Babelfy is a software algorithm for the disambiguation of text written in any language. It performs the tasks of multilingual Word Sense Disambiguation (i.e., the disambiguation of common nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) and Entity Linking (i.e. the disambiguation of mentions to encyclopedic entities like people, companies, places, etc.). == Overview == Babelfy uses the BabelNet multilingual knowledge graph to perform disambiguation and entity linking in three steps: It associates with each vertex of the BabelNet semantic network, i.e., either concept or named entity, a semantic signature, that is, a set of related vertices. This is a preliminary step which needs to be performed only once, independently of the input text. Given an input text, it extracts all the linkable fragments from this text and, for each of them, lists the possible meanings according to the semantic network. It creates a graph-based semantic interpretation of the whole text by linking the candidate meanings of the extracted fragments using the previously computed semantic signatures. It then extracts a dense subgraph of this representation and selects the best candidate meaning for each fragment. As a result, the text, written in any of the 271 languages supported by BabelNet, is output with possibly overlapping semantic annotations.
Zero-day vulnerability
A zero-day (also known as a 0-day) is a vulnerability or security hole in a computer system unknown to its developers or anyone capable of mitigating it. Until the vulnerability is remedied, threat actors can exploit it in a zero-day exploit, or zero-day attack. The term "zero-day" originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so "zero-day software" was obtained by hacking into a developer's computer before release. Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them. Vendors who discover the vulnerability may create patches or advise workarounds to mitigate it, though users need to deploy that mitigation to eliminate the vulnerability in their systems. Zero-day attacks are severe threats. == Definition == Despite developers' goal of delivering a product that works entirely as intended, virtually all products contain software and hardware bugs. If a bug creates a security risk, it is called a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities vary in their ability to be exploited by malicious actors. Some are not usable at all, while others can be used to disrupt the device with a denial of service attack. The most dangerous allow the attacker to inject and run their own code, without the user being aware of it. Although the term "zero-day" initially referred to the time since the vendor had become aware of the vulnerability, zero-day vulnerabilities can also be defined as the subset of vulnerabilities for which no patch or other fix is available. A zero-day exploit is any exploit that takes advantage of such a vulnerability. == Exploits == An exploit is the delivery mechanism that takes advantage of the vulnerability to penetrate the target's systems, for such purposes as disrupting operations, installing malware, or exfiltrating data. Researchers Lillian Ablon and Andy Bogart write that "little is known about the true extent, use, benefit, and harm of zero-day exploits". Exploits based on zero-day vulnerabilities are considered more dangerous than those that take advantage of a known vulnerability. However, it is likely that most cyberattacks use known vulnerabilities, not zero-days. Governments of states are the primary users of zero-day exploits, not only because of the high cost of finding or buying vulnerabilities, but also the significant cost of writing the attack software. Nevertheless, anyone can use a vulnerability, and according to research by the RAND Corporation, "any serious attacker can always get an affordable zero-day for almost any target". Many targeted attacks and most advanced persistent threats rely on zero-day vulnerabilities. In 2017, the average time to develop an exploit from a zero-day vulnerability was estimated at 22 days. The difficulty of developing exploits has been increasing over time due to increased anti-exploitation features in popular software. === Window of vulnerability === Zero-day vulnerabilities are often classified as alive—meaning that there is no public knowledge of the vulnerability—and dead—the vulnerability has been disclosed, but not patched. If the software's maintainers are actively searching for vulnerabilities, it is a living vulnerability; such vulnerabilities in unmaintained software are called immortal. Zombie vulnerabilities can be exploited in older versions of the software but have been patched in newer versions. Even publicly known and zombie vulnerabilities are often exploitable for an extended period. Security patches can take months to develop, or may never be developed. A patch can have negative effects on the functionality of software and users may need to test the patch to confirm functionality and compatibility. Larger organizations may fail to identify and patch all dependencies, while smaller enterprises and personal users may not install patches. Research suggests that risk of cyberattack increases if the vulnerability is made publicly known or a patch is released. Cybercriminals can reverse engineer the patch to find the underlying vulnerability and develop exploits, often faster than users install the patch. According to research by RAND Corporation published in 2017, zero-day exploits remain usable for 6.9 years on average, although those purchased from a third party only remain usable for 1.4 years on average. The researchers were unable to determine if any particular platform or software (such as open-source software) had any relationship to the life expectancy of a zero-day vulnerability. Although the RAND researchers found that 5.7 percent of a stockpile of secret zero-day vulnerabilities will have been discovered by someone else within a year, another study found a higher overlap rate, as high as 10.8 percent to 21.9 percent per year. == Countermeasures == Because, by definition, there is no patch that can block a zero-day exploit, all systems employing the software or hardware with the vulnerability are at risk. This includes secure systems such as banks and governments that have all patches up to date. Security systems are designed around known vulnerabilities, and repeated exploitations of a zero-day exploit could continue undetected for an extended period of time. Although there have been many proposals for a system that is effective at detecting zero-day exploits, this remains an active area of research in 2023. Many organizations have adopted defense-in-depth tactics so that attacks are likely to require breaching multiple levels of security, which makes it more difficult to achieve. Conventional cybersecurity measures such as training and access control — including multi-factor authentication, least-privilege access, and air-gapping makes it harder to compromise systems with a zero-day exploit. Since writing perfectly secure software is impossible, some researchers argue that driving up the cost of exploits is considered a good strategy to reduce the burden of cyberattacks. == Market == Zero-day exploits can fetch millions of dollars. There are three main types of buyers: White: the vendor, or to third parties such as the Zero Day Initiative that disclose to the vendor. Often such disclosure is in exchange for a bug bounty. Not all companies respond positively to disclosures, as they can cause legal liability and operational overhead. It is not uncommon to receive cease-and-desist letters from software vendors after disclosing a vulnerability for free. Gray: the largest and most lucrative. Government or intelligence agencies buy zero-days and may use it in an attack, stockpile the vulnerability, or notify the vendor. The United States federal government is one of the largest buyers. As of 2013, the Five Eyes (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) captured the plurality of the market and other significant purchasers included Russia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, North Korea, and Iran. Middle Eastern countries were poised to become the biggest spenders. Black: organized crime, which typically prefers exploit software rather than just knowledge of a vulnerability. These users are more likely to employ "half-days" where a patch is already available. In 2015, the markets for government and crime were estimated at least ten times larger than the white market. Sellers are often hacker groups that seek out vulnerabilities in widely used software for financial reward. Some will only sell to certain buyers, while others will sell to anyone. White market sellers are more likely to be motivated by non pecuniary rewards such as recognition and intellectual challenge. Selling zero-day exploits is legal. Despite calls for more regulation, law professor Mailyn Fidler says there is little chance of an international agreement because key players such as Russia and Israel are not interested. The sellers and buyers that trade in zero-days tend to be secretive, relying on non-disclosure agreements and classified information laws to keep the exploits secret. If the vulnerability becomes known, it can be patched and its value consequently crashes. Because the market lacks transparency, it can be hard for parties to find a fair price. Sellers might not be paid if the vulnerability was disclosed before it was verified, or if the buyer declined to purchase it but used it anyway. With the proliferation of middlemen, sellers could never know to what use the exploits could be put. Buyers could not guarantee that the exploit was not sold to another party. Both buyers and sellers advertise on the dark web. Research published in 2022 based on maximum prices paid as quoted by a single exploit broker found a 44 percent annualized inflation rate in exploit pricing. Remote zero-click exploits could fetch the highest price, while those that require local access to the device are much cheaper. Vulnerabilities in widely used software are also more expensive. They estimated that around 400 to 1,500 people sold exploits to th
Information explosion
Information explosion is the rapid increase in the amount of published information or data and the effects of this abundance. As the amount of available data grows, the problem of managing the information becomes more difficult, which can lead to information overload. The Online Oxford English Dictionary indicates use of the phrase in a March 1964 New Statesman article. The New York Times first used the phrase in its editorial content in an article by Walter Sullivan on June 7, 1964, in which he described the phrase as "much discussed". The earliest known use of the phrase was in a speech about television by NBC president Pat Weaver at the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising in London on September 27, 1955. The speech was rebroadcast on radio station WSUI in Iowa City and excerpted in the Daily Iowan newspaper two months later. Many sectors are seeing this rapid increase in the amount of information available such as healthcare, supermarkets, and governments. Another sector that is being affected by this phenomenon is journalism. Such a profession, which in the past was responsible for the dissemination of information, may be suppressed by the overabundance of information today. Techniques to gather knowledge from an overabundance of electronic information (e.g., data fusion may help in data mining) have existed since the 1970s. Another common technique to deal with such amount of information is qualitative research. Such approaches aim to organize the information, synthesizing, categorizing and systematizing in order to be more usable and easier to search. == Growth patterns == The world's technological capacity to store information grew from, optimally compressed, 2.6 exabytes in 1986 to 15.7 in 1993, over 54.5 in 2000, and to 295 exabytes in 2007. The world's technological capacity to receive information through one-way broadcast networks was 432 exabytes of (optimally compressed) information in 1986, 715 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 1993, 1,200 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2000, and 1,900 in 2007. The world's effective capacity to exchange information through two-way telecommunications networks was 0.281 exabytes of (optimally compressed) information in 1986, 0.471 in 1993, 2.2 in 2000, and 65 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2007. A new metric that is being used in an attempt to characterize the growth in person-specific information, is the disk storage per person (DSP), which is measured in megabytes/person (where megabytes is 106 bytes and is abbreviated MB). Global DSP (GDSP) is the total rigid disk drive space (in MB) of new units sold in a year divided by the world population in that year. The GDSP metric is a crude measure of how much disk storage could possibly be used to collect person-specific data on the world population. In 1983, one million fixed drives with an estimated total of 90 terabytes were sold worldwide; 30MB drives had the largest market segment. In 1996, 105 million drives, totaling 160,623 terabytes were sold with 1 and 2 gigabyte drives leading the industry. By the year 2000, with 20GB drive leading the industry, rigid drives sold for the year are projected to total 2,829,288 terabytes Rigid disk drive sales to top $34 billion in 1997. According to Latanya Sweeney, there are three trends in data gathering today: Type 1. Expansion of the number of fields being collected, known as the “collect more” trend. Type 2. Replace an existing aggregate data collection with a person-specific one, known as the “collect specifically” trend. Type 3. Gather information by starting a new person-specific data collection, known as the “collect it if you can” trend. == Related terms == Since "information" in electronic media is often used synonymously with "data", the term information explosion is closely related to the concept of data flood (also dubbed data deluge). Sometimes the term information flood is used as well. All of those basically boil down to the ever-increasing amount of electronic data exchanged per time unit. A term that covers the potential negative effects of information explosion is information inflation. The awareness about non-manageable amounts of data grew along with the advent of ever more powerful data processing since the mid-1960s. == Challenges == Even though the abundance of information can be beneficial in several levels, some problems may be of concern such as privacy, legal and ethical guidelines, filtering and data accuracy. Filtering refers to finding useful information in the middle of so much data, which relates to the job of data scientists. A typical example of a necessity of data filtering (data mining) is in healthcare since in the next years is due to have EHRs (Electronic Health Records) of patients available. With so much information available, the doctors will need to be able to identify patterns and select important data for the diagnosis of the patient. On the other hand, according to some experts, having so much public data available makes it difficult to provide data that is actually anonymous. Another point to take into account is the legal and ethical guidelines, which relates to who will be the owner of the data and how frequently he/she is obliged to the release this and for how long. With so many sources of data, another problem will be accuracy of such. An untrusted source may be challenged by others, by ordering a new set of data, causing a repetition in the information. According to Edward Huth, another concern is the accessibility and cost of such information. The accessibility rate could be improved by either reducing the costs or increasing the utility of the information. The reduction of costs according to the author, could be done by associations, which should assess which information was relevant and gather it in a more organized fashion. == Web servers == As of August 2005, there were over 70 million web servers. As of September 2007 there were over 135 million web servers. == Blogs == According to Technorati, the number of blogs doubles about every 6 months with a total of 35.3 million blogs as of April 2006. This is an example of the early stages of logistic growth, where growth is approximately exponential, since blogs are a recent innovation. As the number of blogs approaches the number of possible producers (humans), saturation occurs, growth declines, and the number of blogs eventually stabilizes.
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)
Information Rules
Information Rules is a 1999 book by Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian applying traditional economic theories to modern information-based technologies. The book examines commercial strategies appropriate to companies that deal in information, given the high "first copy" and low "subsequent copy" costs of information commodities, such as music CDs or original texts. == Content == The book examines competing standards, and how a company might influence widespread consumer acceptance of one over another, such as VHS versus Betamax, or HD DVD versus Blu-ray. The book mentions possible business strategies of such publishers as Encyclopædia Britannica who have to confront how to stay viable as technology changes the value and availability of information.
N-jet
An N-jet is the set of (partial) derivatives of a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} up to order N. Specifically, in the area of computer vision, the N-jet is usually computed from a scale space representation L {\displaystyle L} of the input image f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} , and the partial derivatives of L {\displaystyle L} are used as a basis for expressing various types of visual modules. For example, algorithms for tasks such as feature detection, feature classification, stereo matching, tracking and object recognition can be expressed in terms of N-jets computed at one or several scales in scale space.
Conceptualization (information science)
In information science, a conceptualization is an abstract simplified view of some selected parts of the world, containing the objects, concepts, and other entities that are presumed of interest for some particular purpose and the relationships between them. An explicit specification of a conceptualization is an ontology, and it may occur that a conceptualization can be realized by several distinct ontologies. An ontological commitment in describing ontological comparisons is taken to refer to that subset of elements of an ontology shared with all the others. "An ontology is language-dependent", its objects and interrelations described within the language it uses, while a conceptualization is always the same, more general, its concepts existing "independently of the language used to describe it". The relation between these terms is shown in the figure to the right. Not all workers in knowledge engineering use the term "conceptualization", but instead refer to the conceptualization itself, or to the ontological commitment of all its realizations, as an overarching ontology. == Purpose and implementation == As a higher level abstraction, a conceptualization facilitates the discussion and comparison of its various ontologies, facilitating knowledge sharing and reuse. Each ontology based upon the same overarching conceptualization maps the conceptualization into specific elements and their relationships. The question then arises as to how to describe the "conceptualization" in terms that can encompass multiple ontologies. This issue has been called the Tower of Babel problem, that is, how can persons used to one ontology talk with others using a different ontology? This problem is easily grasped, but a general resolution is not at hand. It can be a "bottom-up" or a "top-down" approach, or something in between. However, in more artificial situations, such as information systems, the idea of a "conceptualization" and the "ontological commitment" of various ontologies that realize the "conceptualization" is possible. The formation of a conceptualization and its ontologies involves these steps: specification of the conceptualization ontology concepts: every definition involves the definitions of other terms relationships between the concepts: this step maps conceptual relationships onto the ontology structure groups of concepts: this step may lead to the creation of sub-ontologies formal description of ontology commitments, for example, to make them computer readable An example of moving conception into a language leading to a variety of ontologies is the expression of a process in pseudocode (a strictly structured form of ordinary language) leading to implementation in several different formal computer languages like Lisp or Fortran. The pseudocode makes it easier to understand the instructions and compare implementations, but the formal languages make possible the compilation of the ideas as computer instructions. Another example is mathematics, where a very general formulation (the analog of a conceptualization) is illustrated with "applications" that are more specialized examples. For instance, aspects of a function space can be illustrated using a vector space or a topological space that introduce interpretations of the "elements" of the conceptualization and additional relationships between them but preserve the connections required in the function space.