SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Andrew II of Hungary

Andrew II known as Andrew of Jerusalem, was King of Hungary and Croatia between 1205 and 1235. He ruled the Principality of Halych from 1188 until 1189/1190, again between 1208/1209 and 1210, he was the younger son of Béla III of Hungary, who entrusted him with the administration of the newly conquered Principality of Halych in 1188. Andrew's rule was unpopular, the boyars expelled him. Béla III willed money to Andrew, obliging him to lead a crusade to the Holy Land. Instead, Andrew forced his elder brother, King Emeric of Hungary, to cede Croatia and Dalmatia as an appanage to him in 1197; the following year, Andrew occupied Hum. Despite the fact that Andrew did not stop conspiring against Emeric, the dying king made Andrew guardian of his son, Ladislaus III, in 1204. After the premature death of Ladislaus, Andrew ascended the throne in 1205. According to historian László Kontler, "t was amidst the socio-political turmoil during reign that the relations, institutional framework and social categories that arose under Stephen I, started to disintegrate in the higher echelons of society" in Hungary.

Andrew introduced a new grants policy, the so-called "new institutions", giving away money and royal estates to his partisans despite the loss of royal revenues. He was the first Hungarian monarch to adopt the title of "King of Halych and Lodomeria", he waged at least a dozen wars to seize the two Rus' principalities, but the local boyars and neighboring princes prevented him from conquering the principalities. He participated in the Fifth Crusade to the Holy Land in 1217 -- 1218; when the servientes regis, or "royal servants", rose up, Andrew was forced to issue the Golden Bull of 1222, confirming their privileges. This led to the rise of the nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary, his Diploma Andreanum of 1224 listed the liberties of the Transylvanian Saxon community. The employment of Jews and Muslims to administer the royal revenues led him into conflict with the Holy See and the Hungarian prelates. Andrew pledged to respect the privileges of the clergymen and to dismiss his non-Christian officials in 1233, but he never fulfilled the latter promise.

Andrew's first wife, Gertrude of Merania, was murdered in 1213 because her blatant favoritism towards her German kinsmen and courtiers stirred up discontent among the native lords. The veneration of their daughter, Elizabeth of Hungary, was confirmed by the Holy See during Andrew's lifetime. After Andrew's death, his sons, Béla and Coloman, accused his third wife, Beatrice d'Este, of adultery and never considered her son, Stephen, to be a legitimate son of Andrew. Andrew was the second son of Béla's first wife, Agnes of Antioch; the year of Andrew's birth is not known, but modern historians agree that he was born around 1177. Andrew was first mentioned in connection to his father's invasion of the Principality of Halych in 1188; that year, Béla III invaded Halych upon the request of its former prince, Vladimir II Yaroslavich, expelled by his subjects. Béla forced Roman Mstislavich, to flee. After conquering Halych, he granted it to Andrew. Béla captured Vladimir Yaroslavich and imprisoned him in Hungary.

After Béla's withdrawal from Halych, Roman Mstislavich returned with the assistance of Rurik Rostislavich, Prince of Belgorod Kievsky. They tried to expel Andrew and his Hungarian retinue, but the Hungarians routed the united forces of Mstislavich and Rostislavich. A group of local boyars offered the throne to Rostislav Ivanovich, a distant cousin of the imprisoned Vladimir Yaroslavich. Béla III sent reinforcements to Halych. Andrew's reign remained unpopular in Halych, because the Hungarian soldiers insulted local women and did not respect Orthodox churches; the local boyars allied themselves with their former prince, Vladimir Yaroslavich, who had escaped from captivity and returned to Halych. Duke Casimir II of Poland supported Vladimir Yaroslavich, they expelled Andrew and his retinue from the principality in August 1189 or 1190. Andrew returned to Hungary after his defeat, he did not receive a separate duchy from his father. On his deathbed, Béla III, who had pledged to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, ordered Andrew to fulfill his vow.

Andrew's father died on 23 April 1196, Andrew's older brother, succeeded him. Andrew used the funds that he inherited from his father to recruit supporters among the Hungarian lords, he formed an alliance with Leopold VI, Duke of Austria, they plotted against Emeric. Their united troops routed the royal army at Mački, Slavonia, in December 1197. Under duress, King Emeric gave Dalmatia to Andrew as an appanage. In practice, Andrew administered Dalmatia as an independent monarch, he granted land and confirmed privileges. He cooperated with the Frankopans, Babonići, other local lords; the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre settled in the province during his rule. Taking advantage of Miroslav of Hum's death, Andrew invaded Hum and occupied at least the land between the Cetina and Neretva rivers, he styled himself, "By the grace of God, Duke of Zadar and of all Dalmatia and Hum" in his charters. Pope Innocent III urged Andrew to lead a crusade to the Holy Land, but Andrew hatched a new conspiracy against Emeric with the help of John, Abbot of Pannonhalma, Bishop of Vác, many other prelates and lords.

The Pope threatened him with excommunication if he failed to fulfill his father's vow, but Andrew did not yield. The conspiracy was uncovered on 10 March 1199, when Kin

Kawanishi-Noseguchi Station

Kawanishi-Noseguchi Station is a train station on the Takarazuka Line operated by Hankyu Railway in southern Kawanishi, Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan and it represents the city. It is a major service station, featuring stops for all local and express trains, including the special Nissei Express, a commuter train for commuters from the Kawanishi area to Osaka, it is the origin station for Nose Railway's Myōken Line. It is connected to the Kawanishi-Ikeda Station on the West Japan Railway Company Fukuchiyama Line by an elevated walkway. An island platform and 2 dead-end platforms serving five tracks are located on the 3rd level. Kawanishi City Hall Hankyu Department Store Kawanishi Kawanishi-Ikeda Station ASTE Kawanishi Kawanishi Post Office Seiyu

IDEF3

IDEF3 or Integrated DEFinition for Process Description Capture Method is a business process modelling method complementary to IDEF0. The IDEF3 method is a scenario-driven process flow description capture method intended to capture the knowledge about how a particular system works; the IDEF3 method provides modes to represent both Process Flow Descriptions to capture the relationships between actions within the context of a specific scenario, Object State Transition to capture the description of the allowable states and conditions. This method is part of the IDEF family of modeling languages in the field of systems and software engineering. One of the primary mechanisms used for descriptions of the world is relating a story in terms of an ordered sequence of events or activities; the IDEF3 Process Description Capture Method was created to capture descriptions of sequences of activities, considered the common mechanisms to describe a situation or process. The primary goal of IDEF3 is to provide a structured method by which a domain expert can express knowledge about the operation of a particular system or organization.

Knowledge acquisition is enabled by direct capture of assertions about real-world processes and events in a form, most natural for capture. IDEF3 supports this kind of knowledge acquisition by providing a reliable and wellstructured approach for process knowledge acquisition, an expressively, yet easy-to-use, language for information capture and expression. Motives for the development of IDEF3 were the need: to speed up the process of business systems modeling, to provides mechanisms to describe this data life cycle information, to supported project management techniques by an automated tool, to provide the concepts and procedures for building system requirements descriptions, to work well both independently and jointly with other methods which address different areas of concentration as a complementary addition to the IDEF method family; the original IDEFs were developed since the mid-1970s for the purpose of enhancing communication among people who needed to decide how their existing systems were to be integrated.

IDEF0 was designed to allow a graceful expansion of the description of a systems' functions through the process of function decomposition and categorization of the relations between functions. IDEF1 was designed to allow the description of the information that an organization deems important to manage in order to accomplish its objectives; the third IDEF was intended as a user interface modeling method. However, since the Integrated Computer-Aided Manufacturing Program needed a simulation modeling tool, the resulting IDEF2 was a method for representing the time varying behavior of resources in a manufacturing system, providing a framework for specification of math model based simulations, it was the intent of the methodology program within ICAM to rectify this situation but limitation of funding did not allow this to happen. As a result, the lack of a method which would support the structuring of descriptions of the user view of a system has been a major shortcoming of the IDEF system; the basic problem from a methodology point of view is the need to distinguish between a description of what a system is supposed to do and a representative simulation model that will predict what a system will do.

The latter was the focus of IDEF2, the former is the focus of IDEF3. The distinction between descriptions and models, though subtle, is an important one in IDEF3, both have a precise technical meaning; the term description is used as a reserved technical term to mean records of empirical observations. The term model is used to mean an idealization of an state of affairs; that is, a model constitutes an idealized system of objects and relations, designed to imitate, in certain relevant respects, the character of a given real-world system. Frictionless planes rigid bodies, the assumption of point mass, so forth are representative examples of models; the power of a model comes from its ability to simplify the real-world system it represents and to predict certain facts about that system by virtue of corresponding facts within the model. Thus, a model is a designed system in its own right. Models are idealized systems known to be incorrect but assumed to be close enough to provide reliable predictors for the predefined areas of interest within a domain.

A description, on the other hand, is a recording of facts or beliefs about something within the realm of an individual’s knowledge or experience. Such descriptions are incomplete. Descriptions may be inconsistent with respect to how others have observed situations within the domain. IDEF3 accommodates these possibilities by providing specific features enabling the capture and organization of alternative descriptions of the same scenario or process, see figure. Modeling necessitates taking additional steps beyond description capture to resolve conflicting or inconsistent views. This, in turn requires modelers to select or create a single viewpoint and introduce artificial modeling approximations to fill in gaps where no direct knowledge or experience is available. Unlike models, descriptions are not constrained by idealized, testable conditions that must be satisfied, short of simple accuracy; the purpose of description capture may be to record and communicate process knowledge or to identify in