web,
which can be seen as a "dynamic set of relations"
between a collection of information and services
(Fowler & Lewis, 2014). There is a need to create new
mental models to describe and design this emerging
sociable software and its relationship awareness
capabilities.
The semantics of the relationship is now explicit
and, in addition to representing static connections and
dependencies, establishes constraints that are
influential in the way Social Machines interact
dynamically (Burégio et al., 2013).
The central idea of software "relationship-aware"
is through a simple analogy in the scope of social
relations between people and relationships between
software. This analogy is useful to show that almost
all software interactions can be explained from the
perspective of social relationships.
An easy way to put the same idea in the software
context is to map the different sets of interactions of
a person to the different views of interaction
(services/features) that an application can do. Figure
7 illustrates a sociable application providing different
views of interaction (V1 to Vn), whose properties, for
example, set of services, rate of limitation,
(performance) is determined according to the
relationship between them and their client
applications (Burégio et al., 2013).
Figure 7: Relationship-aware application: relationship
determining interaction views. Source: Burégio et al, 2013.
It is important to note that, in this context, two
different visions of interaction mean two sets of
different services or the same set of services provided
under different constraints.
In practice, different types of “relationship-
aware” software have been written, as the spread of
the web as a software development platform coupled
with increased interactivity and connectivity of
applications and services has changed the
understanding of the nature of computing in such a
way that many computational processes, nowadays,
based on the web, are autonomous and concurrent,
including the architecture of software is highly
interconnected in a way that are considered
interactions, relationships and their restrictions in the
behavior of the software.
Thus the notion of Social Machines is extended
from its initial model, as well as its main elements to
create a common abstraction that has the potential to
describe any existing application or service through a
unifying building block that makes use of computing
concepts (in the form of information processing
system), communication (relations and interactions)
and control (restrictions), in order to possibly specify
interaction services.
In comparing the dimensions of an information
system presented by Laudon and Laudon (2018) and
the converging visions, in Social Machines presented
by Burégio et al. (2013), it is verified that social
software is equivalent to technology, people as
computational units are equivalent to management
and software, as sociable entities, is equivalent to an
organization. The result of the convergence of
Laudon and Laudon (2018) are information systems,
while the convergence result of Burégio et al. (2013)
is the Social Machine. In this way, the Social Machine
is an information system that relates to other systems,
containing significant and restrictive elements in the
relationship.
The Social Machine as a component of social
service from the point of view of relationship-aware
has been defined as: "a connectable and
programmable building block that involves an
communication interface (wrapper interface), an
information processing system and defines a set of
services required and provided, dynamically available
under constraints, which are determined, among other
things, by their relationships with others. "From this
definition, a Social Machine can be seen as a Social
Service Component, that is, a block (component)
software architecture that provides a set of services
that may vary according to their "social" relationships
with others. building blocks interact to compose new
systems, as shown in Figure 8 (Burégio et al., 2013).
Social Micromachine: Origin and Characteristics
793

Figure 8: Social Machine as a Social Service
ComponentSource: Burégio et al, 2013
Emphasizing that a social service component is
built on three main concepts: computing,
communication, and control, it is crucial to
understand the role that each plays to understand
Social Machines.
In Figure 8, discussed by Burégio et al. (2013),
and in Figure 2, addressed by Meira et al. (2011), it is
shown that the information processing system is
equivalent to the processing unit and the state of the
machine, as well as the existing services ( required
and provided) are equivalent to the input and output
elements, respectively. However, the great difference
of this new definition of the Social Machine is in the
form of communication, which is based on
constraints on services, and that these are determined
by their relationships.
In practice, a relationship between two Social
Machines can be obtained by the prior establishment
of the persistent relationship between them. Other
types of relationships can also be considered.
However, regardless of types, the main idea to be
highlighted here is the notion of the relationship as
the key to determining the different sets of interaction
views. The concept of relationships between Social
Machines is similar to that of relationships between
people; we can see them as relations of trust between
different Social Machines, satisfying the established
restrictions (Burégio et al., 2013).
The Wrapper Interface abstracts any layer of
communication through which a Social Machine
outsources its services to allow interactions with other
Social Machines. This communication interface can
also be responsible for composing the views of
interaction of the Social Machine according to the
constraints and relations existing with other Social
Machines (Burégio et al., 2013). In this way, the
emergence of a Social Micromachine is attractive,
from the point of view that a Social Machine can be
seen as a Social Service Component, that is, a Social
Micromachine being a block software (component)
architecture that provides a set of specific services
that may vary according to their "social" relationships
through their constraints. Thus, the Social Machine
would be a large-scale software architecture that uses
fine granularity in services, while the social micro-
machine would be a small-scale software architecture
that uses gross granularity in services. The lower the
service, the more the benefits are maximized, and the
disadvantages over the architecture are minimized,
that is, as services decrease, the benefits around
interdependence increase. In dealing with this
complexity, one can strive for ever smaller services.
With smaller services, one can only scale the services
that need to scale, which allows executing other parts
of the system in smaller and less active hardware,
where each service runs on several separate
machines, that is, using features of Microservices.
Figure 9 represents the Social Micromachine as an
equivalent system of the Social Machine since it is
seen as a component of social service. The Social
Micromachine is represented by the specific services
that may occur. These can be complex, but the level
of service granularity is low, and the service is more
specific, having all the constituent elements
(relationship, service architecture, constraints,
computational unit, social entities, social software) of
a Social Machine that works with complex and less
specific services, containing the level of service
granularity high.
Figure 9: The Social Micromachine.
A service architecture serves, in general terms, to
identify all the connections between business and IT
from a context of people, processes, and technology
(Open Group, 2006). Still Open Group (2006) states
that service is a logical representation of a repeatable
business activity that has a specified, self-sufficient
result that can be composed of other services, thus
being a "black box" for service consumers.
The purpose of a service is to represent what the
business does and put a limit on all but predominantly
where the business can agree, and it is in the business
representation that the creation of a service
architecture should be focused because, in this
context, technology becomes a secondary element
(Kistasamy, Van der Merwe, & De La Harpe, 2010).
ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
794

Figure 10 represents the Social Micromachine as
a subset of the Social Machine that relates to the types
of service architectures described in this research.
Figure 10: The Social Micromachine as subset of the Social
Machine.
Taking into account all the characteristics of the
service architectures mentioned, the Microservices
describe a particular way of designing the
implementation of independent services, which are
more flexible, scalable and maintenance simpler,
since it uses an approach for the development of a
single application as a set of small services, each
running in its process and communicating with
lightweight mechanisms, often an HTTP resource
API. They are small, autonomous services that work
together and use the same approach for independent
services and that can develop better ways of having
machines talking to other machines.
In view of the above, referring to Figure 5, which
discusses the different types of vision in relation to
the relationship, we have in Figure 11, its
magnification, linking the term relationship-aware to
the Social Machine and the Social Micromachine,
inheriting characteristics of the Social Machine itself,
as well as Microservices, inheriting features of the
services architecture and the set of relationships with
their respective constraints.
Figure 11: Expansion of the different views of relationships
and their constraints.
5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
According to what was presented on the
characterization of the Social Machine, aspects about
the constituent elements were expanded and
discussed so that Social Machines could be
implemented and that they had restrictions through
the types of relationship. Knowing that a Social
Machine is an information system that uses
relationships and constraints, then, from the view of
the types of relationships, this view was broadened
according to existing relationships, including
relationship-aware, being presented the restrictions in
each relationship and the Social Micromachine,
which will use specific services, inheriting
characteristics of the Social Machine itself, in the
same way that Microservices inherit characteristics of
the service architecture.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level
Personnel (CAPES) and Centre of Informatics of the
Federal University of Pernambuco (Cin-UFPE)
supported this work.
REFERENCES
Brito, K.; Abadie, L.; Muniz, P.; Marques, L.; Buregio, V.;
Garcia, V. and Meira, S. “Implementing Web
Applications as Social Machines Composition : a Case
Study,” The 24th International Conference on Software
Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol.
(SEKE'2012), pp. 311–314, 2012.
Burégio, V.; Meira, S. and Rosa, N. Social Machines: a
unified paradigm to describe social web-oriented
systems, 2013.
Burégio, V; Meira, S; Rosa, N and Garcia, V. "Moving
towards "Relationship-aware" Applications and
Services: A Social Machine-Oriented Approach," 2013
17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Conference Workshops, Vancouver, BC,
2013, pp. 43-52.
Chen, P. “The entity-relationship model---toward a unified
view of data,” ACM Transactions on Database
Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–36, Mar. 1976.
Dicio. Relacionamento. Disponível em:<https://www.dicio
.com.br/relacionamento/>.
Elmasri, R.; Navathe, S. Sistemas de banco de dados 4º
edição. revisor técnico Luis Ricardo de Figueiredo. --
São Paulo : Pearson Addison Wesley, 2005.
Fowler, M. and Lewis J. Microservices a definition of this
new architectural term. 2014. Disponível em:<https://
martinfowler.com/articles/Microservices.html>.
Hendler, J. and Berners-Lee, T. From the Semantic Web to
Social Machines: A research challenge for AI on the
World Wide Web, 2009.
Social Micromachine: Origin and Characteristics
795

Laudon, K. and Laudon, J. Management Information
Systems, 15 Ed., 2018, Pearson Education, Inc., New
York, NY.
Kistasamy, C.; Alta, V. and Harpe, A. (2010). The
Relationship between Service Oriented Architecture
and Enterprise Architecture. 129 - 137.10.1109/
EDOCW.2010.12.
Meira, S.; Buregio, V.; Nascimento, L.; Figueiredo, E.;
Neto, M.; Encarnação, B. and Garcia, V. “The
Emerging Web of Social Machines”, 2011.
Miles, R. and Hamilton, K. Learning UML 2.0. O'Reilly
Media, 2006, p.290
O'Brien J.A. and Marakas, G.M. Introduction to
Information Systems, Fifteenth ed, McGraw-Hill_Irwin
(2010).
Open Group. Service-Oriented Architecture. 2006.
Disponível em:<http://www.opengroup.org/soa/ source
-book/soa/index.htm>.
Perry, D. and Wolf, A. “Foundations for the study of
software architecture,” ACM SIGSOFT Software
Engineering Notes, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 40–52, Oct. 1992.
Pinto, R. O que é granularidade de serviços? Disponível
em: <https://pt.stackoverflow.com/questions/19050/o-
que-%C3%A9-granularidade-de-servi%C3%A7os>.
Porter, E. On the Development of Relationship Awareness
Theory. 1976. Disponível em: <http://www.peakperfor
mancepm.com.au/uploads/32766/ufiles/Relationship_
Theory_Overview.pdf>.
Rodrigues, J. Modelo Entidade Relacionamento (MER) e
Diagrama Entidade-Relacionamento (DER). 2014.
Disponível em:<https://www.devmedia.com.br/model
o-entidade-relacionamento-mer-e-diagrama-entidade-
relacionamento-der/14332>.
Silberschatz, A.; Korth, H. and Sudarshan S. Database
System Concepts, 6th Edition (2011, McGraw-Hill).
Sommerville, I. Engenharia de Software / Ian Sommerville
; tradução Ivan Bosnic e Kalinka G. de O. Gonçalves;
revisão técnica Kechi Hirama. — 9. ed. — São Paulo:
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2011.
Suryanarayana, G; Erenkrantz, J; Hendrickson, S. and
Taylor, R. “PACE: an architectural style for trust
management in decentralized applications,”
Proceedings. Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference
on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004), pp. 221–230.
Veryzer, R. and Mozota, B. The Impact of UserOriented
Design on New Product Development: An Examination
of Fundamental Relationships, 2005.
Yuen, M; Chen, L. and King, I. “A Survey of Human
Computation Systems,” 2009 International Conference
on Computational Science and Engineering, pp. 723–
728, 2009.
ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
796