Conflicts and Resolutions in Computer Supported Collaborative Work Applications

Babi, Mamdouh; Zhao, Wenbing

doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch054

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Collaborative Editing1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2017

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent0

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Real-time collaborative editors facilitate multiple participants to work on a shared document concurrently [8,9]. Typically, one user initiates the collaboration by creating a document and making it available (i.e., publish it) to other users.…”

Section: Collaborative Editingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Trustworthy Collaborative Editing

Babi¹,

Zhao²

2017

Computers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Real-time collaborative editing applications are drastically different from typical client-server applications in that every participant has a copy of the shared document. In this type of environment, each participant acts as both a client and a server replica. In this article, we elaborate on how to adapt Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT) mechanisms to enhance the trustworthiness of such applications. It is apparent that traditional BFT algorithms cannot be used directly because it would dictate that all updates submitted by participants be applied sequentially, which would defeat the purpose of collaborative editing. The goal of this study is to design and implement an efficient BFT solution by exploiting the application semantics and by doing a threat analysis of these types of applications. Our solution can be considered as a form of optimistic BFT in that local states maintained by each participant may diverge temporarily. The states of the participants are made consistent with each other by a periodic synchronization mechanism.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Editingmentioning

confidence: 99%