AI Code Zz

AI Code Zz — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  ActivityPub

  ActivityPub is a protocol and open standard for decentralized social networking. It provides a client-to-server (C2S) API for creating and modifying content, as well as a federated server-to-server (S2S) protocol for delivering notifications and content to other servers. ActivityPub is the defining standard of the Fediverse, a decentralised social network of various social interaction models, and content types, which consists of independently managed instances of software such as Mastodon, Pixelfed and PeerTube, among others. ActivityPub is considered to be an update to the ActivityPump protocol used in pump.io, and the official W3C repository for ActivityPub is identified as a fork of ActivityPump. The creation of a new standard for decentralized social networking was prompted by the complexity of OStatus, the most commonly used protocol at the time. OStatus was built using a multitude of technologies (such as Atom, Salmon, WebSub and WebFinger), a product of the infrastructure used in GNU social (the originator and largest user of the OStatus protocol), which made it difficult to implement the protocol into new software. OStatus was also only designed to work with microblogging services, with little flexibility to the types of data that it could hold. The standard was first published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) as a W3C Recommendation in January 2018 by the Social Web Working Group (SocialWG), a working group chartered to build the protocols and vocabularies needed to create a standard for social functionality. Shortly after, further development was moved to the Social Web Community Group (SocialCG), the successor to the SocialWG. == Design == ActivityPub uses the ActivityStreams 2.0 format for building its content, which itself uses JSON-LD. The three main data types used in ActivityPub are Objects, Activities and Actors. Objects are the most common data type, and can be images, videos, or more abstract items such as locations or events. Activities are actions that create and modify objects, for example a Create activity creates an object. Actors are representative of an individual, a group, an application or a service, and are the owners of objects. Every actor type contains an inbox and outbox stream, which sends and receives activities for a user. In order to publish data (for example liking an article), a user creates an activity that declares that they liked an Article object and publishes it to their outbox, where it is then delivered by the ActivityPub server via a POST request to the inboxes listed in the activity's to, bto, cc and bcc fields. The receiving servers then account for the newly received activity and update the article by adding the like action to it. === Example data === An example actor object that represents a user account: An example activity that likes an article object: An example article object: == Project status == The SocialCG previously organized a yearly free conference called ActivityPub Conf about the future of ActivityPub. Triages are held regularly to review issues pertaining to the ActivityPub and ActivityStreams 2.0 specifications as part of the SocialCG. In 2023, Germany's Sovereign Tech Fund donated €152,000 to socialweb.coop with the goal of building a new suite for testing various ActivityPub implementations and their compliance with the specification. === Adoption === The initial wave of adoption for ActivityPub (circa 2016–2018) came from software that was already using OStatus as their federation protocol, such as Mastodon, GNU social and Pleroma. Following the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022, many groups of users that were critical of the acquisition migrated to Mastodon, bringing new attention to the ActivityPub protocol with it. Various major social media platforms and corporations have since pledged to implement ActivityPub support, including Tumblr, Flipboard and Meta Platforms' Threads. Threads introduced crossposting to ActivityPub in 2024 for users outside of the European Economic Area, however full 2-way compatibility remains incomplete as of 2025. == Criticism == === Accidental denial-of-service attacks === Poorly optimized ActivityPub implementations can cause unintentional distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on other websites and servers, due to the decentralized nature of the network. An example would be Mastodon's implementation of OpenGraph link previews, wherein every instance that receives a post that contains a link with OpenGraph metadata will download the associated data, such as a thumbnail, in a very short timeframe, which can slow down or crash servers as a result of the sudden burst of requests. === Account migration === ActivityPub has been criticized for not natively supporting moving accounts from one server to another, forcing implementations to build their own solutions. While there has been work on building a standardized system for migrating accounts using the Move activity via the Fediverse Enhancement Proposal organization, the current proposal only allows for basic follower migration, with all other data remaining linked to the original account. === Missing content and data === ActivityPub implementations have been criticized for missing replies and parts of reply threads from remote posts, and presenting outdated statistics (e.g. likes and reposts) about remote posts. However, this isn't a problem with the ActivityPub protocol itself, but with implementations not refreshing their content for updated data when needed. == Software using ActivityPub == === Future implementations === Flarum, an internet forum software Forgejo, a Git forge and development platform === Uncertain future implementations === GitLab, a Git forge and development platform which had previously had an open issue discussing the topic, but was later closed due to the development team moving focus to other areas. Tumblr, a microblogging platform. Despite previous statements from Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg, ActivityPub integration has been delayed indefinitely. The integration would have been implemented with its WordPress migration, as the first-party plugin for interoperability would have been used for federation. Flickr, an image and video hosting site.

  Read more →
• 

  Distributed transaction

  A distributed transaction operates within a distributed environment, typically involving multiple nodes across a network depending on the location of the data. A key aspect of distributed transactions is atomicity, which ensures that the transaction is completed in its entirety or not executed at all. It's essential to note that distributed transactions are not limited to databases. The Open Group, a vendor consortium, proposed the X/Open Distributed Transaction Processing Model (X/Open XA), which became a de facto standard for the behavior of transaction model components. Databases are common transactional resources and, often, transactions span a couple of such databases. In this case, a distributed transaction can be seen as a database transaction that must be synchronized (or provide ACID properties) among multiple participating databases which are distributed among different physical locations. The isolation property (the I of ACID) poses a special challenge for multi database transactions, since the (global) serializability property could be violated, even if each database provides it (see also global serializability). In practice most commercial database systems use strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) for concurrency control, which ensures global serializability, if all the participating databases employ it. A common algorithm for ensuring correct completion of a distributed transaction is the two-phase commit (2PC). This algorithm is usually applied for updates able to commit in a short period of time, ranging from couple of milliseconds to couple of minutes. There are also long-lived distributed transactions, for example a transaction to book a trip, which consists of booking a flight, a rental car and a hotel. Since booking the flight might take up to a day to get a confirmation, two-phase commit is not applicable here, it will lock the resources for this long. In this case more sophisticated techniques that involve multiple undo levels are used. The way you can undo the hotel booking by calling a desk and cancelling the reservation, a system can be designed to undo certain operations (unless they are irreversibly finished). In practice, long-lived distributed transactions are implemented in systems based on web services. Usually these transactions utilize principles of compensating transactions, Optimism and Isolation Without Locking. The X/Open standard does not cover long-lived distributed transactions. Several technologies, including Jakarta Enterprise Beans and Microsoft Transaction Server fully support distributed transaction standards. == Synchronization == In event-driven architectures, distributed transactions can be synchronized through using request–response paradigm and it can be implemented in two ways: Creating two separate queues: one for requests and the other for replies. The event producer must wait until it receives the response. Creating one dedicated ephemeral queue for each request.

  Read more →
• 

  Token-based replay

  Token-based replay technique is a conformance checking algorithm that checks how well a process conforms with its model by replaying each trace on the model (in Petri net notation ). Using the four counters produced tokens, consumed tokens, missing tokens, and remaining tokens, it records the situations where a transition is forced to fire and the remaining tokens after the replay ends. Based on the count at each counter, we can compute the fitness value between the trace and the model. == The algorithm == Source: The token-replay technique uses four counters to keep track of a trace during the replaying: p: Produced tokens c: Consumed tokens m: Missing tokens (consumed while not there) r: Remaining tokens (produced but not consumed) Invariants: At any time: p + m ≥ c ≥ m {\displaystyle p+m\geq c\geq m} At the end: r = p + m − c {\displaystyle r=p+m-c} At the beginning, a token is produced for the source place (p = 1) and at the end, a token is consumed from the sink place (c' = c + 1). When the replay ends, the fitness value can be computed as follows: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})} == Example == Suppose there is a process model in Petri net notation as follows: === Example 1: Replay the trace (a, b, c, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} and c = 2 + 1 = 3 {\displaystyle c=2+1=3} ). Step 5: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } consumes 2 tokens and produces 1 token ( p = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle p=5+1=6} , c = 3 + 2 = 5 {\displaystyle c=3+2=5} ). Step 6: The token at the end place is consumed ( c = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle c=5+1=6} ). The trace is complete. The fitness of the trace ( a , b , c , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,c,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) = 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})=1} === Example 2: Replay the trace (a, b, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } needs to be fired but there are not enough tokens. One artificial token was produced and the missing token counter is increased by one ( m = 1 {\displaystyle m=1} ). The artificial token and the token at place [ b , d ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {b,d} ]} are consumed ( c = 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle c=2+2=4} ) and one token is produced at place end ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} ). Step 5: The token in the end place is consumed ( c = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle c=4+1=5} ). The trace is complete. There is one remaining token at place [ a , c ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {a,c} ]} ( r = 1 {\displaystyle r=1} ). The fitness of the trace ( a , b , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) = 0.8 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})=0.8}

  Read more →
• 

  MarkLogic Server

  MarkLogic Server is a document-oriented database developed by MarkLogic. It is a NoSQL multi-model database that evolved from an XML database to natively store JSON documents and RDF triples, the data model for semantics. MarkLogic is designed to be a data hub for operational and analytical data. == History == MarkLogic Server was built to address shortcomings with existing search and data products. The product first focused on using XML as the document markup standard and XQuery as the query standard for accessing collections of documents up to hundreds of terabytes in size. Currently the MarkLogic platform is widely used in publishing, government, finance and other sectors. MarkLogic's customers are mostly Global 2000 companies. == Technology == MarkLogic uses documents without upfront schemas to maintain a flexible data model. In addition to having a flexible data model, MarkLogic uses a distributed, scale-out architecture that can handle hundreds of billions of documents and hundreds of terabytes of data. It has received Common Criteria certification, and has high availability and disaster recovery. MarkLogic is designed to run on-premises and within public or private cloud environments like Amazon Web Services. == Features == Indexing MarkLogic indexes the content and structure of documents including words, phrases, relationships, and values in over 200 languages with tokenization, collation, and stemming for core languages. Functionality includes the ability to toggle range indexes, geospatial indexes, the RDF triple index, and reverse indexes on or off based on your data, the kinds of queries that you will run, and your desired performance. Full-text search MarkLogic supports search across its data and metadata using a word or phrase and incorporates Boolean logic, stemming, wildcards, case sensitivity, punctuation sensitivity, diacritic sensitivity, and search term weighting. Data can be searched using JavaScript, XQuery, SPARQL, and SQL. Semantics MarkLogic uses RDF triples to provide semantics for ease of storing metadata and querying. ACID Unlike other NoSQL databases, MarkLogic maintains ACID consistency for transactions. Replication MarkLogic provides high availability with replica sets. Scalability MarkLogic scales horizontally using sharding. MarkLogic can run over multiple servers, balancing the load or replicating data to keep the system up and running in the event of hardware failure. Security MarkLogic has built in security features such as element-level permissions and data redaction. Optic API for Relational Operations An API that lets developers view their data as documents, graphs or rows. Security MarkLogic provides redaction, encryption, and element-level security (allowing for control on read and write rights on parts of a document). == Applications == Banking Big Data Fraud prevention Insurance Claims Management and Underwriting Master data management Recommendation engines == Licensing == MarkLogic is available under various licensing and delivery models, namely a free Developer or an Essential Enterprise license.[3] Licenses are available from MarkLogic or directly from cloud marketplaces such as Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. == Releases == 2001 – Cerisent XQE 1: ACID transactions, Full-text search, XML Storage, XQuery, Role-based security 2004 – Cerisent XQE 2: Scale-out architecture, Enhanced search (stemming, thesaurus, wildcard), Backup and restore 2005 – MarkLogic Server 3: Continuing search improvements, Content Processing Framework (including PDF, Word, Excel, PPT), Failover 2008 – MarkLogic Server 4: Geospatial search, entity extraction, advanced XQuery, performance, scalability enhancements, auditing 2011 – MarkLogic Server 5: Flexible replication / DDIL, real-time indexing, advanced search, improved analytics, concurrency enhancements 2012 – MarkLogic Server 6: REST and Java APIs, App Builder, enhanced UI, improved search 2013 – MarkLogic Server 7: Semantic graph, bitemporal data, tiered storage, improved search, better management 2015 – MarkLogic Server 8: A Native JSON storage, Server-side JavaScript, Bitemporal, Node.js client API, Incremental backup, Flexible replication[16] 2017 – MarkLogic Server 9: Data integration across Relational and Non-Relational data, Advanced Encryption, Element Level Security, Redaction 2019 – MarkLogic Server 10: Enhanced Data Hub, improved SQL, security, analytics performance, cloud support 2022 – MarkLogic Server 11: MarkLogic Ops Director (Monitoring and Administration Improvements), expanded PKI 2025 – MarkLogic Server 12: Generative AI and Native Vector Search, Graph Algorithm Support, Virtual TDEs (relational views on the fly)

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithm selection

  Algorithm selection (sometimes also called per-instance algorithm selection or offline algorithm selection) is a meta-algorithmic technique to choose an algorithm from a portfolio on an instance-by-instance basis. It is motivated by the observation that on many practical problems, different algorithms have different performance characteristics. That is, while one algorithm performs well in some scenarios, it performs poorly in others and vice versa for another algorithm. If we can identify when to use which algorithm, we can optimize for each scenario and improve overall performance. This is what algorithm selection aims to do. The only prerequisite for applying algorithm selection techniques is that there exists (or that there can be constructed) a set of complementary algorithms. == Definition == Given a portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} , a set of instances i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}} and a cost metric m : P × I → R {\displaystyle m:{\mathcal {P}}\times {\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } , the algorithm selection problem consists of finding a mapping s : I → P {\displaystyle s:{\mathcal {I}}\to {\mathcal {P}}} from instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} to algorithms P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} such that the cost ∑ i ∈ I m ( s ( i ) , i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}m(s(i),i)} across all instances is optimized. == Examples == === Boolean satisfiability problem (and other hard combinatorial problems) === A well-known application of algorithm selection is the Boolean satisfiability problem. Here, the portfolio of algorithms is a set of (complementary) SAT solvers, the instances are Boolean formulas, the cost metric is for example average runtime or number of unsolved instances. So, the goal is to select a well-performing SAT solver for each individual instance. In the same way, algorithm selection can be applied to many other N P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {NP}}} -hard problems (such as mixed integer programming, CSP, AI planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and answer set programming). Competition-winning systems in SAT are SATzilla, 3S and CSHC === Machine learning === In machine learning, algorithm selection is better known as meta-learning. The portfolio of algorithms consists of machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, DNN), the instances are data sets and the cost metric is for example the error rate. So, the goal is to predict which machine learning algorithm will have a small error on each data set. == Instance features == The algorithm selection problem is mainly solved with machine learning techniques. By representing the problem instances by numerical features f {\displaystyle f} , algorithm selection can be seen as a multi-class classification problem by learning a mapping f i ↦ A {\displaystyle f_{i}\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}} for a given instance i {\displaystyle i} . Instance features are numerical representations of instances. For example, we can count the number of variables, clauses, average clause length for Boolean formulas, or number of samples, features, class balance for ML data sets to get an impression about their characteristics. === Static vs. probing features === We distinguish between two kinds of features: Static features are in most cases some counts and statistics (e.g., clauses-to-variables ratio in SAT). These features ranges from very cheap features (e.g. number of variables) to very complex features (e.g., statistics about variable-clause graphs). Probing features (sometimes also called landmarking features) are computed by running some analysis of algorithm behavior on an instance (e.g., accuracy of a cheap decision tree algorithm on an ML data set, or running for a short time a stochastic local search solver on a Boolean formula). These feature often cost more than simple static features. === Feature costs === Depending on the used performance metric m {\displaystyle m} , feature computation can be associated with costs. For example, if we use running time as performance metric, we include the time to compute our instance features into the performance of an algorithm selection system. SAT solving is a concrete example, where such feature costs cannot be neglected, since instance features for CNF formulas can be either very cheap (e.g., to get the number of variables can be done in constant time for CNFs in the DIMACs format) or very expensive (e.g., graph features which can cost tens or hundreds of seconds). It is important to take the overhead of feature computation into account in practice in such scenarios; otherwise a misleading impression of the performance of the algorithm selection approach is created. For example, if the decision which algorithm to choose can be made with perfect accuracy, but the features are the running time of the portfolio algorithms, there is no benefit to the portfolio approach. This would not be obvious if feature costs were omitted. == Approaches == === Regression approach === One of the first successful algorithm selection approaches predicted the performance of each algorithm m ^ A : I → R {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}:{\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } and selected the algorithm with the best predicted performance a r g min A ∈ P m ^ A ( i ) {\displaystyle arg\min _{{\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}}{\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}(i)} for an instance i {\displaystyle i} . === Clustering approach === A common assumption is that the given set of instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} can be clustered into homogeneous subsets and for each of these subsets, there is one well-performing algorithm for all instances in there. So, the training consists of identifying the homogeneous clusters via an unsupervised clustering approach and associating an algorithm with each cluster. A new instance is assigned to a cluster and the associated algorithm selected. A more modern approach is cost-sensitive hierarchical clustering using supervised learning to identify the homogeneous instance subsets. === Pairwise cost-sensitive classification approach === A common approach for multi-class classification is to learn pairwise models between every pair of classes (here algorithms) and choose the class that was predicted most often by the pairwise models. We can weight the instances of the pairwise prediction problem by the performance difference between the two algorithms. This is motivated by the fact that we care most about getting predictions with large differences correct, but the penalty for an incorrect prediction is small if there is almost no performance difference. Therefore, each instance i {\displaystyle i} for training a classification model A 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{1}} vs A 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{2}} is associated with a cost | m ( A 1 , i ) − m ( A 2 , i ) | {\displaystyle |m({\mathcal {A}}_{1},i)-m({\mathcal {A}}_{2},i)|} . == Requirements == The algorithm selection problem can be effectively applied under the following assumptions: The portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms is complementary with respect to the instance set I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} , i.e., there is no single algorithm A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} that dominates the performance of all other algorithms over I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} (see figures to the right for examples on complementary analysis). In some application, the computation of instance features is associated with a cost. For example, if the cost metric is running time, we have also to consider the time to compute the instance features. In such cases, the cost to compute features should not be larger than the performance gain through algorithm selection. == Application domains == Algorithm selection is not limited to single domains but can be applied to any kind of algorithm if the above requirements are satisfied. Application domains include: hard combinatorial problems: SAT, Mixed Integer Programming, CSP, AI Planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and Answer Set Programming combinatorial auctions in machine learning, the problem is known as meta-learning software design black-box optimization multi-agent systems numerical optimization linear algebra, differential equations evolutionary algorithms vehicle routing problem power systems For an extensive list of literature about algorithm selection, we refer to a literature overview. == Variants of algorithm selection == === Online selection === Online algorithm selection refers to switching between different algorithms during the solving process. This is useful as a hyper-heuristic. In contrast, offline algorithm selection selects an algorithm for a given instance only once and before the solving process. === Computation of schedules === An extension of algorithm selection is the per-instance algorithm scheduling problem, in which we do not select only one solver, but we select a time budget for each algorithm

  Read more →
• 

  Data Science Africa

  Data Science Africa (DSA) is a non-profit knowledge sharing professional group that aims at bringing together leading researchers and practitioners working on data science methods or applications relevant to Africa, and providing training on state of the art data science methods to students and others interested in developing practical skills. Since 2013, DSA has been organizing conference, workshops and summer schools on machine learning and data science across East Africa. Facilitators of Summer School and workshops are researchers and practitioners from the academia, private and public institutions across the world. == Summer schools and workshops == The first summer school which started as Gaussian Process Summer School was held at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda from 6th to 9 August 2013. The First Data Science Summer School and Workshop was held at Dedan Kimathi University of Technology in Nyeri, Kenya from 15th to 19 June 2015. The Second Data Science Summer School was held at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda from 27th to 29 July 2016, and the workshop was held at Pulse Lab, Kampala, Uganda from 30 July to 1 August 2016. The Third Data Science Summer School and Workshop was held at Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology, Tanzania from 19th to 21 July 2017. Among the sponsors of the event was ARM

  Read more →
• 

  Reverse data management

  Reverse data management describes a branch and set of research questions in relational database theory that aim to reverse the common focus of standard data management. Instead of focusing on the "forward" transformation of an input databases (a set of relational tables) to an output table, which is the main focus of standard query evaluation, reverse data management reverses that focus and studies the possible input database transformations that would achieve a desired output. Usually the objective is to find an intervention (a deletion, addition, or change of tuples) of minimal size, in order to achieve a particular change in the output. The problem has been studied at least since the 1980s, but has received renewed attention due to an influential paper in the early 2000s that made a connection between provenance and view propagation. The term was coined in a VLDB 2011 vision paper. The problem has been receiving significant attention in recent years due to its connection to computational fairness. == Topics in reverse data management problems == Example topics in reverse data management include: Deletion propagation with source side-effects: Find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to delete a particular tuple in the output. Deletion propagation with view side-effects: Find a set of tuples to delete in the database in order to delete a particular tuple in the output, while removing the minimal number of other output tuples. Causal responsibility: Find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to make a particular input tuple counterfactual. This notion is inspired by the notions of actual cause and causal responsibility from the work of Halpern and Pearl. Resilience: Find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to make a Boolean query false. The complexity of this problem is identical to the problem of deletion propagation with source-side effects over a different database. Smallest witness problem: Find a minimal number of tuples to keep in the a database (or equivalently, delete a maximal number of tuples) while keeping a particular tuple in the output. Minimum repair: Given a database that violates certain integrity constraints, find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to fulfill all constraints (also called to "repair" the database).

  Read more →
• 

  Social information architecture

  Social information architecture, also known as social iA, is a sub-domain of information architecture which deals with the social aspects of conceptualizing, modeling and organizing information. It has become more relevant because of the rise of social media and Web 2.0 in recent times. == Approach == There are different approaches to the explanation of social information architecture. === Architecture model (internal space) === Architects designing a physical community space, have to consider how the architecture will shape social interactions. A long hallway of offices creates an utterly different dynamic than desks with arranged in an open space. One might foster individuality, privacy, propriety; the other: collaboration, distraction, communalism. Still, physical spaces can be flexibly repurposed and worked around if the inhabitants desire a social dynamic not instantly afforded by the space. Office doors can be left open to invite easier interaction. Partitions can be raised between adjacent desks to limit distraction and increase privacy. That's physical architecture. The information architectures of online communities are far more deterministic and far less flexible. They literally define the social architecture by pre-specifying in immutable computer code what information you have access to, who you can talk to, where you can go. In the online world, information architecture = social architecture. === Social dialogue and information model (external space) === All major brands use information architecture to market their products online, it is then commonly wrapped under the umbrella phrase 'digital strategy'. Information architecture used for strategic purposes encompasses brand SEO, strategic placement of virals, social media presence etc. Charities, news outlets and social dialogue forums can make a much more specific use of the same tools for positive and important social purposes. Social Information Architecture is perceived as the socially conscious wing of commercial information architecture and function to exchange information and ideas between people and groups. Social iA can pick up on conflicting issues that are treated with misunderstanding between cultures and leaves individuals and societies vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. Since the net has such a far reach it is obvious to use it for meaningful and coordinated social dialogue. Example of such issues are faith, environment, politics, climate change, war, injustice and other social challenges. Information architecture can help create frameworks in which sharing information brings people together, inspires and encourages them to participate in a forward thinking and unfragmented way. One of its core activities is to spread messages that bring people from opposite sites of social and cultural spectrums together and to confront uncomfortable subject head on. == How does social information architecture work? == Social iA utilizes a variety of Web2.0 applications to filter relevant or valuable information and weave them in appropriate information repository or provide feedback to interesting channels. Social iA makes strategic use of Search Engines, Social Media, Google Algorithms, as well as websites, video & news channels. It ‘reads’ or 'listens' to social conversations and search engine queries and engages with the net actively to gather clues about the world's pulse on the internet. It assesses data, social & political trends, and respond with targeted campaigns to give people ideas, as well as help people with making sense of information. == Principals == Dan Brown in his paper 8 Principals of Social Information Architecture enlists the following principals: 1. The principle of objects: Treat content as a living, breathing thing, with a lifecycle, behaviors and attributes. 2. The principle of choices: Create pages that offer meaningful choices to users, keeping the range of choices available focused on a particular task. 3. The principle of disclosure: Show only enough information to help people understand what kinds of information they'll find as they dig deeper. 4. The principle of exemplars: Describe the contents of categories by showing examples of the contents. 5. The principle of front doors: Assume at least half of the website's visitors will come through some page other than the home page. 6. The principle of multiple classification: Offer users several different classification schemes to browse the site's content. 7. The principle of focused navigation: Don't mix apples and oranges in your navigation scheme. 8. The principle of growth: Assume the content you have today is a small fraction of the content you will have tomorrow. == What can social information architecture achieve? == Social information architecture has many potentials in terms of fostering social connections and how information is shared in social spaces on the web.

  Read more →
• 

  Cumulus (software)

  Cumulus is a digital asset management software designed for client/server system which is developed by Canto Software. The product makes use of metadata for indexing, organizing, and searching. == History == Cumulus was first released as a Macintosh application in 1992, and was named by Apple Computer as the "Most Innovative Product of 1992". Cumulus introduced search capabilities beyond those available in the Macintosh at the time, particularly relating to thumbnails. Cumulus 1.0 was a single-user product with no network capabilities. Among the main features of Cumulus 1.0, the search function automatically generated previews and contained support for the included AppleTalk – Peer-to-Peer – network. Cumulus 2.5 was available in five different languages and received the 1993 MacUser magazine Eddy award for "Best Publishing & Graphics Utility". In 1995, Canto introduced the scanner software "Cirrus" to focus on the development of Cumulus. Cumulus 3, released in 1996, introduced a server version for the first time and contained the possibility to spread files over the Internet via the "Web Publisher". Since Apple offered Cumulus 3 with its "Workgroup Server" as a bundle, Cumulus became one of the leading digital asset management systems. Cumulus 4 was the first version that was network-ready, and was available for Macintosh, Windows and UNIX operating systems allowing for cross-platform file sharing. Released in 1998, the support of Solaris was discounted later. Cumulus 5 modified the software core to use an open architecture providing an API to external systems and databases. The open architecture of Cumulus 5 also enabled a more functional bridge between Cumulus and the Internet. Cumulus 6 introduced Embedded Java Plugin (EJP) which allowed system integrators to build custom Java plug-ins in order to extend the functionality of the Cumulus client. Cumulus 6.5 marked the end of the Cumulus Single User Edition product, which was licensed to MediaDex for further development and distribution. Cumulus 7 was introduced summer of 2006. Cumulus 8 was released in June 2009, with new indexing capabilities taking advantage of multicore/multiprocessor systems, and ability to manage a wider variety of file formats. Cumulus 8.5 was released in May 2011. Support was added for multilingual metadata, sometimes referred to as "World Metadata." Cumulus Sites was updated to support metadata editing and file uploads. Cumulus 8.6 was released in July 2012, and contains an updated user interface for the administration of Cumulus Sites and additional features for web-based administration of Cumulus. Other additions include features for collaboration links, multi-language support and automated version control. Cumulus 9 was released in September 2013 and introduced a new Web Client User Interface and the Cumulus Video Cloud. The Cumulus Web Client UI was redesigned to provide users with a modern, easy-to-use interface to support and guide the user while addressing modern business needs. The Cumulus Video Cloud extends the Cumulus video handling capabilities to add conversion and global streaming. Cumulus 9 also saw the addition of upload collection links which allow external collaborators to drag and drop files directly into Cumulus without needing a Cumulus account. Cumulus 9.1 was released in May 2014 and introduced the Adobe Drive Adapter for Cumulus which allows users to browse and search digital assets in Cumulus directly from Adobe work environments such as Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Premier and other Adobe applications. Cumulus 10 (Cumulus X) was released July 2015 and introduced two mobile-friendly products: the Cumulus app and Portals. The Cumulus app on iOS was designed to allow users to collaborate either on an iPhone or iPad. Portals is the read-only version of the Cumulus Web Client where users can work with assets that admins allow. Cumulus 10.1 was introduced in January 2016 and included the InDesign Client integration where users can work with Adobe InDesign while accessing their assets from Cumulus. Cumulus 10.2 was introduced in September 2016 and brought the Media Delivery Cloud using Amazon Web Services (AWS). It allows users to manage their media rendition in a single source and distribute media files globally across different channels and devices. Cumulus 10.2.3 was released in February 2017 and came with a "crop and customize photos" feature for Portals and the Web Client. == Product overview == The cataloging of the file via upload into the archive is where Cumulus transfers maximum information about the file from the metadata. For image or photo files, this is typically Exif and IPTC data. The metadata is mainly used to search the archive. The use of embargo data supports license management for copyrighted material. The managed files can be cataloged and their usage can be set. The indexing is based on a predefined taxonomy, which is governed by the internal rules of the organization or by industry standards. You can specify whether files can only be used for specific purposes or only by certain groups of people. The production management system includes version management for files. Via the publication function, the files can be distributed directly via links or e-mails. It's also possible to access from the outside via the Cumulus Portals web interface, which allows a read access to released content from the catalog. There are different variants, starting with the "Workgroup archive server" up to the "Enterprise Business Server" for large companies. Both server and client are extensible through a Java-based plug-in architecture. Since version 7.0, there is a web application based on Ajax with a separate user interface. For access to the Cumulus catalog on mobile, there has been an application for Apple devices based on iOS since 2010. == Miscellaneous == In 2015, Cumulus developer Canto established the first Canto digital asset management (DAM) event. The event is held annually in Berlin. The Henry Stewart team has been hosting DAM conferences since 2006.

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge organization

  Knowledge organization (KO), organization of knowledge, organization of information, or information organization is an intellectual discipline concerned with activities such as document description, indexing, and classification that serve to provide systems of representation and order for knowledge and information objects. According to The Organization of Information by Joudrey and Taylor, information organization: examines the activities carried out and tools used by people who work in places that accumulate information resources (e.g., books, maps, documents, datasets, images) for the use of humankind, both immediately and for posterity. It discusses the processes that are in place to make resources findable, whether someone is searching for a single known item or is browsing through hundreds of resources just hoping to discover something useful. Information organization supports a myriad of information-seeking scenarios. Issues related to knowledge sharing can be said to have been an important part of knowledge management for a long time. Knowledge sharing has received a lot of attention in research and business practice both within and outside organizations and its different levels. Sharing knowledge is not only about giving it to others, but it also includes searching, locating, and absorbing knowledge. Unawareness of the employees' work and duties tends to provoke the repetition of mistakes, the waste of resources, and duplication of the same projects. Motivating co-workers to share their knowledge is called knowledge enabling. It leads to trust among individuals and encourages a more open and proactive relationship that grants the exchange of information easily. Knowledge sharing is part of the three-phase knowledge management process which is a continuous process model. The three parts are knowledge creation, knowledge implementation, and knowledge sharing. The process is continuous, which is why the parts cannot be fully separated. Knowledge creation is the consequence of individuals' minds, interactions, and activities. Developing new ideas and arrangements alludes to the process of knowledge creation. Using the knowledge which is present at the company in the most effective manner stands for the implementation of knowledge. Knowledge sharing, the most essential part of the process for our topic, takes place when two or more people benefit by learning from each other. Traditional human-based approaches performed by librarians, archivists, and subject specialists are increasingly challenged by computational (big data) algorithmic techniques. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge-organizing processes (KOP) (such as taxonomy and ontology) as well as the resulting knowledge organizing systems (KOS). == Theoretical approaches == === Traditional approaches === Among the major figures in the history of KO are Melvil Dewey (1851–1931) and Henry Bliss (1870–1955). Dewey's goal was an efficient way to manage library collections; not an optimal system to support users of libraries. His system was meant to be used in many libraries as a standardized way to manage collections. The first version of this system was created in 1876. An important characteristic in Henry Bliss' (and many contemporary thinkers of KO) was that the sciences tend to reflect the order of Nature and that library classification should reflect the order of knowledge as uncovered by science: The implication is that librarians, in order to classify books, should know about scientific developments. This should also be reflected in their education: Again from the standpoint of the higher education of librarians, the teaching of systems of classification ... would be perhaps better conducted by including courses in the systematic encyclopedia and methodology of all the sciences, that is to say, outlines which try to summarize the most recent results in the relation to one another in which they are now studied together. ... (Ernest Cushing Richardson, quoted from Bliss, 1935, p. 2) Among the other principles, which may be attributed to the traditional approach to KO are: Principle of controlled vocabulary Cutter's rule about specificity Hulme's principle of literary warrant (1911) Principle of organizing from the general to the specific Today, after more than 100 years of research and development in LIS, the "traditional" approach still has a strong position in KO and in many ways its principles still dominate. === Facet analytic approaches === The date of the foundation of this approach may be chosen as the publication of S. R. Ranganathan's colon classification in 1933. The approach has been further developed by, in particular, the British Classification Research Group. The best way to explain this approach is probably to explain its analytico-synthetic methodology. The meaning of the term "analysis" is: breaking down each subject into its basic concepts. The meaning of the term synthesis is: combining the relevant units and concepts to describe the subject matter of the information package in hand. Given subjects (as they appear in, for example, book titles) are first analyzed into a few common categories, which are termed "facets". Ranganathan proposed his PMEST formula: Personality, Matter, Energy, Space and Time: Personality is the distinguishing characteristic of a subject. Matter is the physical material of which a subject may be composed. Energy is any action that occurs with respect to the subject. Space is the geographic component of the location of a subject. Time is the period associated with a subject. === The information retrieval tradition (IR) === Important in the IR-tradition have been, among others, the Cranfield experiments, which were founded in the 1950s, and the TREC experiments (Text Retrieval Conferences) starting in 1992. It was the Cranfield experiments, which introduced the measures "recall" and "precision" as evaluation criteria for systems efficiency. The Cranfield experiments found that classification systems like UDC and facet-analytic systems were less efficient compared to free-text searches or low level indexing systems ("UNITERM"). The Cranfield I test found, according to Ellis (1996, 3–6) the following results: Although these results have been criticized and questioned, the IR-tradition became much more influential while library classification research lost influence. The dominant trend has been to regard only statistical averages. What has largely been neglected is to ask: Are there certain kinds of questions in relation to which other kinds of representation, for example, controlled vocabularies, may improve recall and precision? === User-oriented and cognitive views === The best way to define this approach is probably by method: Systems based upon user-oriented approaches must specify how the design of a system is made on the basis of empirical studies of users. User studies demonstrated very early that users prefer verbal search systems as opposed to systems based on classification notations. This is one example of a principle derived from empirical studies of users. Adherents of classification notations may, of course, still have an argument: That notations are well-defined and that users may miss important information by not considering them. Folksonomies is a recent kind of KO based on users' rather than on librarians' or subject specialists' indexing. === Bibliometric approaches === These approaches are primarily based on using bibliographical references to organize networks of papers, mainly by bibliographic coupling (introduced by Kessler 1963) or co-citation analysis ( independently suggested by Marshakova 1973 and Small 1973). In recent years it has become a popular activity to construe bibliometric maps as structures of research fields. Two considerations are important in considering bibliometric approaches to KO: The level of indexing depth is partly determined by the number of terms assigned to each document. In citation indexing this corresponds to the number of references in a given paper. On the average, scientific papers contain 10–15 references, which provide quite a high level of depth. The references, which function as access points, are provided by the highest subject-expertise: The experts writing in the leading journals. This expertise is much higher than that which library catalogs or bibliographical databases typically are able to draw on. === The domain analytic approach === Domain analysis is a sociological-epistemological standpoint that advocates that the indexing of a given document should reflect the needs of a given group of users or a given ideal purpose. In other words, any description or representation of a given document is more or less suited to the fulfillment of certain tasks. A description is never objective or neutral, and the goal is not to standardize descriptions or make one description once and for all for different target groups. The develo

  Read more →
• 

  Query language

  A query language, also known as data query language or database query language (DQL), is a computer language used to make queries in databases and information systems. In database systems, query languages rely on strict theory to retrieve information. A well known example is the Structured Query Language (SQL). == Types == Broadly, query languages can be classified according to whether they are database query languages or information retrieval query languages. The difference is that a database query language attempts to give factual answers to factual questions, while an information retrieval query language attempts to find documents containing information that is relevant to an area of inquiry. Other types of query languages include: Full-text. The simplest query language is treating all terms as bag of words that are to be matched with the postings in the inverted index and where subsequently ranking models are applied to retrieve the most relevant documents. Only tokens are defined in the CFG. Web search engines often use this approach. Boolean. A query language that also supports the use of the Boolean operators AND, OR, NOT. Structured. A language that supports searching within (a combination of) fields when a document is structured and has been indexed using its document structure. Natural language. A query language that supports natural language by parsing the natural language query to a form that can be best used to retrieve relevant documents, for example with Question answering systems or conversational search. == Examples == Attempto Controlled English is a query language that is also a controlled natural language. AQL is a query language for the ArangoDB native multi-model database system. .QL is a proprietary object-oriented query language for querying relational databases; successor of Datalog. CodeQL is the analysis engine used by developers to automate security checks, and by security researchers to perform variant analysis on GitHub. Contextual Query Language (CQL) a formal language for representing queries to information retrieval systems such as web indexes or bibliographic catalogues. Cypher is a query language for the Neo4j graph database. DMX is a query language for data mining models. Datalog is a query language for deductive databases. F-logic is a declarative object-oriented language for deductive databases and knowledge representation. FQL enables you to use a SQL-style interface to query the data exposed by the Graph API. It provides advanced features not available in the Graph API. Gellish English is a language that can be used for queries in Gellish English Databases, for dialogues (requests and responses) as well as for information modeling and knowledge modeling. Gremlin is an Apache Software Foundation graph traversal language for OLTP and OLAP graph systems. GraphQL is a data query language developed by Facebook as an alternate to REST and ad-hoc webservice architectures. HTSQL is a query language that translates HTTP queries to SQL. ISBL is a query language for PRTV, one of the earliest relational database management systems. Jaql is a functional data processing and query language most commonly used for JSON query processing. JPQL is a query language defined as part of Jakarta Persistence (used in Java applications to make queries to a relational DB using entity objects instead of DB tables). jq is a functional programming language often used for processing queries against one or more JSON documents, including very large ones. JSONiq is a declarative query language designed for collections of JSON documents. KQL (Kusto Query Language), a query language by Microsoft used in Azure Data Explorer LDAP is an application protocol for querying and modifying directory services running over TCP/IP. LogiQL is a variant of Datalog and is the query language for the LogicBlox system. M Formula language, a mashup query language used in Microsoft's Power Query. MQL is a cheminformatics query language for a substructure search allowing beside nominal properties also numerical properties. MDX is a query language for OLAP databases. N1QL is a Couchbase's query language finding data in Couchbase Servers. Object Query Language OCL (Object Constraint Language). Despite its name, OCL is also an object query language and an OMG standard. OPath, intended for use in querying WinFS Stores. Poliqarp Query Language is a special query language designed to analyze annotated text. Used in the Poliqarp search engine. PQL is a special-purpose programming language for managing process models based on information about scenarios that these models describe. PRQL PRQL (Pipelined Relational Query Language) is a modern language for transforming data. Consists of a curated set of orthogonal transformations, which are combined together to form a pipeline. PTQL based on relational queries over program traces, allowing programmers to write expressive, declarative queries about program behavior. QUEL is a relational database access language, similar in most ways to SQL. RDQL is a RDF query language. SMARTS is the cheminformatics standard for a substructure search. SPARQL is a query language for RDF graphs. SQL is a well-known query language and data manipulation language for relational databases. XQuery is a query language for XML data sources. XPath is a declarative language for navigating XML documents. YQL is an SQL-like query language created by Yahoo!. Search engine query languages, e.g., as used by Google. or Bing

  Read more →
• 

  Information history

  Information history may refer to the history of each of the categories listed below (or to combinations of them). It should be recognized that the understanding of, for example, libraries as information systems only goes back to about 1950. The application of the term information for earlier systems or societies is a retronym. == Academic discipline == Information history is an emerging discipline related to, but broader than, library history. An important introduction and review was made by Alistair Black (2006). A prolific scholar in this field is also Toni Weller, for example, Weller (2007, 2008, 2010a and 2010b). As part of her work Toni Weller has argued that there are important links between the modern information age and its historical precedents. A description from Russia is Volodin (2000). Alistair Black (2006, p. 445) wrote: "This chapter explores issues of discipline definition and legitimacy by segmenting information history into its various components: The history of print and written culture, including relatively long-established areas such as the histories of libraries and librarianship, book history, publishing history, and the history of reading. The history of more recent information disciplines and practice, that is to say, the history of information management, information systems, and information science. The history of contiguous areas, such as the history of the information society and information infrastructure, necessarily enveloping communication history (including telecommunications history) and the history of information policy. The history of information as social history, with emphasis on the importance of informal information networks." "Bodies influential in the field include the American Library Association’s Round Table on Library History, the Library History Section of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and, in the U.K., the Library and Information History Group of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). Each of these bodies has been busy in recent years, running conferences and seminars, and initiating scholarly projects. Active library history groups function in many other countries, including Germany (The Wolfenbuttel Round Table on Library History, the History of the Book and the History of Media, located at the Herzog August Bibliothek), Denmark (The Danish Society for Library History, located at the Royal School of Library and Information Science), Finland (The Library History Research Group, University of Tamepere), and Norway (The Norwegian Society for Book and Library History). Sweden has no official group dedicated to the subject, but interest is generated by the existence of a museum of librarianship in Bods, established by the Library Museum Society and directed by Magnus Torstensson. Activity in Argentina, where, as in Europe and the U.S., a "new library history" has developed, is described by Parada (2004)." (Black (2006, p. 447). === Journals === Information & Culture (previously Libraries & the Cultural Record, Libraries & Culture) Library & Information History (until 2008: Library History; until 1967: Library Association. Library History Group. Newsletter) == Information technology (IT) == The term IT is ambiguous although mostly synonym with computer technology. Haigh (2011, pp. 432-433) wrote "In fact, the great majority of references to information technology have always been concerned with computers, although the exact meaning has shifted over time (Kline, 2006). The phrase received its first prominent usage in a Harvard Business Review article (Haigh, 2001b; Leavitt & Whisler, 1958) intended to promote a technocratic vision for the future of business management. Its initial definition was at the conjunction of computers, operations research methods, and simulation techniques. Having failed initially to gain much traction (unlike related terms of a similar vintage such as information systems, information processing, and information science) it was revived in policy and economic circles in the 1970s with a new meaning. Information technology now described the expected convergence of the computing, media, and telecommunications industries (and their technologies), understood within the broader context of a wave of enthusiasm for the computer revolution, post-industrial society, information society (Webster, 1995), and other fashionable expressions of the belief that new electronic technologies were bringing a profound rupture with the past. As it spread broadly during the 1980s, IT increasingly lost its association with communications (and, alas, any vestigial connection to the idea of anybody actually being informed of anything) to become a new and more pretentious way of saying "computer". The final step in this process is the recent surge in references to "information and communication technologies" or ICTs, a coinage that makes sense only if one assumes that a technology can inform without communicating". Some people use the term information technology about technologies used before the development of the computer. This is however to use the term as a retronym. =

  Read more →
• 

  Glyph (data visualization)

  In the context of data visualization, a glyph is any marker, such as an arrow or similar marking, used to specify part of a visualization. This is a representation to visualize data where the data set is presented as a collection of visual objects. These visual objects are collectively called a glyph. It helps visualizing data relation in data analysis, statistics, etc. by using any custom notation. In the context of data visualization, a glyph is the visual representation of a piece of data where the attributes of a graphical entity are dictated by one or more attributes of a data record. == Constructing glyphs == Glyph construction can be a complex process when there are many dimensions to be represented in the visualization. Maguire et al proposed a taxonomy based approach to glyph-design that uses a tree to guide the visual encodings used to representation various data items. Duffy et al created perhaps one of the most complex glyph representations with their representation of sperm movement.

  Read more →
• 

  Timeline of algorithms

  The following timeline of algorithms outlines the development of algorithms (mainly "mathematical recipes") since their inception. == Antiquity == Before – writing about "recipes" (on cooking, rituals, agriculture and other themes) c. 1700–2000 BC – Egyptians develop earliest known algorithms for multiplying two numbers c. 1600 BC – Babylonians develop earliest known algorithms for factorization and finding square roots c. 300 BC – Euclid's algorithm c. 200 BC – the Sieve of Eratosthenes 263 AD – Gaussian elimination described by Liu Hui == Medieval Period == 628 – Chakravala method described by Brahmagupta c. 820 – Al-Khawarizmi described algorithms for solving linear equations and quadratic equations in his Algebra; the word algorithm comes from his name 825 – Al-Khawarizmi described the algorism, algorithms for using the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, in his treatise On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, which was translated into Latin as Algoritmi de numero Indorum, where "Algoritmi", the translator's rendition of the author's name gave rise to the word algorithm (Latin algorithmus) with a meaning "calculation method" c. 850 – cryptanalysis and frequency analysis algorithms developed by Al-Kindi (Alkindus) in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages, which contains algorithms on breaking encryptions and ciphers c. 1025 – Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, and in turn, he develops an algorithm for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers c. 1400 – Ahmad al-Qalqashandi gives a list of ciphers in his Subh al-a'sha which include both substitution and transposition, and for the first time, a cipher with multiple substitutions for each plaintext letter; he also gives an exposition on and worked example of cryptanalysis, including the use of tables of letter frequencies and sets of letters which can not occur together in one word == Before 1940 == 1540 – Lodovico Ferrari discovered a method to find the roots of a quartic polynomial 1545 – Gerolamo Cardano published Cardano's method for finding the roots of a cubic polynomial 1614 – John Napier develops method for performing calculations using logarithms 1671 – Newton–Raphson method developed by Isaac Newton 1690 – Newton–Raphson method independently developed by Joseph Raphson 1706 – John Machin develops a quickly converging inverse-tangent series for π and computes π to 100 decimal places 1768 – Leonhard Euler publishes his method for numerical integration of ordinary differential equations in problem 85 of Institutiones calculi integralis 1789 – Jurij Vega improves Machin's formula and computes π to 140 decimal places, 1805 – FFT-like algorithm known by Carl Friedrich Gauss 1842 – Ada Lovelace writes the first algorithm for a computing engine 1903 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm presented by Carle David Tolmé Runge 1918 - Soundex 1926 – Borůvka's algorithm 1926 – Primary decomposition algorithm presented by Grete Hermann 1927 – Hartree–Fock method developed for simulating a quantum many-body system in a stationary state. 1934 – Delaunay triangulation developed by Boris Delaunay 1936 – Turing machine, an abstract machine developed by Alan Turing, with others developed the modern notion of algorithm. == 1940s == 1942 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm developed by G.C. Danielson and Cornelius Lanczos 1945 – Merge sort developed by John von Neumann 1947 – Simplex algorithm developed by George Dantzig == 1950s == 1950 – Hamming codes developed by Richard Hamming 1952 – Huffman coding developed by David A. Huffman 1953 – Simulated annealing introduced by Nicholas Metropolis 1954 – Radix sort computer algorithm developed by Harold H. Seward 1964 – Box–Muller transform for fast generation of normally distributed numbers published by George Edward Pelham Box and Mervin Edgar Muller. Independently pre-discovered by Raymond E. A. C. Paley and Norbert Wiener in 1934. 1956 – Kruskal's algorithm developed by Joseph Kruskal 1956 – Ford–Fulkerson algorithm developed and published by R. Ford Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson 1957 – Prim's algorithm developed by Robert Prim 1957 – Bellman–Ford algorithm developed by Richard E. Bellman and L. R. Ford, Jr. 1959 – Dijkstra's algorithm developed by Edsger Dijkstra 1959 – Shell sort developed by Donald L. Shell 1959 – De Casteljau's algorithm developed by Paul de Casteljau 1959 – QR factorization algorithm developed independently by John G.F. Francis and Vera Kublanovskaya 1959 – Rabin–Scott powerset construction for converting NFA into DFA published by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott == 1960s == 1960 – Karatsuba multiplication 1961 – CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) invented by W. Wesley Peterson 1962 – AVL trees 1962 – Quicksort developed by C. A. R. Hoare 1962 – Bresenham's line algorithm developed by Jack E. Bresenham 1962 – Gale–Shapley 'stable-marriage' algorithm developed by David Gale and Lloyd Shapley 1964 – Heapsort developed by J. W. J. Williams 1964 – multigrid methods first proposed by R. P. Fedorenko 1965 – Cooley–Tukey algorithm rediscovered by James Cooley and John Tukey 1965 – Levenshtein distance developed by Vladimir Levenshtein 1965 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Tadao Kasami 1965 – Buchberger's algorithm for computing Gröbner bases developed by Bruno Buchberger 1965 – LR parsers invented by Donald Knuth 1966 – Dantzig algorithm for shortest path in a graph with negative edges 1967 – Viterbi algorithm proposed by Andrew Viterbi 1967 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Daniel H. Younger 1968 – A graph search algorithm described by Peter Hart, Nils Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael 1968 – Risch algorithm for indefinite integration developed by Robert Henry Risch 1969 – Strassen algorithm for matrix multiplication developed by Volker Strassen == 1970s == 1970 – Dinic's algorithm for computing maximum flow in a flow network by Yefim (Chaim) A. Dinitz 1970 – Knuth–Bendix completion algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Peter B. Bendix 1970 – BFGS method of the quasi-Newton class 1970 – Needleman–Wunsch algorithm published by Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch 1972 – Edmonds–Karp algorithm published by Jack Edmonds and Richard Karp, essentially identical to Dinic's algorithm from 1970 1972 – Graham scan developed by Ronald Graham 1972 – Red–black trees and B-trees discovered 1973 – RSA encryption algorithm discovered by Clifford Cocks 1973 – Jarvis march algorithm developed by R. A. Jarvis 1973 – Hopcroft–Karp algorithm developed by John Hopcroft and Richard Karp 1974 – Pollard's p − 1 algorithm developed by John Pollard 1974 – Quadtree developed by Raphael Finkel and J.L. Bentley 1975 – Genetic algorithms popularized by John Holland 1975 – Pollard's rho algorithm developed by John Pollard 1975 – Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm developed by Alfred V. Aho and Margaret J. Corasick 1975 – Cylindrical algebraic decomposition developed by George E. Collins 1976 – Salamin–Brent algorithm independently discovered by Eugene Salamin and Richard Brent 1976 – Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Vaughan Pratt and independently by J. H. Morris 1977 – Boyer–Moore string-search algorithm for searching the occurrence of a string into another string. 1977 – RSA encryption algorithm rediscovered by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman 1977 – LZ77 algorithm developed by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1977 – multigrid methods developed independently by Achi Brandt and Wolfgang Hackbusch 1978 – LZ78 algorithm developed from LZ77 by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1978 – Bruun's algorithm proposed for powers of two by Georg Bruun 1979 – Khachiyan's ellipsoid method developed by Leonid Khachiyan 1979 – ID3 decision tree algorithm developed by Ross Quinlan == 1980s == 1980 – Brent's Algorithm for cycle detection Richard P. Brendt 1981 – Quadratic sieve developed by Carl Pomerance 1981 – Smith–Waterman algorithm developed by Temple F. Smith and Michael S. Waterman 1983 – Simulated annealing developed by S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt and M. P. Vecchi 1983 – Classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm developed by Leo Breiman, et al. 1984 – LZW algorithm developed from LZ78 by Terry Welch 1984 – Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm developed by Narendra Karmarkar 1984 – ACORN PRNG discovered by Roy Wikramaratna and used privately 1985 – Simulated annealing independently developed by V. Cerny 1985 – Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics developed by Roberto Car and Michele Parrinello 1985 – Splay trees discovered by Sleator and Tarjan 1986 – Blum Blum Shub proposed by L. Blum, M. Blum, and M. Shub 1986 – Push relabel maximum flow algorithm by Andrew Goldberg and Robert Tarjan 1986 – Barnes–Hut tree method developed by Josh Barnes and Piet Hut for fast approximate simulation of n-body problems 1987 – Fast multipole method developed by Leslie Greengard and Vladimir

  Read more →
• 

  Record linkage

  Record linkage (also known as data matching, data linkage, entity resolution, and many other terms) is the task of finding records in a data set that refer to the same entity across different data sources (e.g., data files, books, websites, and databases). Record linkage is necessary when joining different data sets based on entities that may or may not share a common identifier (e.g., database key, URI, National identification number), which may be due to differences in record shape, storage location, or curator style or preference. A data set that has undergone RL-oriented reconciliation may be referred to as being cross-linked. == Naming conventions == "Record linkage" is the term used by statisticians, epidemiologists, and historians, among others, to describe the process of joining records from one data source with another that describe the same entity. However, many other terms are used for this process. Unfortunately, this profusion of terminology has led to few cross-references between these research communities. Computer scientists often refer to it as "data matching" or as the "object identity problem". Commercial mail and database applications refer to it as "merge/purge processing" or "list washing". Other names used to describe the same concept include: "coreference/entity/identity/name/record resolution", "entity disambiguation/linking", "fuzzy matching", "duplicate detection", "deduplication", "record matching", "(reference) reconciliation", "object identification", "data/information integration" and "conflation". While they share similar names, record linkage and linked data are two separate approaches to processing and structuring data. Although both involve identifying matching entities across different data sets, record linkage standardly equates "entities" with human individuals; by contrast, Linked Data is based on the possibility of interlinking any web resource across data sets, using a correspondingly broader concept of identifier, namely a URI. == History == The initial idea of record linkage goes back to Halbert L. Dunn in his 1946 article titled "Record Linkage" published in the American Journal of Public Health. Howard Borden Newcombe then laid the probabilistic foundations of modern record linkage theory in a 1959 article in Science. These were formalized in 1969 by Ivan Fellegi and Alan Sunter, in their pioneering work "A Theory For Record Linkage", where they proved that the probabilistic decision rule they described was optimal when the comparison attributes were conditionally independent. In their work they recognized the growing interest in applying advances in computing and automation to large collections of administrative data, and the Fellegi-Sunter theory remains the mathematical foundation for many record linkage applications. Since the late 1990s, various machine learning techniques have been developed that can, under favorable conditions, be used to estimate the conditional probabilities required by the Fellegi-Sunter theory. Several researchers have reported that the conditional independence assumption of the Fellegi-Sunter algorithm is often violated in practice; however, published efforts to explicitly model the conditional dependencies among the comparison attributes have not resulted in an improvement in record linkage quality. On the other hand, machine learning or neural network algorithms that do not rely on these assumptions often provide far higher accuracy, when sufficient labeled training data is available. Record linkage can be done entirely without the aid of a computer, but the primary reasons computers are often used to complete record linkages are to reduce or eliminate manual review and to make results more easily reproducible. Computer matching has the advantages of allowing central supervision of processing, better quality control, speed, consistency, and better reproducibility of results. == Methods == === Data preprocessing === Record linkage is highly sensitive to the quality of the data being linked, so all data sets under consideration (particularly their key identifier fields) should ideally undergo a data quality assessment before record linkage. Many key identifiers for the same entity can be presented quite differently between (and even within) data sets, which can greatly complicate record linkage unless understood ahead of time. For example, key identifiers for a man named William J. Smith might appear in three different data sets as follows: In this example, the different formatting styles lead to records that look different but in fact all refer to the same entity with the same logical identifier values. Most, if not all, record linkage strategies would result in more accurate linkage if these values were first normalized or standardized into a consistent format (e.g., all names are "Surname, Given name", and all dates are "YYYY/MM/DD"). Standardization can be accomplished through simple rule-based data transformations or more complex procedures such as lexicon-based tokenization and probabilistic hidden Markov models. Several of the packages listed in the Software Implementations section provide some of these features to simplify the process of data standardization. === Entity resolution === Entity resolution is an operational intelligence process, typically powered by an entity resolution engine or middleware, whereby organizations can connect disparate data sources with a view to understand possible entity matches and non-obvious relationships across multiple data silos. It analyzes all of the information relating to individuals and/or entities from multiple sources of data, and then applies likelihood and probability scoring to determine which identities are a match and what, if any, non-obvious relationships exist between those identities. Entity resolution engines are typically used to uncover risk, fraud, and conflicts of interest, but are also useful tools for use within customer data integration (CDI) and master data management (MDM) requirements. Typical uses for entity resolution engines include terrorist screening, insurance fraud detection, USA Patriot Act compliance, organized retail crime ring detection and applicant screening. For example, across different data silos – employee records, vendor data, watch lists, etc. – an organization may have several variations of an entity named ABC, which may or may not be the same individual. These entries may, in fact, appear as ABC1, ABC2, or ABC3 within those data sources. By comparing similarities between underlying attributes such as address, date of birth, or social security number, the user can eliminate some possible matches and confirm others as very likely matches. Entity resolution engines then apply rules, based on common sense logic, to identify hidden relationships across the data. In the example above, perhaps ABC1 and ABC2 are not the same individual, but rather two distinct people who share common attributes such as address or phone number. ==== Data matching ==== While entity resolution solutions include data matching technology, many data matching offerings do not fit the definition of entity resolution. Here are four factors that distinguish entity resolution from data matching, according to John Talburt, director of the UALR Center for Advanced Research in Entity Resolution and Information Quality: Works with both structured and unstructured records, and it entails the process of extracting references when the sources are unstructured or semi-structured Uses elaborate business rules and concept models to deal with missing, conflicting, and corrupted information Utilizes non-matching, asserted linking (associate) information in addition to direct matching Uncovers non-obvious relationships and association networks (i.e. who's associated with whom) In contrast to data quality products, more powerful identity resolution engines also include a rules engine and workflow process, which apply business intelligence to the resolved identities and their relationships. These advanced technologies make automated decisions and impact business processes in real time, limiting the need for human intervention. === Deterministic record linkage === The simplest kind of record linkage, called deterministic or rules-based record linkage, generates links based on the number of individual identifiers that match among the available data sets. Two records are said to match via a deterministic record linkage procedure if all or some identifiers (above a certain threshold) are identical. Deterministic record linkage is a good option when the entities in the data sets are identified by a common identifier, or when there are several representative identifiers (e.g., name, date of birth, and sex when identifying a person) whose quality of data is relatively high. As an example, consider two standardized data sets, Set A and Set B, that contain different bits of information about patients in a hospital system. T

  Read more →