AI App Orange Logo

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

• 

  Structured sparsity regularization

  Structured sparsity regularization is a class of methods, and an area of research in statistical learning theory, that extend and generalize sparsity regularization learning methods. Both sparsity and structured sparsity regularization methods seek to exploit the assumption that the output variable Y {\displaystyle Y} (i.e., response, or dependent variable) to be learned can be described by a reduced number of variables in the input space X {\displaystyle X} (i.e., the domain, space of features or explanatory variables). Sparsity regularization methods focus on selecting the input variables that best describe the output. Structured sparsity regularization methods generalize and extend sparsity regularization methods, by allowing for optimal selection over structures like groups or networks of input variables in X {\displaystyle X} . Common motivation for the use of structured sparsity methods are model interpretability, high-dimensional learning (where dimensionality of X {\displaystyle X} may be higher than the number of observations n {\displaystyle n} ), and reduction of computational complexity. Moreover, structured sparsity methods allow to incorporate prior assumptions on the structure of the input variables, such as overlapping groups, non-overlapping groups, and acyclic graphs. Examples of uses of structured sparsity methods include face recognition, magnetic resonance image (MRI) processing, socio-linguistic analysis in natural language processing, and analysis of genetic expression in breast cancer. == Definition and related concepts == === Sparsity regularization === Consider the linear kernel regularized empirical risk minimization problem with a loss function V ( y i , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(y_{i},f(x))} and the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm" as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( y i , ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(y_{i},\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where x , w ∈ R d {\displaystyle x,w\in \mathbb {R^{d}} } , and ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", defined as the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . f ( x ) = ⟨ w , x i ⟩ {\displaystyle f(x)=\langle w,x_{i}\rangle } is said to be sparse if ‖ w ‖ 0 = s < d {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}=s 0 {\displaystyle w_{j}>0} . However, as in this case groups may overlap, we take the intersection of the complements of those groups that are not set to zero. This intersection of complements selection criteria implies the modeling choice that we allow some coefficients within a particular group g {\displaystyle g} to be set to zero, while others within the same group g {\displaystyle g} may remain positive. In other words, coefficients within a group may differ depending on the several group memberships that each variable within the group may have. ==== Union of groups: latent group Lasso ==== A different approach is to consider union of groups for variable selection. This approach captures the modeling situation where variables can be selected as long as they belong at least to one group with positive coefficients. This modeling perspective implies that we want to preserve group structure. The formulation of the union of groups approach is also referred to as latent group Lasso, and requires to modify the group ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm considered above and introduce the following regularizer R ( w ) = i n f { ∑ g ‖ w g ‖ g : w = ∑ g = 1 G w ¯ g } {\displaystyle R(w)=inf\left\{\sum _{g}\|w_{g}\|_{g}:w=\sum _{g=1}^{G}{\bar {w}}_{g}\right\}} where w ∈ R d {\displaystyle w\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} , w g ∈ G g {\displaystyle w_{g}\in G_{g}} is the vector of coefficients of group g, and w ¯ g ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{g}\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} is a vector with coefficients w g j {\displaystyle w_{g}^{j}} for all variables j {

  Read more →
• 

  Information quality

  Information quality (IQ) is a contextual property of or a perspective to the content within information systems. There exist two complementary yet partially conflicting definitions of high-quality: firstly, information is considered high quality if it is fit for its intended purpose ; secondly, it is deemed high quality if it conforms to specified requirements . The primary distinction between these definitions is that Juran's perspective focuses on the suitability of information for its intended purpose, which can be measured by the success of its application even without direct access to or exact knowledge of the data. For example, a black-box AI with access to English Wikipedia can work well for users' purposes but using Estonian Wikipedia fails for the same purposes. Given that the AI remains the same, it can be concluded that English version data would be of higher quality in comparison to Estonian version, even without exact comparison of data contents and their properties in each version. In contrast, Crosby emphasizes adherence to predefined specifications, assuming specific criteria rather than measuring the success of its use; for instance, information in Wikipedia could be proven to be good based on criteria such as existing peer validation and academic references, even if the AI results are poor. This approach falls into problems when data is not completely accessible or all quality properties cannot be known and measured leading to false impression of quality due to lacking and misleading metrics. Numerous IQ frameworks and methodologies provide tangible approach to assess and measure DQ/IQ in a robust and rigorous manner. == Conceptual problems == Although the foundational definitions are usable for most everyday purposes, specialists often use more complex models for information quality. It has been suggested, however, that higher the quality the greater will be the confidence in meeting more general, less specific contexts. == Dimensions and metrics of information quality == "Information quality" is a measure of its fitness for use or conformance to requirements. In this way, "quality" is considered contextual and it can then vary across users and uses of the information. The exact degree of quality is often described with dimensions such as accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and similar scales. Although a huge amount of academic research has been directed to these dimensions, there does not exist consensus on their definitions or practical usefulness . Historically, Richard Wang and Diane Strong proposed a list of dimensions or elements used in assessing Information Quality is: Intrinsic IQ: accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Contextual IQ: relevance, value-added, timeliness, completeness, amount of information Representational IQ: interpretability, format, coherence, compatibility Accessibility IQ: accessibility, access security Other authors propose similar but different lists of dimensions for analysis, and emphasize measurement and reporting as information quality metrics. Larry English prefers the term "characteristics" to dimensions. However, a considerable amount of information quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Research has recently shown the huge diversity of terms and classification structures used. === Quality metrics === Source: Authority/verifiability Authority refers to the expertise or recognized official status of a source. Consider the reputation of the author and publisher. When working with legal or government information, consider whether the source is the official provider of the information. Verifiability refers to the ability of a reader to verify the validity of the information irrespective of how authoritative the source is. To verify the facts is part of the duty of care of the journalistic deontology, as well as, where possible, to provide the sources of information so that they can be verified Scope of coverage Scope of coverage refers to the extent to which a source explores a topic. Consider time periods, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics. Composition and organization Composition and organization has to do with the ability of the information source to present its particular message in a coherent, logically sequential manner. Objectivity Objectivity is the bias or opinion expressed when a writer interprets or analyze facts. Consider the use of persuasive language, the source's presentation of other viewpoints, its reason for providing the information and advertising. Integrity Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished Comprehensiveness Of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study. Comprehending mentally; having an extensive mental grasp. Insurance. covering or providing broad protection against loss. Validity Validity of some information has to do with the degree of obvious truthfulness which the information carries Uniqueness As much as 'uniqueness' of a given piece of information is intuitive in meaning, it also significantly implies not only the originating point of the information but also the manner in which it is presented and thus the perception which it conjures. The essence of any piece of information we process consists to a large extent of those two elements. Timeliness Timeliness refers to information that is current at the time of publication. Consider publication, creation and revision dates. Beware of Web site scripting that automatically reflects the current day's date on a page. Reproducibility (utilized primarily when referring to instructive information) Means that documented methods are capable of being used on the same data set to achieve a consistent result. == Professional associations == IQ International—the International Association for Information and Data Quality IQ International is a not-for-profit, vendor neutral, professional association formed in 2004, dedicated to building the information and data quality profession. CDOIQ Society Chief Data Officers and Information Quality Society is a global professional society supporting data leaders with networking, meetings, best practices, experience, certification, and training. == Information quality conferences == A number of major conferences relevant to information quality are held annually: Annual MIT Chief Data Officer & Information Quality (CDOIQ) Symposium Annual conferences held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Data Governance and Information Quality Conference Commercial conferences held each year in the USA Data Quality Asia Pacific Commercial conference held annually in Sydney or Melbourne, Australia Enterprise Data and Business Intelligence Conference Europe Commercial conferences held annually in London, England. Information and Data Quality Conference Not for profit conference run annually by IQ International (the International Association for Information and Data Quality) in the USA International Conference on Information Quality Academic Conference launched through MITIQ held annually at a University Master Data Management & Data Governance Conferences Six major conferences are run annually by the MDM Institute in venues such as London, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Madrid, Frankfurt, Shanghai and New York City.

  Read more →
• 

  Single-source publishing

  Single-source publishing, also known as single-sourcing publishing, is a content management method which allows the same source content to be used across different forms of media and more than one time. The labor-intensive and expensive work of editing need only be carried out once, on only one document; that source document (the single source of truth) can then be stored in one place and reused. This reduces the potential for error, as corrections are only made one time in the source document. The benefits of single-source publishing primarily relate to the editor rather than the user. The user benefits from the consistency that single-sourcing brings to terminology and information. This assumes the content manager has applied an organized conceptualization to the underlying content (A poor conceptualization can make single-source publishing less useful). Single-source publishing is sometimes used synonymously with multi-channel publishing though whether or not the two terms are synonymous is a matter of discussion. == Definition == While there is a general definition of single-source publishing, there is no single official delineation between single-source publishing and multi-channel publishing, nor are there any official governing bodies to provide such a delineation. Single-source publishing is most often understood as the creation of one source document in an authoring tool and converting that document into different file formats or human languages (or both) multiple times with minimal effort. Multi-channel publishing can either be seen as synonymous with single-source publishing, or similar in that there is one source document but the process itself results in more than a mere reproduction of that source. == History == The origins of single-source publishing lie, indirectly, with the release of Windows 3.0 in 1990. With the eclipsing of MS-DOS by graphical user interfaces, help files went from being unreadable text along the bottom of the screen to hypertext systems such as WinHelp. On-screen help interfaces allowed software companies to cease the printing of large, expensive help manuals with their products, reducing costs for both producer and consumer. This system raised opportunities as well, and many developers fundamentally changed the way they thought about publishing. Writers of software documentation did not simply move from being writers of traditional bound books to writers of electronic publishing, but rather they became authors of central documents which could be reused multiple times across multiple formats. The first single-source publishing project was started in 1993 by Cornelia Hofmann at Schneider Electric in Seligenstadt, using software based on Interleaf to automatically create paper documentation in multiple languages based on a single original source file. XML, developed during the mid- to late-1990s, was also significant to the development of single-source publishing as a method. XML, a markup language, allows developers to separate their documentation into two layers: a shell-like layer based on presentation and a core-like layer based on the actual written content. This method allows developers to write the content only one time while switching it in and out of multiple different formats and delivery methods. In the mid-1990s, several firms began creating and using single-source content for technical documentation (Boeing Helicopter, Sikorsky Aviation and Pratt & Whitney Canada) and user manuals (Ford owners manuals) based on tagged SGML and XML content generated using the Arbortext Epic editor with add-on functions developed by a contractor. The concept behind this usage was that complex, hierarchical content that did not lend itself to discrete componentization could be used across a variety of requirements by tagging the differences within a single document using the capabilities built into SGML and XML. Ford, for example, was able to tag its single owner's manual files so that 12 model years could be generated via a resolution script running on the single completed file. Pratt & Whitney, likewise, was able to tag up to 20 subsets of its jet engine manuals in single-source files, calling out the desired version at publication time. World Book Encyclopedia also used the concept to tag its articles for American and British versions of English. Starting from the early 2000s, single-source publishing was used with an increasing frequency in the field of technical translation. It is still regarded as the most efficient method of publishing the same material in different languages. Once a printed manual was translated, for example, the online help for the software program which the manual accompanies could be automatically generated using the method. Metadata could be created for an entire manual and individual pages or files could then be translated from that metadata with only one step, removing the need to recreate information or even database structures. Although single-source publishing is now decades old, its importance has increased urgently as of the 2010s. As consumption of information products rises and the number of target audiences expands, so does the work of developers and content creators. Within the industry of software and its documentation, there is a perception that the choice is to embrace single-source publishing or render one's operations obsolete. == Criticism == Editors using single-source publishing have been criticized for below-standard work quality, leading some critics to describe single-source publishing as the "conveyor belt assembly" of content creation. While heavily used in technical translation, there are risks of error in regard to indexing. While two words might be synonyms in English, they may not be synonyms in another language. In a document produced via single-sourcing, the index will be translated automatically and the two words will be rendered as synonyms. This is because they are synonyms in the source language, while in the target language they are not.

  Read more →
• 

  Hall circles

  Hall circles (also known as M-circles and N-circles) are a graphical tool in control theory used to obtain values of a closed-loop transfer function from the Nyquist plot (or the Nichols plot) of the associated open-loop transfer function. Hall circles have been introduced in control theory by Albert C. Hall in his thesis. == Construction == Consider a closed-loop linear control system with open-loop transfer function given by transfer function G ( s ) {\displaystyle G(s)} and with a unit gain in the feedback loop. The closed-loop transfer function is given by T ( s ) = G ( s ) 1 + G ( s ) {\textstyle T(s)={\frac {G(s)}{1+G(s)}}} . To check the stability of T(s), it is possible to use the Nyquist stability criterion with the Nyquist plot of the open-loop transfer function G(s). Note, however, that the Nyquist plot of G(s) does not give the actual values of T(s). To get this information from the G(s)-plane, Hall proposed to construct the locus of points in the G(s)-plane such that T(s) has constant magnitude and also the locus of points in the G(s)-plane such that T(s) has constant phase angle. Given a positive real value M representing a fixed magnitude, and denoting G(s) by z, the points satisfying M = | T ( s ) | = | G ( s ) | | 1 + G ( s ) | = | z | | 1 + z | {\displaystyle M=|T(s)|={\frac {|G(s)|}{|1+G(s)|}}={\frac {|z|}{|1+z|}}} are given by the points z in the G(s)-plane such that the ratio of the distance between z and 0 and the distance between z and -1 is equal to M. The points z satisfying this locus condition are circles of Apollonius, and this locus is known in the context of control systems as M-circles. Given a positive real value N representing a phase angle, the points satisfying N = arg ⁡ [ G ( s ) 1 + G ( s ) ] = arg ⁡ [ G ( s ) ] − arg ⁡ [ 1 + G ( s ) ] = arg ⁡ [ z ] − arg ⁡ [ 1 + z ] {\displaystyle N=\arg \left[{\frac {G(s)}{1+G(s)}}\right]=\arg[G(s)]-\arg[1+G(s)]=\arg[z]-\arg[1+z]} are given by the points z in the G(s)-plane such that the angle between -1 and z and the angle between 0 and z is constant. In other words, the angle opposed to the line segment between -1 and 0 must be constant. This implies that the points z satisfying this locus condition are arcs of circles, and this locus is known in the context of control systems as N-circles. == Usage == To use the Hall circles, a plot of M and N circles is done over the Nyquist plot of the open-loop transfer function. The points of the intersection between these graphics give the corresponding value of the closed-loop transfer function. Hall circles are also used with the Nichols plot and in this setting, are also known as Nichols chart. Rather than overlaying directly the Hall circles over the Nichols plot, the points of the circles are transferred to a new coordinate system where the ordinate is given by 20 log 10 ⁡ ( | G ( s ) | ) {\displaystyle 20\log _{10}(|G(s)|)} and the abscissa is given by arg ⁡ ( G ( s ) ) {\displaystyle \arg(G(s))} . The advantage of using Nichols chart is that adjusting the gain of the open loop transfer function directly reflects in up and down translation of the Nichols plot in the chart.

  Read more →
• 

  FedRAMP

  The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a United States federal government-wide compliance program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. The US government describes FedRAMP as FISMA for the cloud. == Overview == The FedRAMP PMO mission is to promote the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government by providing a standardized approach to security and risk assessment. Per the OMB memorandum, any cloud services that hold federal data must be FedRAMP authorized. FedRAMP prescribes the security requirements and processes that cloud service providers must follow in order for the government to use their service. There are two ways to authorize a cloud service through FedRAMP: a Joint Authorization Board (JAB) provisional authorization (P-ATO), and through individual agencies. FedRAMP provides accreditation for cloud services for the various cloud offering models which are Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service, (SaaS). == History == In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a memorandum establishing FedRAMP "to provide a cost-effective, risk-based approach for the adoption and use of cloud services to Executive departments and agencies." The General Services Administration (GSA) established the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) in June 2012. Before the introduction of FedRAMP, individual federal agencies managed their own assessment methodologies following guidance set by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. == Governance and applicable laws == FedRAMP is governed by different Executive Branch entities that collaborate to develop, manage, and operate the program. These entities include: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The governing body that issued the FedRAMP policy memo, which defines the key requirements and capabilities of the program The Joint Authorization Board (JAB): The primary governance and decision-making body for FedRAMP comprises the chief information officers (CIOs) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), General Services Administration (GSA), and Department of Defense (DOD) The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Advises FedRAMP on FISMA compliance requirements and assists in developing the standards for the accreditation of independent 3PAOs The Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Manages the FedRAMP continuous monitoring strategy including data feed criteria, reporting structure, threat notification coordination, and incident response The Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council: Disseminates FedRAMP information to Federal CIOs and other representatives through cross-agency communications and events The FedRAMP PMO: Established within GSA and responsible for the development of the FedRAMP program, including the management of day-to-day operations There are several laws, mandates, and policies that are foundational to FedRAMP. FISMA–the Federal Information Security Modernization Act–requires that agencies authorize the information systems that they use. The US government describes FedRAMP as FISMA for the cloud. The FedRAMP Policy Memo requires federal agencies to use FedRAMP when assessing, authorizing, and continuously monitoring cloud services in order to aid agencies in the authorization process as well as save government resources and eliminate duplicative efforts. FedRAMP's security baselines are derived from NIST SP 800-53 (as revised) with a set of control enhancements that pertain to the unique security requirements of cloud computing. == Third-party assessment organizations == Third-party assessment organizations (3PAOs) play a critical role in the FedRAMP security assessment process, as they are the independent assessment organizations that verify cloud providers' security implementations and provide the overall risk posture of a cloud environment for a security authorization decision. Accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), these assessment organizations must demonstrate independence and the technical competence required to test security implementations and collect representative evidence. == FedRAMP Marketplace == The FedRAMP Marketplace provides a searchable, sortable database of Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) that have achieved a FedRAMP designation. 3PAOs, accredited auditors that can perform the FedRAMP assessment, are listed within the Marketplace. The FedRAMP Marketplace is maintained by the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO). == Security and authorization concerns == A 2026 ProPublica investigation found that FedRAMP entered into a partnership with Microsoft despite considerable concerns about the security of its cloud technology.

  Read more →
• 

  Education by algorithm

  Education by algorithm refers to automated solutions that algorithmic agents or social bots offer to education, to assist with mundane educational tasks. These are often instrumentalist “educational reforms” or “curriculum transformations”, which have been implemented by policy makers and are supported by proprietary education technologies. New educational policies, mandated by transnational governance forums (like the OECD), have manufactured a connection between economies and education. Governments, schools and universities are expected to introduce or prepare students for an “unknown future”, to “future proof” them against an identified issue or to mitigate a national crisis. Technologies are seen as a catalyst to effect these changes. However, these policies mask a deeper problem, which include the assetization of education and the use of technologies as a means for surveillance and behavior modification. The traces that students and leave, through cookies, logins learning activities, assignments and tests, are collected, facetted, and shared with commercial organizations by these agents, to both predict future behavior and shape it. Techno solutionist thinking has led to managers adopting educational policies and reforms, and looking towards technologies to act as disrupters, liberators or agents to improve efficiency. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many more students had to modify their learning and working circumstances to protect themselves. Academics shifted their assessment practices from the dominant assessment of learning paradigm to an orientation that saw value in "assessment for learning". Big tech assisted, and teaching infrastructure became further privatized, and unbundling of education provision went a step further. Following the return to class, this assessment paradigm became rationalised in education. Leaving the space for algorithmic agents to step in. Academics work was increasingly driven by learning experience platforms and student understanding was extended through interleaving, behavior modification nudges and rewards and scheduled high stakes assessments. This data collection may also be construed as surveillance., or perceived as evidence of a Fourth Industrial Revolution

  Read more →
• 

  Terminology extraction

  Terminology extraction (also known as term extraction, glossary extraction, term recognition, or terminology mining) is a subtask of information extraction. The goal of terminology extraction is to automatically extract relevant terms from a given corpus. In the semantic web era, a growing number of communities and networked enterprises started to access and interoperate through the internet. Modeling these communities and their information needs is important for several web applications, like topic-driven web crawlers, web services, recommender systems, etc. The development of terminology extraction is also essential to the language industry. One of the first steps to model a knowledge domain is to collect a vocabulary of domain-relevant terms, constituting the linguistic surface manifestation of domain concepts. Several methods to automatically extract technical terms from domain-specific document warehouses have been described in the literature. Typically, approaches to automatic term extraction make use of linguistic processors (part of speech tagging, phrase chunking) to extract terminological candidates, i.e. syntactically plausible terminological noun phrases. Noun phrases include compounds (e.g. "credit card"), adjective noun phrases (e.g. "local tourist information office"), and prepositional noun phrases (e.g. "board of directors"). In English, the first two (compounds and adjective noun phrases) are the most frequent. Terminological entries are then filtered from the candidate list using statistical and machine learning methods. Once filtered, because of their low ambiguity and high specificity, these terms are particularly useful for conceptualizing a knowledge domain or for supporting the creation of a domain ontology or a terminology base. Furthermore, terminology extraction is a very useful starting point for semantic similarity, knowledge management, human translation and machine translation, etc. == Bilingual terminology extraction == The methods for terminology extraction can be applied to parallel corpora. Combined with e.g. co-occurrence statistics, candidates for term translations can be obtained. Bilingual terminology can be extracted also from comparable corpora (corpora containing texts within the same text type, domain but not translations of documents between each other).

  Read more →
• 

  Collaborative diffusion

  Collaborative Diffusion is a type of pathfinding algorithm which uses the concept of antiobjects, objects within a computer program that function opposite to what would be conventionally expected. Collaborative Diffusion is typically used in video games, when multiple agents must path towards a single target agent. For example, the ghosts in Pac-Man. In this case, the background tiles serve as antiobjects, carrying out the necessary calculations for creating a path and having the foreground objects react accordingly, whereas having foreground objects be responsible for their own pathing would be conventionally expected. Collaborative Diffusion is favored for its efficiency over other pathfinding algorithms, such as A, when handling multiple agents. Also, this method allows elements of competition and teamwork to easily be incorporated between tracking agents. Notably, the time taken to calculate paths remains constant as the number of agents increases.

  Read more →
• 

  Application software

  Application software is software that is intended for end-user use – not operating, administering or programming a computer. It includes programs such as word processors, web browsers, media players, and mobile applications used in daily tasks. An application (app, application program, software application) is any program that can be categorized as application software. Application is a subjective classification that is often used to differentiate from system and utility software. Application software represents the user-facing layer of computing systems, designed to translate complex system capabilities into task-oriented, goal-driven workflows. Unlike system software, which focuses on hardware orchestration and resource management, application software is centered on problem abstraction, user interaction, and domain-specific functionality. The abbreviation app became popular with the 2008 introduction of the iOS App Store, to refer to applications for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. Later, with the release of the Mac App Store in 2010 and the Windows Store in 2011, it began to be used to refer to end-user software in general, regardless of platform. Applications may be bundled with the computer and its system software or published separately. Applications may be proprietary or open-source. == Terminology == === Meaning program and software === When used as an adjective, application can have a broader meaning than that described in this article. For example, concepts such as application programming interface (API), application server, application virtualization, application lifecycle management and portable application refer to programs and software in general. === Distinction between system and application software === The distinction between system and application software is subjective and has been the subject of controversy. For example, one of the key questions in the United States v. Microsoft Corp. antitrust trial was whether Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser was part of its Windows operating system or a separate piece of application software. As another example, the GNU/Linux naming controversy is, in part, due to disagreement about the relationship between the Linux kernel and the operating systems built over this kernel. In some types of embedded systems, the application software and the operating system software may be indistinguishable by the user, as in the case of software used to control a VCR, DVD player, or microwave oven. The above definitions may exclude some applications that may exist on some computers in large organizations. For an alternative definition of an app: see Application Portfolio Management. === Killer application === A killer application (killer app, coined in the late 1980s) is an application that is so popular that it causes demand for its host platform to increase. For example, VisiCalc was the first modern spreadsheet software for the Apple II and helped sell the then-new personal computers into offices. For the BlackBerry, it was its email software. === Software suite === As software suite consists of multiple applications bundled together. They usually have related functions, features, and user interfaces, and may be able to interact with each other, e.g. open each other's files. Business applications often come in suites, e.g. Microsoft Office, LibreOffice and iWork, which bundle together a word processor, a spreadsheet, etc.; but suites exist for other purposes, e.g. graphics or music. == Ways to classify == As there so many applications and since their attributes vary so dramatically, there are many different ways to classify them. === By legal aspects === Proprietary software is protected under an exclusive copyright, and a software license grants limited usage rights. Such applications may allow add-ons from third parties. Free and open-source software (FOSS) can be run, distributed, sold, and extended for any purpose. FOSS software released under a free license may be perpetual and also royalty-free. Perhaps, the owner, the holder or third-party enforcer of any right (copyright, trademark, patent, or ius in re aliena) are entitled to add exceptions, limitations, time decays or expiring dates to the license terms of use. Public-domain software is a type of FOSS that is royalty-free and can be run, distributed, modified, reversed, republished, or created in derivative works without any copyright attribution and therefore revocation. It can even be sold, but without transferring the public domain property to other single subjects. Public-domain software can be released under a (un)licensing legal statement, which enforces those terms and conditions for an indefinite duration (for a lifetime, or forever). === By platform === An application can be categorized by the host platform on which it runs. Notable platforms include operating system (native), web browser, cloud computing and mobile. For example a web application runs in a web browser whereas a more traditional, native application runs in the environment of a computer's operating system. There has been a contentious debate regarding web applications replacing native applications for many purposes, especially on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. Web apps have indeed greatly increased in popularity for some uses, but the advantages of applications make them unlikely to disappear soon, if ever. Furthermore, the two can be complementary, and even integrated. === Horizontal vs. vertical === Application software can be seen as either horizontal or vertical. Horizontal applications are more popular and widespread, because they are general purpose, for example word processors or databases. Vertical applications are niche products, designed for a particular type of industry or business, or department within an organization. Integrated suites of software will try to handle every specific aspect possible of, for example, manufacturing or banking worker, accounting, or customer service. === By purpose === There are many types of application software: Enterprise Addresses the needs of an entire organization's processes and data flows, across several departments, often in a large distributed environment. Examples include enterprise resource planning systems, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, data replication engines, and supply chain management software. Departmental Software is a sub-type of enterprise software with a focus on smaller organizations or groups within a large organization. (Examples include travel expense management and IT Helpdesk.) Enterprise infrastructure Provides common capabilities needed to support enterprise software systems. (Examples include databases, email servers, and systems for managing networks and security.) Application platform as a service (aPaaS) A cloud computing service that offers development and deployment environments for application services. Knowledge worker Lets users create and manage information, often for and individual media editors may aid in multiple information worker tasks. Content access Used primarily to access content without editing, but may include software that allows for content editing. Such software addresses the needs of individuals and groups to consume digital entertainment and published digital content. (Examples include media players, web browsers, and help browsers.) Educational Related to content access software, but has the content or features adapted for use by educators or students. For example, it may deliver evaluations (tests), track progress through material, or include collaborative capabilities. Simulation Simulates physical or abstract systems for either research, training, or entertainment purposes. Media development Generates print and electronic media for others to consume, most often in a commercial or educational setting. This includes graphic-art software, desktop publishing software, multimedia development software, HTML editors, digital-animation editors, digital audio and video composition, and many others. Engineering Used in developing hardware and software products. This includes computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided engineering (CAE), computer language editing and compiling tools, integrated development environments, and application programmer interfaces. Entertainment Refers to video games, screen savers, programs to display motion pictures or play recorded music, and other forms of entertainment which can be experienced through the use of a computing device. == Taxonomy == This section is a taxonomy of kinds of applications. This organization is but one of many different ways to organize them. A kind is included in only one category even if it logically fits in multiple. === General-purpose === Calculator Spreadsheet Web browser Web mapping E-commerce Social media === Communication === Chat Email Presentation software Phone Messages Networking software Web conferencing === Documentation === Desktop

  Read more →
• 

  KiSAO

  The Kinetic Simulation Algorithm Ontology (KiSAO) supplies information about existing algorithms available for the simulation of systems biology models, their characterization and interrelationships. KiSAO is part of the BioModels.net project and of the COMBINE initiative. == Structure == KiSAO consists of three main branches: simulation algorithm simulation algorithm characteristic simulation algorithm parameter The elements of each algorithm branch are linked to characteristic and parameter branches using has characteristic and has parameter relationships accordingly. The algorithm branch itself is hierarchically structured using relationships which denote that the descendant algorithms were derived from, or specify, more general ancestors.

  Read more →
• 

  Information scientist

  The term information scientist developed in the latter part of the twentieth century by Wm. Hovey Smith to describe an individual, usually with a relevant subject degree (such as one in Information and Computer Science - CIS) or high level of subject knowledge, providing focused information to scientific and technical research staff in industry. It is a role quite distinct from and complementary to that of a librarian. Developments in end-user searching, together with some convergence between the roles of librarian and information scientist, have led to a diminution in its use in this context, and the term information officer or information professional (information specialist) are also now used. The term was, and is, also used for an individual carrying out research in information science. Brian C. Vickery mentions that the Institute of Information Scientists (IIS) was established in London during 1958 and lists the criteria put forward by this institute "Criteria for Information Science" (appendix 1) as well as his own "Areas of study in information science" (appendix 2). The IIS merged with the Library Association in 2002 to form the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). == Notable Information Scientists == See also Award of Merit - Association for Information Science and Technology Marcia Bates David Blair (information technologist) Samuel C. Bradford Michael Buckland John M. Carroll Blaise Cronin Emilia Currás Brenda Dervin Eugene Garfield Paul B. Kantor Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster Calvin Mooers Tefko Saracevic Linda C. Smith Robert Saxton Taylor Brian Campbell Vickery Thomas D. Wilson == Additional reading == Ellis, David and Merete Haugan. (1997) "Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment" (Journal of Documentation, Volume 53(4): pp. 384–403) Poole, Alex H. (2024). "'There's a big difference between going through life with the wind at your back, and going through life leaning into the wind': Feminism in Post-World War II Information Science". Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 61: 300–313. doi:10.1002/pra2.1029. Vickery, Brian Campbell (1988) "Essays presented to B. C. Vickery" (Journal of Documentation, Volume 44, pp. 199–283). Vickery, B. & Vickery, A. (1987) Information Science in theory and practice (London: Bowker-Saur, pp. 361–369)

  Read more →
• 

  Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark

  Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark is an algorithm that generates benchmark networks (artificial networks that resemble real-world networks). They have a priori known communities and are used to compare different community detection methods. The advantage of the benchmark over other methods is that it accounts for the heterogeneity in the distributions of node degrees and of community sizes. == The algorithm == The node degrees and the community sizes are distributed according to a power law, with different exponents. The benchmark assumes that both the degree and the community size have power law distributions with different exponents, γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and β {\displaystyle \beta } , respectively. N {\displaystyle N} is the number of nodes and the average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . There is a mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } , which is the average fraction of neighboring nodes of a node that do not belong to any community that the benchmark node belongs to. This parameter controls the fraction of edges that are between communities. Thus, it reflects the amount of noise in the network. At the extremes, when μ = 0 {\displaystyle \mu =0} all links are within community links, if μ = 1 {\displaystyle \mu =1} all links are between nodes belonging to different communities. One can generate the benchmark network using the following steps. Step 1: Generate a network with nodes following a power law distribution with exponent γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and choose extremes of the distribution k min {\displaystyle k_{\min }} and k max {\displaystyle k_{\max }} to get desired average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . Step 2: ( 1 − μ ) {\displaystyle (1-\mu )} fraction of links of every node is with nodes of the same community, while fraction μ {\displaystyle \mu } is with the other nodes. Step 3: Generate community sizes from a power law distribution with exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . The sum of all sizes must be equal to N {\displaystyle N} . The minimal and maximal community sizes s min {\displaystyle s_{\min }} and s max {\displaystyle s_{\max }} must satisfy the definition of community so that every non-isolated node is in at least in one community: s min > k min {\displaystyle s_{\min }>k_{\min }} s max > k max {\displaystyle s_{\max }>k_{\max }} Step 4: Initially, no nodes are assigned to communities. Then, each node is randomly assigned to a community. As long as the number of neighboring nodes within the community does not exceed the community size a new node is added to the community, otherwise stays out. In the following iterations the “homeless” node is randomly assigned to some community. If that community is complete, i.e. the size is exhausted, a randomly selected node of that community must be unlinked. Stop the iteration when all the communities are complete and all the nodes belong to at least one community. Step 5: Implement rewiring of nodes keeping the same node degrees but only affecting the fraction of internal and external links such that the number of links outside the community for each node is approximately equal to the mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } . == Testing == Consider a partition into communities that do not overlap. The communities of randomly chosen nodes in each iteration follow a p ( C ) {\displaystyle p(C)} distribution that represents the probability that a randomly picked node is from the community C {\displaystyle C} . Consider a partition of the same network that was predicted by some community finding algorithm and has p ( C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{2})} distribution. The benchmark partition has p ( C 1 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1})} distribution. The joint distribution is p ( C 1 , C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1},C_{2})} . The similarity of these two partitions is captured by the normalized mutual information. I n = ∑ C 1 , C 2 p ( C 1 , C 2 ) log 2 ⁡ p ( C 1 , C 2 ) p ( C 1 ) p ( C 2 ) 1 2 H ( { p ( C 1 ) } ) + 1 2 H ( { p ( C 2 ) } ) {\displaystyle I_{n}={\frac {\sum _{C_{1},C_{2}}p(C_{1},C_{2})\log _{2}{\frac {p(C_{1},C_{2})}{p(C_{1})p(C_{2})}}}{{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{1})\})+{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{2})\})}}} If I n = 1 {\displaystyle I_{n}=1} the benchmark and the detected partitions are identical, and if I n = 0 {\displaystyle I_{n}=0} then they are independent of each other.

  Read more →
• 

  Device-independent pixel

  A device-independent pixel (also: density-independent pixel, dip, dp) is a unit of length. A typical use is to allow mobile device software to scale the display of information and user interaction to different screen sizes. The abstraction allows an application to work in pixels as a measurement, while the underlying graphics system converts the abstract pixel measurements of the application into real pixel measurements appropriate to the particular device. For example, on the Android operating system a device-independent pixel is equivalent to one physical pixel on a 160 dpi screen, while the Windows Presentation Foundation specifies one device-independent pixel as equivalent to 1/96th of an inch. As dp is a physical unit it has an absolute value which can be measured in traditional units, e.g. for Android devices 1 dp equals 1/160 of inch or 0.15875 mm. While traditional pixels only refer to the display of information, device-independent pixels may also be used to measure user input such as input on a touch screen device.

  Read more →
• 

  Schema crosswalk

  A schema crosswalk is a table that shows equivalent elements (or "fields") in more than one database schema. It maps the elements in one schema to the equivalent elements in another. Crosswalk tables are often employed within or in parallel to enterprise systems, especially when multiple systems are interfaced or when the system includes legacy system data. In the context of Interfaces, they function as an internal extract, transform, load (ETL) mechanism. For example, this is a metadata crosswalk from MARC standards to Dublin Core: Crosswalks show people where to put the data from one scheme into a different scheme. They are often used by libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural institutions to translate data to or from MARC standards, Dublin Core, Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and other metadata schemes. For example, an archive has a MARC record in its catalog describing a manuscript. Suppose the archive makes a digital copy of that manuscript and wants to display it on the web along with the information from the catalog. In that case, it will have to translate the data from the MARC catalog record into a different format, such as Metadata Object Description Schema, that is viewable on a webpage. Because MARC has various fields than MODS, decisions must be made about where to put the data into MODS. This type of "translating" from one format to another is often called "metadata mapping" or "field mapping," and is related to "data mapping", and "semantic mapping". Crosswalks also have several technical capabilities. They help databases using different metadata schemes to share information. They help metadata harvesters create union catalogs. They enable search engines to search multiple databases simultaneously with a single query. == Challenges for crosswalks == One of the biggest challenges for crosswalks is that no two metadata schemes are 100% equivalent. One scheme may have a field that doesn't exist in another scheme or a field that is split into two different fields in another scheme; this is why data is often lost when mapping from a complex scheme to a simpler one. For example, when mapping from MARC to Simple Dublin Core, the distinction between types of titles is lost: Simple Dublin Core only has one "Title" element, so all of the different types of MARC titles get lumped together without further distinctions. A future attempt to convert the metadata back into MARC would enter the information in the basic MARC 245 Title Statement field, with none of the original distinctions. This is why crosswalks are said to be "lateral" (one-way) mappings from one scheme to another. Separate crosswalks would be required to map from scheme A to scheme B and from scheme B to scheme A. === Difficulties in mapping === Other mapping problems arise when: One scheme has one element that needs to be split up with different parts of it placed in multiple other elements in the second scheme ("one-to-many" mapping) One scheme allows an element to be repeated more than once while another only allows that element to appear once with multiple terms in it Schemes have different data formats (e.g. John Doe or Doe, John) An element in one scheme is indexed, but the equivalent element in the other scheme is not Schemes may use different controlled vocabularies Schemes change their standards over time Some of these problems are not fixable. As Karen Coyle says in "Crosswalking Citation Metadata: The University of California's Experience," "The more metadata experience we have, the more it becomes clear that metadata perfection is not attainable, and anyone who attempts it will be sorely disappointed. When metadata is crosswalked between two or more unrelated sources, there will be data elements that cannot be reconciled in an ideal manner. The key to a successful metadata crosswalk is intelligent flexibility. It is essential to focus on the important goals and be willing to compromise to reach a practical conclusion to projects."

  Read more →
• 

  Magic Quadrant

  Magic Quadrant (MQ) is a series of market research reports published by research and advisory firm Gartner that rely on proprietary qualitative data analysis methods to demonstrate market trends, such as direction, maturity, and participants. Their analyses are conducted for several specific technology industries and are updated every 1–2 years: once an updated report has been published, its predecessor is "retired". == Rating == Gartner rates vendors upon two criteria: completeness of vision and ability to execute. Completeness of vision – Reflects the vendor's innovation, and whether the vendor drives or follows the market. Ability to execute – Summarizes factors such as the vendor's financial viability, market responsiveness, product development, sales channels and customer base. The two component scores lead to a vendor position in one of four quadrants: === Leaders === Vendors in the "Leaders" quadrant have the highest composite scores for their completeness of vision and ability to execute. A vendor in the Leaders quadrant has the market share, credibility, and marketing & sales capabilities needed to drive the acceptance of new technologies. These vendors demonstrate a clear understanding of market needs, they are innovators and thought leaders, and they have well-articulated plans that customers and prospects can use when designing their infrastructures and strategies. In addition, they have a presence in the five major geographical regions, consistent financial performance, and broad platform support. === Challengers === Vendors in the "Challengers" quadrant have high scores mainly for their ability to execute. They both participate in the market and execute well enough to be a serious threat to vendors in the "Leaders" quadrant. They have strong products, as well as sufficiently credible market position and resources to sustain continued growth. Financial viability is not an issue for vendors in the "Challengers" quadrant, but they lack the size and influence of vendors in the "Leaders" quadrant due to their relative lack of vision. === Visionaries === Vendors in the "Visionaries" quadrant have high scores mainly for their completeness of vision. They deliver innovative products that address operationally or financially important end-user problems at a broad scale, but have not yet demonstrated the ability to capture market share or maintain sustainable levels of profitability. Visionary vendors are frequently privately held companies and acquisition targets for larger, established companies. The likelihood of acquisition often reduces the risks associated with installing their systems. === Niche Players === Vendors in the "Niche Players" quadrant have relatively low scores for both their ability to execute and their completeness of vision. They are often narrowly focused on specific market or vertical segments. This quadrant often also includes vendors that are adapting their existing products to enter the market under consideration, or larger vendors having difficulty developing and executing on their vision. == Gartner Critical Capabilities == Gartner Critical Capabilities complement Magic Quadrant analysis to offer deeper insight into the products and services offered by multiple vendors by a comparative analysis that scores competing products or services against a set of critical differentiators identified by Gartner. Gartner has periodically ended Magic Quadrant listings for IT Service Management, Web Content Management, and other industries as those markets have fully matured or other factors rendered the analytic framework inapplicable. == Criticism == The Magic Quadrant, and analysts in general, skew the market: according to research, by applying their methodologies to describe a market, they change that marketplace to fit their tools. Another criticism is that open source vendors are not considered sufficiently by analysts like Gartner, as has been published in an online discussion between a VP from Talend and a German Research VP from Gartner. On May 29, 2009 (2009-05-29), software vendor ZL Technologies filed a federal lawsuit against Gartner that challenged the "legitimacy" of Gartner's Magic Quadrant rating system. Gartner filed a motion to dismiss by claiming First Amendment protection since it contends that its MQ reports contain "pure opinion", which legally means opinions that are not based on fact. The court threw out the ZL case because it lacked a specific complaint. The decision was upheld on appeal.

  Read more →