AI App Developer Free

AI App Developer Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Data event

  A data event is a relevant state transition defined in an event schema. Typically, event schemata are described by pre- and post condition for a single or a set of data items. In contrast to ECA (Event condition action), which considers an event to be a signal, the data event not only refers to the change (signal), but describes specific state transitions, which are referred to in ECA as conditions. Considering data events as relevant data item state transitions allows defining complex event-reaction schemata for a database. Defining data event schemata for relational databases is limited to attribute and instance events. Object-oriented databases also support collection properties, which allows defining changes in collections as data events, too.

  Read more →
• 

  Basic Formal Ontology

  Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a top-level ontology developed by Barry Smith and colleagues to promote interoperability among domain ontologies. The BFO methodology accomplishes this through a process of downward population. BFO is a formal ontology. The structure of BFO is based on a division of entities into two disjoint categories of continuant and occurrent, the former consists of objects and spatial regions, the latter contains processes conceived as extended through (or spanning) time. BFO thereby seeks to consolidate both time and space within a single framework A guide to building BFO-conformant domain ontologies was published by MIT Press in 2015. In 2021, the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 Information Technology — Top-level Ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) was published by the Joint Technical Committee of the International Standards Organization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 21838 is a multi-part standard. Part 1 of the standard specifies the requirements that must be met if an ontology is to be classified as a top-level ontology by the standard. == History == BFO arose against the background of research in ontologies in the domain of geospatial information science by David Mark, Pierre Grenon, Achille Varzi and others, with a special role for the study of vagueness and of the ways sharp boundaries in the geospatial and other domains are created by fiat. BFO has passed through four major releases. 2001: release of BFO 1 2007: release of BFO 1.1 2015: release of BFO 2.0 2020: release of BFO 2020 2021: release of BFO 2020 as an ISO/IEC Standard The current revision was released in 2020, and this forms the basis of the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2, which was released by the Joint Committee of the International Standards Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission in 2021. == Applications == BFO has been adopted as a foundational ontology by over 650 ontology projects, principally in the areas of biomedical ontology, security and defense (intelligence) ontology, and industry ontologies. Example applications of BFO can be seen in the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). In January 2024, BFO and the Common Core Ontologies (CCO), a suite of BFO-extension ontologies, were adopted as the "baseline standards for formal DOD and IC ontology" development work in the DOD and Intelligence Community. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the chief data officers of the DOD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized rounding

  In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ⁡ ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ⁡ ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ⁡ ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ⁡ ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ⁡ ( | U | ) + O ( log ⁡ log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic paradigm

  An algorithmic paradigm or algorithm design paradigm is a generic model or framework which underlies the design of a class of algorithms. An algorithmic paradigm is an abstraction higher than the notion of an algorithm, just as an algorithm is an abstraction higher than a computer program. == List of well-known paradigms == === General === Backtracking Branch and bound Brute-force search Divide and conquer Dynamic programming Greedy algorithm Recursion Prune and search === Parameterized complexity === Kernelization Iterative compression === Computational geometry === Sweep line algorithms Rotating calipers Randomized incremental construction

  Read more →
• 

  Hyperparameter (machine learning)

  In machine learning, a hyperparameter is a parameter that can be set in order to define any configurable part of a model's learning process. Hyperparameters can be classified as either model hyperparameters (such as the topology and size of a neural network) or algorithm hyperparameters (such as the learning rate and the batch size of an optimizer). These are named hyperparameters in contrast to parameters, which are characteristics that the model learns from the data. Hyperparameters are not required by every model or algorithm. Some simple algorithms such as ordinary least squares regression require none. However, the LASSO algorithm, for example, adds a regularization hyperparameter to ordinary least squares which must be set before training. Even models and algorithms without a strict requirement to define hyperparameters may not produce meaningful results if these are not carefully chosen. However, optimal values for hyperparameters are not always easy to predict. Some hyperparameters may have no meaningful effect, or one important variable may be conditional upon the value of another. Often a separate process of hyperparameter tuning is needed to find a suitable combination for the data and task. As well as improving model performance, hyperparameters can be used by researchers to introduce robustness and reproducibility into their work, especially if it uses models that incorporate random number generation. == Considerations == The time required to train and test a model can depend upon the choice of its hyperparameters. A hyperparameter is usually of continuous or integer type, leading to mixed-type optimization problems. The existence of some hyperparameters is conditional upon the value of others, e.g. the size of each hidden layer in a neural network can be conditional upon the number of layers. === Difficulty-learnable parameters === The objective function is typically non-differentiable with respect to hyperparameters. As a result, in most instances, hyperparameters cannot be learned using gradient-based optimization methods (such as gradient descent), which are commonly employed to learn model parameters. These hyperparameters are those parameters describing a model representation that cannot be learned by common optimization methods, but nonetheless affect the loss function. An example would be the tolerance hyperparameter for errors in support vector machines. === Untrainable parameters === Sometimes, hyperparameters cannot be learned from the training data because they aggressively increase the capacity of a model and can push the loss function to an undesired minimum (overfitting to the data), as opposed to correctly mapping the richness of the structure in the data. For example, if we treat the degree of a polynomial equation fitting a regression model as a trainable parameter, the degree would increase until the model perfectly fit the data, yielding low training error, but poor generalization performance. === Tunability === Most performance variation can be attributed to just a few hyperparameters. The tunability of an algorithm, hyperparameter, or interacting hyperparameters is a measure of how much performance can be gained by tuning it. For an LSTM, while the learning rate followed by the network size are its most crucial hyperparameters, batching and momentum have no significant effect on its performance. Although some research has advocated the use of mini-batch sizes in the thousands, other work has found the best performance with mini-batch sizes between 2 and 32. === Robustness === An inherent stochasticity in learning directly implies that the empirical hyperparameter performance is not necessarily its true performance. Methods that are not robust to simple changes in hyperparameters, random seeds, or even different implementations of the same algorithm cannot be integrated into mission critical control systems without significant simplification and robustification. Reinforcement learning algorithms, in particular, require measuring their performance over a large number of random seeds, and also measuring their sensitivity to choices of hyperparameters. Their evaluation with a small number of random seeds does not capture performance adequately due to high variance. Some reinforcement learning methods, e.g. DDPG (Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient), are more sensitive to hyperparameter choices than others. == Optimization == Hyperparameter optimization finds a tuple of hyperparameters that yields an optimal model which minimizes a predefined loss function on given test data. The objective function takes a tuple of hyperparameters and returns the associated loss. Typically these methods are not gradient based, and instead apply concepts from derivative-free optimization or black box optimization. == Reproducibility == Apart from tuning hyperparameters, machine learning involves storing and organizing the parameters and results, and making sure they are reproducible. In the absence of a robust infrastructure for this purpose, research code often evolves quickly and compromises essential aspects like bookkeeping and reproducibility. Online collaboration platforms for machine learning go further by allowing scientists to automatically share, organize and discuss experiments, data, and algorithms. Reproducibility can be particularly difficult for deep learning models. For example, research has shown that deep learning models depend very heavily even on the random seed selection of the random number generator.

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic management

  Algorithmic management is a term used to describe certain labor management practices in the contemporary digital economy. In scholarly uses, the term was initially coined in 2015 by Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish to describe the managerial role played by algorithms on the Uber and Lyft platforms, but has since been taken up by other scholars to describe more generally the managerial and organisational characteristics of platform economies. However, digital direction of labor was present in manufacturing already since the 1970s and algorithmic management is becoming increasingly widespread across a wide range of industries. The concept of algorithmic management can be broadly defined as the delegation of managerial functions to algorithmic and automated systems. Algorithmic management has been enabled by "recent advances in digital technologies" which allow for the real-time and "large-scale collection of data" which is then used to "improve learning algorithms that carry out learning and control functions traditionally performed by managers". The term does not refer to a specific underlying technology, and encompasses the design choices, organisational policies, and governance that surround the managerial use of algorithms in workplaces. In the contemporary workplace, firms employ an ecology of accounting devices, such as "rankings, lists, classifications, stars and other symbols' in order to effectively manage their operations and create value without the need for traditional forms of hierarchical control." Many of these devices fall under the label of what is called algorithmic management, and were first developed by companies operating in the sharing economy or gig economy, functioning as effective labor and cost cutting measures. The Data&Society explainer of the term, for example, describes algorithmic management as 'a diverse set of technological tools and techniques that structure the conditions of work and remotely manage workforces. Data&Society also provides a list of five typical features of algorithmic management: Prolific data collection and surveillance of workers through technology; Real-time responsiveness to data that informs management decisions; Automated or semi-automated decision-making; Transfer of performance evaluations to rating systems or other metrics; and The use of "nudges" and penalties to indirectly incentivize worker behaviors. Proponents of algorithmic management claim that it "creates new employment opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labour market that are characterised by inefficiency, opacity and capricious human bosses." On the other hand, critics of algorithmic management claim that the practice leads to several issues, especially as it impacts the employment status of workers managed by its new array of tools and techniques. == History of the term == "Algorithmic management" was first described by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, and Dabbish in 2015 in their study of the Uber and Lyft platforms. In their study, Lee et al. termed "software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice" algorithmic management. Software algorithms, it was said, are increasingly used to "allocate, optimize, and evaluate work" by platforms in managing their vast workforces. In Lee et al.'s paper on Uber and Lyft this included the use of algorithms to assign work to drivers, as mechanisms to optimise pricing for services, and as systems for evaluating driver performance. In 2016, Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark sought to extend on this understanding of algorithmic management "to elucidate on the automated implementation of company policies on the behaviours and practices of Uber drivers." Rosenblat and Stark found in their study that algorithmic management practices contributed to a system beset by power asymmetries, where drivers had little control over "critical aspects of their work", whereas Uber had far greater control over the labor of its drivers. Since this time, studies of algorithmic management have extended the use of the term to describe the management practices of various firms, where, for example, algorithms "are taking over scheduling work in fast food restaurants and grocery stores, using various forms of performance metrics ad even mood... to assign the fastest employees to work in peak times." Algorithmic management is seen to be especially prevalent in gig work on platforms, such as on Upwork and Deliveroo, and in the sharing economy, such as in the case of Airbnb. Furthermore, recent research has defined sub-constructs that fall under the umbrella term of algorithmic management, for example, "algorithmic nudging". A Harvard Business Review article published in 2021 explains: "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way." While the concept builds on nudging theory popularized by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers' behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals' decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective." == Relationships with other labor management practices == Algorithmic management has been compared and contrasted with other forms of management, such as Scientific management approaches, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s. Henri Schildt has called algorithmic management "Scientific management 2.0", where management "is no longer a human practice, but a process embedded in technology." Similarly, Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman suggest that, while "algorithmic control over labor may be relatively new, it replicates many features of older mechanisms of labor control." On the other hand, some commentators have argued that algorithmic management is not simply a new form of Scientific management or digital Taylorism, but represents a distinct approach to labor control in platform economies. David Stark and Ivana Pais, for example, state that, "In contrast to Scientific Management at the turn of the twentieth century, in the algorithmic management of the twenty-first century there are rules but these are not bureaucratic, there are rankings but not ranks, and there is monitoring but it is not disciplinary. Algorithmic management does not automate bureaucratic structures and practices to create some new form of algorithmic bureaucracy. Whereas the devices and practices of Taylorism were part of a system of hierarchical supervision, the devices and practices of algorithmic management take place within a different economy of attention and a new regime of visibility. Triangular rather than vertical, and not as a panopticon, the lines of vision in algorithmic management are not lines of supervision." Similarly, Data&Society's explainer for algorithmic management claims that the practice represents a marked departure from earlier management structures that more strongly rely on human supervisors to direct workers. In analyzing the difference and the similarities to previous management styles, David Stark and Pieter Vanden Broeck expand the applicability of algorithmic management beyond the workplace. They develop a theory of algorithmic management in terms of broader changes in the shape and structure of organization in the 21st century, attentive to the erosion of organization's boundaries whereby heterogeneous actors, assets, and activities, are coopted regardless of their place in organizational space. Stark and Vanden Broeck propose the following means of differentiating algorithmic management from other historical managerial paradigms: == Issues == Algorithmic management can provide an effective and efficient means of workforce control and value creation in the contemporary digital economy. However, commentators have highlighted several issues that algorithmic management poses, especially for the workers it manages. Criticisms of the practice often highlight several key issues pertaining to algorithmic management practices, such as the imperfection and scope of its surveillance and control measures, which also threaten to lock workers out of key decision-making processes; its lack of transparency for users and information asymmetries; its potential for bias and discrimination; its dehumanizing tendencies; and its potential to create conditions which sidestep traditional employer-employee accountability. This last point has been especi

  Read more →
• 

  Hindley–Milner type system

  A Hindley–Milner (HM) type system is a classical type system for the lambda calculus with parametric polymorphism. It is also known as Damas–Milner or Damas–Hindley–Milner. It was first described by J. Roger Hindley and later rediscovered by Robin Milner. Luis Damas contributed a close formal analysis and proof of the method in his PhD thesis. Among HM's more notable properties are its completeness and its ability to infer the most general type of a given program without programmer-supplied type annotations or other hints. Algorithm W is an efficient type inference method in practice and has been successfully applied on large code bases, although it has a high theoretical complexity. HM is preferably used for functional programming languages. It was first implemented as part of the type system of the programming language ML. Since then, HM has been extended in various ways, most notably with type class constraints like those in Haskell. == Introduction == As a type inference method, Hindley–Milner is able to deduce the types of variables, expressions and functions from programs written in an entirely untyped style. Being scope sensitive, it is not limited to deriving the types only from a small portion of source code, but rather from complete programs or modules. Being able to cope with parametric types, too, it is core to the type systems of many functional programming languages. It was first applied in this manner in the ML programming language. The origin is the type inference algorithm for the simply typed lambda calculus that was devised by Haskell Curry and Robert Feys in 1958. In 1969, J. Roger Hindley extended this work and proved that their algorithm always inferred the most general type. In 1978, Robin Milner, independently of Hindley's work, provided an equivalent algorithm, Algorithm W. In 1982, Luis Damas finally proved that Milner's algorithm is complete and extended it to support systems with polymorphic references. === Monomorphism vs. polymorphism === In the simply typed lambda calculus, types T are either atomic type constants or function types of form T → T {\displaystyle T\rightarrow T} . Such types are monomorphic. Typical examples are the types used in arithmetic values: 3 : N u m b e r a d d 3 4 : N u m b e r a d d : N u m b e r → N u m b e r → N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}3&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}\ 3\ 4&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}&:{\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} Contrary to this, the untyped lambda calculus is neutral to typing at all, and many of its functions can be meaningfully applied to all type of arguments. The trivial example is the identity function i d ≡ λ x . x {\displaystyle {\mathtt {id}}\equiv \lambda x.x} which simply returns whatever value it is applied to. Less trivial examples include parametric types like lists. While polymorphism in general means that operations accept values of more than one type, the polymorphism used here is parametric. One finds the notation of type schemes in the literature, too, emphasizing the parametric nature of the polymorphism. Additionally, constants may be typed with (quantified) type variables. For example, the following type schemes quantify universally over α {\displaystyle \alpha } , meaning that they are true for all possible α {\displaystyle \alpha } : c o n s : ∀ α . α → L i s t α → L i s t α n i l : ∀ α . L i s t α i d : ∀ α . α → α {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {cons}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {nil}}&:\forall \alpha .{\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {id}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow \alpha \end{array}}} Polymorphic types can become monomorphic by consistent substitution of their variables. Examples of monomorphic instances are: i d ′ : S t r i n g → S t r i n g n i l ′ : L i s t N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {id}}'&:{\mathtt {String}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {String}}\\{\mathtt {nil}}'&:{\mathtt {List}}\ {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} More generally, types are polymorphic when they contain type variables, while types without them are monomorphic. Contrary to the type systems used for example in Pascal (1970) or C (1972), which only support monomorphic types, HM is designed with emphasis on parametric polymorphism. The successors of the languages mentioned, like C++ (1985), focused on different types of polymorphism, namely subtyping in connection with object-oriented programming and overloading. While subtyping is incompatible with HM, a variant of systematic overloading is available in the HM-based type system of Haskell. === Let-polymorphism === When extending the type inference for the simply-typed lambda calculus towards polymorphism, one has to decide whether assigning a polymorphic type not only as type of an expression, but also as the type of a λ-bound variable is admissible. This would allow the generic identity type to be assigned to the variable 'id' in: (λ id . ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... ) (λ x . x) Allowing this gives rise to the polymorphic lambda calculus; however, type inference in this system is not decidable. Instead, HM distinguishes variables that are immediately bound to an expression from more general λ-bound variables, calling the former let-bound variables, and allows polymorphic types to be assigned only to these. This leads to let-polymorphism where the above example takes the form let id = λ x . x in ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... which can be typed with a polymorphic type for 'id'. As indicated, the expression syntax is extended to make the let-bound variables explicit, and by restricting the type system to allow only let-bound variable to have polymorphic types, while the parameters in lambda-abstractions must get a monomorphic type, type inference becomes decidable. == Overview == The remainder of this article proceeds as follows: The HM type system is defined. This is done by describing a deduction system that makes precise what expressions have what type, if any. From there, it works towards an implementation of the type inference method. After introducing a syntax-driven variant of the above deductive system, it sketches an efficient implementation (algorithm J), appealing mostly to the reader's metalogical intuition. Because it remains open whether algorithm J indeed realises the initial deduction system, a less efficient implementation (algorithm W), is introduced and its use in a proof is hinted. Finally, further topics related to the algorithm are discussed. The same description of the deduction system is used throughout, even for the two algorithms, to make the various forms in which the HM method is presented directly comparable. == The Hindley–Milner type system == The type system can be formally described by syntax rules that fix a language for the expressions, types, etc. The presentation here of such a syntax is not too formal, in that it is written down not to study the surface grammar, but rather the depth grammar, and leaves some syntactical details open. This form of presentation is usual. Building on this, typing rules are used to define how expressions and types are related. As before, the form used is a bit liberal. === Syntax === The expressions to be typed are exactly those of the lambda calculus extended with a let-expression as shown in the adjacent table. Parentheses can be used to disambiguate an expression. The application is left-binding and binds stronger than abstraction or the let-in construct. Types are syntactically split into two groups, monotypes and polytypes. ==== Monotypes ==== Monotypes always designate a particular type. Monotypes τ {\displaystyle \tau } are syntactically represented as terms. Examples of monotypes include type constants like i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}} or s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {string}}} , and parametric types like M a p ( S e t s t r i n g ) i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {Map\ (Set\ string)\ int}}} . The latter types are examples of applications of type functions, for example, from the set { M a p 2 , S e t 1 , s t r i n g 0 , i n t 0 , → 2 } {\displaystyle \{{\mathtt {Map^{2},\ Set^{1},\ string^{0},\ int^{0}}},\ \rightarrow ^{2}\}} , where the superscript indicates the number of type parameters. The complete set of type functions C {\displaystyle C} is arbitrary in HM, except that it must contain at least → 2 {\displaystyle \rightarrow ^{2}} , the type of functions. It is often written in infix notation for convenience. For example, a function mapping integers to strings has type i n t → s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {string}}} . Again, parentheses can be used to disambiguate a type expression. The application binds stronger than the infix arrow, which is right-binding. Type variables are admitted as monotypes. Monotypes are not to be confused with monomorphic types, which exc

  Read more →
• 

  Chandy–Misra–Haas algorithm resource model

  The Chandy–Misra–Haas algorithm resource model checks for deadlock in a distributed system. It was developed by K. Mani Chandy, Jayadev Misra and Laura M. Haas. == Locally dependent == Consider the n processes P1, P2, P3, P4, P5,, ... ,Pn which are performed in a single system (controller). P1 is locally dependent on Pn, if P1 depends on P2, P2 on P3, so on and Pn−1 on Pn. That is, if P 1 → P 2 → P 3 → … → P n {\displaystyle P_{1}\rightarrow P_{2}\rightarrow P_{3}\rightarrow \ldots \rightarrow P_{n}} , then P 1 {\displaystyle P_{1}} is locally dependent on P n {\displaystyle P_{n}} . If P1 is said to be locally dependent to itself if it is locally dependent on Pn and Pn depends on P1: i.e. if P 1 → P 2 → P 3 → … → P n → P 1 {\displaystyle P_{1}\rightarrow P_{2}\rightarrow P_{3}\rightarrow \ldots \rightarrow P_{n}\rightarrow P_{1}} , then P 1 {\displaystyle P_{1}} is locally dependent on itself. == Description == The algorithm uses a message called probe(i,j,k) to transfer a message from controller of process Pj to controller of process Pk. It specifies a message started by process Pi to find whether a deadlock has occurred or not. Every process Pj maintains a boolean array dependent which contains the information about the processes that depend on it. Initially the values of each array are all "false". === Controller sending a probe === Before sending, the probe checks whether Pj is locally dependent on itself. If so, a deadlock occurs. Otherwise it checks whether Pj, and Pk are in different controllers, are locally dependent and Pj is waiting for the resource that is locked by Pk. Once all the conditions are satisfied it sends the probe. === Controller receiving a probe === On the receiving side, the controller checks whether Pk is performing a task. If so, it neglects the probe. Otherwise, it checks the responses given Pk to Pj and dependentk(i) is false. Once it is verified, it assigns true to dependentk(i). Then it checks whether k is equal to i. If both are equal, a deadlock occurs, otherwise it sends the probe to next dependent process. == Algorithm == In pseudocode, the algorithm works as follows: === Controller sending a probe === if Pj is locally dependent on itself then declare deadlock else for all Pj,Pk such that (i) Pi is locally dependent on Pj, (ii) Pj is waiting for 'Pk and (iii) Pj, Pk are on different controllers. send probe(i, j, k). to home site of Pk === Controller receiving a probe === if (i)Pk is idle / blocked (ii) dependentk(i) = false, and (iii) Pk has not replied to all requests of to Pj then begin "dependents""k"(i) = true; if k == i then declare that Pi is deadlocked else for all Pa,Pb such that (i) Pk is locally dependent on Pa, (ii) Pa is waiting for 'Pb and (iii) Pa, Pb are on different controllers. send probe(i, a, b). to home site of Pb end == Example == P1 initiates deadlock detection. C1 sends the probe saying P2 depends on P3. Once the message is received by C2, it checks whether P3 is idle. P3 is idle because it is locally dependent on P4 and updates dependent3(2) to True. As above, C2 sends probe to C3 and C3 sends probe to C1. At C1, P1 is idle so it update dependent1(1) to True. Therefore, deadlock can be declared. == Complexity == Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} controllers and m {\displaystyle m} processes, at most m ( n − 1 ) / 2 {\displaystyle m(n-1)/2} messages need to be exchanged to detect a deadlock, with a delay of O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} messages.

  Read more →
• 

  Uniphore

  Uniphore is an American software company that develops artificial intelligence platforms for business use. The company is headquartered in Palo Alto, California, with offices in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Israel, United Arab Emirates, and India. Uniphore is known for its "Business AI Cloud," an enterprise AI platform that combines data, knowledge, models, and software agents for use in sales, marketing, and service. The company has also acquired firms in video emotion AI, AI agents, low-code automation, knowledge automation, voice and screen capture, customer data platforms, and data engineering. == History == Uniphore Software Systems was founded by Umesh Sachdev and Ravi Saraogi in 2008 and was incubated at IIT Madras. The company received an initial grant of $100,000 from the National Research Development Corporation. Early work focused on speech technologies for emerging markets. Uniphore partnered with companies that specialized in English and European languages, and adapting the technology for Indian languages and dialects. In 2014, Uniphore released its first flagship products, auMina, along with two other products, Akeira and amVoice. Uniphore raised series A funding, led by Kris Gopalakrishnan (cofounder of Infosys), in April 2015. The next month, Uniphore received additional investment from IDG Ventures. With input from its investors, Uniphore changed its business model from license fee-based income to a software as a service-based subscription fee model in 2015. By June 2016, it had added more than 70 global languages and expanded its services to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. The company opened operations in Singapore in October 2016. The company raised Series B funding in October 2017, led by John Chambers and existing investors. Series C funding of $51 million was announced in August 2019 and led by March Capital. Uniphore acquired an exclusive third-party license for robotic process automation technology from NTT DATA in October 2020. In January 2021, Uniphore acquired Emotion Research Lab, a startup based in Spain that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze video and interpret emotions. The company received $140 million in Series D funding, led by Sorenson Capital Partners, in March 2021, bringing total funding to $210 million. In January 2021, Uniphore acquired Emotion Research Lab. In July 2021, it agreed to acquire Jacada, a provider of low-code/no-code automation; the transaction closed in October 2021. On February 16, 2022, Uniphore announced a $400 million Series E financing led by NEA, which valued the company at $2.5 billion. Hilarie Koplow-McAdams, an NEA venture partner and former Salesforce/New Relic executive, joined Uniphore's board in 2022. Uniphore's board has also included former Cisco CEO John Chambers, former Convergys CEO Andrea J. Ayers, and CrowdStrike CFO Burt Podbere (appointed January 2021). In February 2023, Uniphore acquired UK-based Red Box, a platform for capturing voice and screen recordings used in regulated and large-scale environments. It also acquired France-based Hexagone, a behavioral analytics firm combining computer vision and natural-language techniques. On December 5, 2024, Uniphore announced agreements to acquire ActionIQ, a customer data platform (CDP) vendor, and Infoworks, an enterprise data engineering platform. Uniphore launched the Business AI Cloud on June 9, 2025. The Business AI Cloud consists of a single, unified platform that includes data, knowledge, AI models, and AI agents. Uniphore announced in August 2025 that it had acquired Orby AI and intended to acquire Autonom8 to extend multi-agent and workflow automation capabilities. As of September 2025, Uniphore's customers included the United States Coast Guard, Singapore Police Force, London Underground, DirecTV, JPMorgan Chase, LG, DHL, UPS, Vodafone, Verizon, NTT Data, and as of May 2021, Firstsource. In October 2025, Uniphore raised $260 million in a Series F round at a reported valuation of $2.5 billion. Investors included March Capital, NEA, Nvidia, AMD, Snowflake, and Databricks. In January 2026, KPMG and Uniphore announced a collaboration focused on deploying AI agents powered by specialized small language models. The announcement was made at the World Economic Forum held in Davos. Cognizant and Uniphore announced a partnership in February 2026 to develop industry-specific AI tools for regulated sectors, which would initially focus on life sciences and finance. Uniphore and Rackspace also announced a partnership in March 2026. This partnership was announced in order to create an "Infrastructure-to-Agents" architecture, focusing on Business AI as a private cloud service. == Products == As of 2025, Uniphore's core offering is the Business AI Cloud and Business AI Suite of agentic AI applications. === Business AI Cloud === Uniphore’s Business AI Cloud is a full-stack platform that organizes enterprise data and knowledge for agentic AI applications. The platform enables deployment across clouds and existing data sources. Key layers and capabilities include the following. Agentic layer: Includes prebuilt agents, a natural-language agent builder, and orchestration based on Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) to run AI workflows across business units. Model layer: Supports an open, interoperable mix of closed and open-source large language models (LLMs). Models can be orchestrated, governed, and replaced as needed. Knowledge layer: Organizes raw data into structured knowledge used for retrieval, explainability, and fine-tuning of small language models (SLMs). Data layer: Connects to data across multiple platforms and clouds through a zero-copy, composable fabric, enabling in-place preparation and supporting data residency and sovereignty requirements. === Business AI Suite === The Uniphore Business AI Suite has various prebuilt AI agents that can be used in customer service, sales, marketing, and human resources. The Uniphore Business AI Suite includes several LOBs (Lines of Business) for business functions with intelligent agents that are prebuilt, but composable. Built on the Uniphore Business AI Cloud, each application combines agentic automation and fine-tuned models. Marketing AI, Customer Service AI, Sales AI, and People AI (for human resources) are included. Competitors include Palantir, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Bedrock, Google's Vertex AI, Databricks, and Snowflake. == Recognition == Deloitte Technology Fast 50 India identified Uniphore as the 17th fastest-growing technology company in India in 2012 and one of the top 500 fastest growing companies in the Asia-Pacific region in 2014. In 2016, Time included Sachdev on its list of "10 millennials who are changing the world" for “building a phone that can understand almost any language”. NASSCOM named Uniphore to its "League of 10" emerging Indian technology companies in 2017. In 2020, the San Francisco Business Times ranked Uniphore as No. 7 among small companies in its list of the best places to work in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2022, the company was featured on the Forbes AI 50 list. Uniphore was mentioned in the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 list in 2023, 2024, and 2025. In 2025, Inc. included Uniphore in its Best in Business program.

  Read more →
• 

  SciDB

  SciDB is a column-oriented database management system (DBMS) designed for multidimensional data management and analytics common to scientific, geospatial, financial, and industrial applications. It is developed by Paradigm4 and co-created by Michael Stonebraker. == History == Stonebraker claims that arrays are 100 times faster in SciDB than in a relational DBMS on a class of problems. It is swapping rows and columns for mathematical arrays that put fewer restrictions on the data and can work in any number of dimensions unlike the conventionally widely used relational database management system model, in which each relation supports only one dimension of records. A 2011 conference presentation on SciDB promoted it as "not Hadoop". Marilyn Matz became chief executive Paradigm4 in 2014.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic heterogeneity

  Semantic heterogeneity is when database schema or datasets for the same domain are developed by independent parties, resulting in differences in meaning and interpretation of data values. Beyond structured data, the problem of semantic heterogeneity is compounded due to the flexibility of semi-structured data and various tagging methods applied to documents or unstructured data. Semantic heterogeneity is one of the more important sources of differences in heterogeneous datasets. Yet, for multiple data sources to interoperate with one another, it is essential to reconcile these semantic differences. Decomposing the various sources of semantic heterogeneities provides a basis for understanding how to map and transform data to overcome these differences. == Classification == One of the first known classification schemes applied to data semantics is from William Kent in the late 80s. Kent's approach dealt more with structural mapping issues than differences in meaning, which he pointed to data dictionaries as potentially solving. One of the most comprehensive classifications is from Pluempitiwiriyawej and Hammer, "Classification Scheme for Semantic and Schematic Heterogeneities in XML Data Sources". They classify heterogeneities into three broad classes: Structural conflicts arise when the schema of the sources representing related or overlapping data exhibit discrepancies. Structural conflicts can be detected when comparing the underlying schema. The class of structural conflicts includes generalization conflicts, aggregation conflicts, internal path discrepancy, missing items, element ordering, constraint and type mismatch, and naming conflicts between the element types and attribute names. Domain conflicts arise when the semantics of the data sources that will be integrated exhibit discrepancies. Domain conflicts can be detected by looking at the information contained in the schema and using knowledge about the underlying data domains. The class of domain conflicts includes schematic discrepancy, scale or unit, precision, and data representation conflicts. Data conflicts refer to discrepancies among similar or related data values across multiple sources. Data conflicts can only be detected by comparing the underlying sources. The class of data conflicts includes ID-value, missing data, incorrect spelling, and naming conflicts between the element contents and the attribute values. Moreover, mismatches or conflicts can occur between set elements (a "population" mismatch) or attributes (a "description" mismatch). Michael Bergman expanded upon this schema by adding a fourth major explicit category of language, and also added some examples of each kind of semantic heterogeneity, resulting in about 40 distinct potential categories . This table shows the combined 40 possible sources of semantic heterogeneities across sources: A different approach toward classifying semantics and integration approaches is taken by Sheth et al. Under their concept, they split semantics into three forms: implicit, formal and powerful. Implicit semantics are what is either largely present or can easily be extracted; formal languages, though relatively scarce, occur in the form of ontologies or other description logics; and powerful (soft) semantics are fuzzy and not limited to rigid set-based assignments. Sheth et al.'s main point is that first-order logic (FOL) or description logic is inadequate alone to properly capture the needed semantics. == Relevant applications == Besides data interoperability, relevant areas in information technology that depend on reconciling semantic heterogeneities include data mapping, semantic integration, and enterprise information integration, among many others. From the conceptual to actual data, there are differences in perspective, vocabularies, measures and conventions once any two data sources are brought together. Explicit attention to these semantic heterogeneities is one means to get the information to integrate or interoperate. A mere twenty years ago, information technology systems expressed and stored data in a multitude of formats and systems. The Internet and Web protocols have done much to overcome these sources of differences. While there is a large number of categories of semantic heterogeneity, these categories are also patterned and can be anticipated and corrected. These patterned sources inform what kind of work must be done to overcome semantic differences where they still reside.

  Read more →
• 

  Pol.is

  Polis (or Pol.is) is wiki survey software designed for large group collaborations. As a civic technology, Polis allows people to share their opinions and ideas, and its algorithm is intended to elevate ideas that can facilitate better decision-making, especially when there are lots of participants. Polis has been credited for assisting the passage of legislation in Taiwan. Pol.is has been used by governments in the United States, Canada, Singapore, Philippines, Finland, Spain and elsewhere. == History == Pol.is was founded by Colin Megill, Christopher Small, and Michael Bjorkegren after the Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring movements. In Taiwan, pol.is has been "one of the key parts" of vTaiwan's suite of open-source tools for its citizen engagement efforts arising out of the Sunflower Student Movement. vTaiwan claims that of the 26 national issues related to technology discussed on the platform, 80% led to government action. Pol.is is also utilized by "Join," a national platform for online deliberation run by the Taiwanese government. In 2022, Wired reported that Polis was an influence on the Community Notes project at Twitter. In 2023, Megill advised OpenAI on how to facilitate deliberation at scale in a way that was more efficient than Polis, which still required significant human labor and analysis at the time. He helped to award $1 million in grants to teams working on solving the problem of deliberation at scale. In 2023, Anthropic was also exploring steering model behavior using Polis. In 2025, it helped the county that includes Bowling Green, Kentucky make a 25 year plan by facilitating the collection and review of ideas from thousands of residents, representing 10% of the county. 2,370 of 3,940 unique ideas were agreed-upon by over 80% of survey respondents. Ideas were screened by volunteers if they were redundant to an existing idea, off-topic or obscene. == How it works == Pol.is participants are anonymous and cannot reply directly to others posts, in an effort to avoid personal attacks for users. Its algorithms are designed not for engagement and scrolling, but to find areas of agreement to better understand the nuances of a wide range of opinions. Participants are prompted for ideas and vote on other participants' ideas. == Reception == Andrew Leonard, The Financial Times, and VentureBeat describe Pol.is as a possible antidote to the divisiveness of traditional internet discourse by gamifying consensus. Audrey Tang agreed saying, "Polis is quite well known in that it's a kind of social media that instead of polarizing people to drive so called engagement or addiction or attention, it automatically drives bridge making narratives and statements. So only the ideas that speak to both sides or to multiple sides will gain prominence in Polis." Niall Ferguson argues that the approach to utilize tools like Pol.is and Join in Taiwan empowers ordinary people instead of the elite and protects individual freedoms, providing a contrast to the AI-enhanced panopticon model seen in China. Carl Miller praised the technology as having "gamified finding consensus." Darshana Narayanan, in an op-ed in the Economist, argues that open-source machine-learning-based tools like Polis can help to bypass the influence of special interests or experts. Jamie Susskind cited polis and vTaiwan as a model for democracies, particularly around digital policy issues.

  Read more →
• 

  Tensor glyph

  In scientific visualization a tensor glyph is an object that can visualize all or most of the nine degrees of freedom, such as acceleration, twist, or shear – of a 3 × 3 {\displaystyle 3\times 3} matrix. It is used for tensor field visualization, where a data-matrix is available at every point in the grid. "Glyphs, or icons, depict multiple data values by mapping them onto the shape, size, orientation, and surface appearance of a base geometric primitive." Tensor glyphs are a particular case of multivariate data glyphs. There are certain types of glyphs that are commonly used: Ellipsoid Cuboid Cylindrical Superquadrics According to Thomas Schultz and Gordon Kindlmann, specific types of tensor fields "play a central role in scientific and biomedical studies as well as in image analysis and feature-extraction methods."

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic mechanism design

  Algorithmic mechanism design (AMD) lies at the intersection of economic game theory, optimization, and computer science. The prototypical problem in mechanism design is to design a system for multiple self-interested participants, such that the participants' self-interested actions at equilibrium lead to good system performance. Typical objectives studied include revenue maximization and social welfare maximization. Algorithmic mechanism design differs from classical economic mechanism design in several respects. It typically employs the analytic tools of theoretical computer science, such as worst case analysis and approximation ratios, in contrast to classical mechanism design in economics which often makes distributional assumptions about the agents. It also considers computational constraints to be of central importance: mechanisms that cannot be efficiently implemented in polynomial time are not considered to be viable solutions to a mechanism design problem. This often, for example, rules out the classic economic mechanism, the Vickrey–Clarke–Groves auction. == History == Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen first coined "Algorithmic mechanism design" in a research paper published in 1999.

  Read more →
• 

  Information logistics

  Information Logistics (IL) deals with the flow of information between human or machine actors within or between any number of organizations that in turn form a value creating network (see, e.g.). IL is closely related to information management, information operations and information technology. == Definition == The term Information Logistics (IL) may be used in either of two ways: Firstly, it can be defined as "managing and controlling information handling processes optimally with respect to time (flow time and capacity), storage, distribution and presentation in such a way that it contributes to company results in concurrence with the costs of capturing (creation, searching, maintenance etc)." (Petri,2017) Thus IL utilizes logistic principles to optimize information handling. Secondly, IL can be seen as a concept using information technology to optimize logistics. A term which is closely related to the first meaning of Information Logistics is Data Logistics, a concept used in Computer Networking. "The study of solutions to problems in Computer Systems that flexibly span resources and services relating to Data Movement, Data Storage and Data Processing." [ref?] Systems that support general Data Logistics solutions thus must span the traditionally separate fields of Networking, File/Database Systems and Process Management. Data Logistics is a more general form of the term Logistical Networking, used as the name of a particular network storage architecture and software stack. == Goal == The goal of Information Logistics is to deliver the right product, consisting of the right information element, in the right format, at the right place at the right time for the right people at the right price and all of this is customer demand driven. If this goal is to be achieved, knowledge workers are best equipped with information for the task at hand for improved interaction with its customers and machines are enabled to respond automatically to meaningful information. Methods for achieving the goal are: the analysis of information demand intelligent information storage the optimization of the flow of information maintaining both security and organizational flexibility integrated information and billing solutions The expression was formed by the Indian mathematician and librarian S. R. Ranganathan . The supply of a product is part of the discipline Logistics. The purpose of this discipline is described as follows: Logistics is the teachings of the plans and the effective and efficient run of supply. The contemporary logistics focuses on the organization, planning, control and implementation of the flow of goods, money, information and people. Information Logistics focusses on information. Information (from Latin informare: "shape, shapes, instruct") means in a general sense everything that adds knowledge and thus reduce ignorance or lack of precision. In a stricter sense, raw data only becomes information to those who can interpret it. Interpreting relevant, related information produces insight that either leads to existing, or eventually builds new, knowledge. == Information element == An information element (IE) is an information component that is located in the organizational value chain. The combination of certain IEs leads to an information product (IP), which is any final product in the form of information that a person needs to have. When a higher number of different IEs are required, it often results in more planning problems in capacity and inherently leads to a non-delivery of the IP. To illustrate the concept of an IP, an example is shown of a bottleneck analysis in HR (by J. Willems 2008). Here, the illustration shows how the information elements (e.g. qualifications) build up the information product (e.g. HR file). == Data logistics == Data logistics is a concept that developed independently of information logistics in the 1990s, in response to the explosion of Internet content and traffic due to the invention of the World Wide Web (WWW). Some motivations for the emergence of interest in Data Logistics included: The incorporation of network hyperlinks into content encoded in HTML encouraged users to freely dereference those links without regard to, or in many cases without even having any knowledge of, the identity (much less the geographical or network topological location of) the target Web server. The growth in the volume of Web hits, combined with the steady increase in the size of Web-delivered objects such as images, audio and video clips resulted in the localized overloading of the bandwidth and processing resources of the local and/or wide area network and/or the Web server infrastructure. The resulting Internet bottleneck can cause Web clients to experience poor performance or complete denial of access to servers that host high volume sites (the so-called Slashdot effect). The growth in all Internet traffic, especially across international telecommunication links, resulted in stress to institutional infrastructure and high costs on networks that billed Internet traffic on a per-use basis. Much of this traffic was redundant, the results of repeated requests by many independent users to access the same stored files and content. Large files and content retrieved from distant Web servers was often delayed due to high delays experienced over long and complex Internet paths. These factors led to interest in the use of large scale storage (and to a lesser extent, processing) resources to cache the response to network requests, first at the Internet endpoint using a Web browser cache and later at intermediate network locations using shared network caches. This line of development also gave rise to Web server replication and other techniques for offloading and distributing the work of delivering large volume Web services to widely dispersed client communities, ultimately resulting in the creation of modern Content delivery networks. At the same time, research efforts in server replication and content delivery gave rise to a number of related projects and strategies, including Logistical Networking (LN). The name LN was intended as an analogy to physical supply chain logistics, in which goods are not only carried from source to destination on networks of roads, but are also stored at warehouses located throughout the transportation infrastructure. This led to a nomenclature in which LN network storage resources are termed "storage depots". The principles that underpin LN have been abstracted into the more general study of scheduling and optimization across the traditional infrastructure silos of Storage, Networking and Processing which was named Data Logistics. === Illustrative examples of data logistics === Data Caching and Replication are classic examples of Data Logistics solutions to problems in Computer Systems and Networking with high data access latencies or data transfer resource limitations. It works mainly across the areas of data transfer and data storage. Dynamic Compression in data transfer is another example which uses computational resources to minimize the bandwidth requirements of data transfer.

  Read more →