Albert One is an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Robby Garner and designed to mimic the way humans make conversations using a multi-faceted approach in natural language programming. == History == In both 1998 and 1999, Albert One won the Loebner Prize Contest, a competition between chatterbots. Some parts of Albert were deployed on the internet beginning in 1995, to gather information about what kinds of things people would say to a chatterbot. Another element of Albert One involved the building of a large database of human statements, and associated replies. This portion of the project was tested at the 1994-1997 Loebner Prize contests. Albert was the first of Robby Garner's multifaceted bots. The Albert One system was composed of several subsystems. Among those were a version of Eliza, the therapist, Elivs, another Eliza-like bot, and several other helper applications working together in a hierarchical arrangement. As a continuation of the stimulus-response library, various other database queries and assertions were tested to arrive at each of Albert's responses. Robby went on to develop networked examples of this kind of hierarchical "glue" at The Turing Hub.
Natural Language Toolkit
The Natural Language Toolkit, or more commonly NLTK, is a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for English written in the Python programming language. It supports classification, tokenization, stemming, tagging, parsing, and semantic reasoning functionalities. It was developed by Steven Bird and Edward Loper in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. NLTK includes graphical demonstrations and sample data. It is accompanied by a book that explains the underlying concepts behind the language processing tasks supported by the toolkit, plus a cookbook. NLTK is intended to support research and teaching in NLP or closely related areas, including empirical linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and machine learning. NLTK has been used successfully as a teaching tool, as an individual study tool, and as a platform for prototyping and building research systems. == Library highlights == Discourse representation Lexical analysis: Word and text tokenizer n-gram and collocations Part-of-speech tagger Tree model and Text chunker for capturing Named-entity recognition
Yale shooting problem
The Yale shooting problem is a conundrum or scenario in formal situational logic on which early logical solutions to the frame problem fail. The name of this problem comes from a scenario proposed by its inventors, Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott, working at Yale University when they proposed it. In this scenario, Fred (later identified as a turkey) is initially alive and a gun is initially unloaded. Loading the gun, waiting for a moment, and then shooting the gun at Fred is expected to kill Fred. However, if inertia is formalized in logic by minimizing the changes in this situation, then it cannot be uniquely proved that Fred is dead after loading, waiting, and shooting. In one solution, Fred indeed dies; in another (also logically correct) solution, the gun becomes mysteriously unloaded and Fred survives. Technically, this scenario is described by two fluents (a fluent is a condition that can change truth value over time): a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} and l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} . Initially, the first condition is true and the second is false. Then, the gun is loaded, some time passes, and the gun is fired. Such problems can be formalized in logic by considering four time points 0 {\displaystyle 0} , 1 {\displaystyle 1} , 2 {\displaystyle 2} , and 3 {\displaystyle 3} , and turning every fluent such as a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} into a predicate a l i v e ( t ) {\displaystyle alive(t)} depending on time. A direct formalization of the statement of the Yale shooting problem in logic is the following one: a l i v e ( 0 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)} ¬ l o a d e d ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \neg loaded(0)} t r u e → l o a d e d ( 1 ) {\displaystyle true\rightarrow loaded(1)} l o a d e d ( 2 ) → ¬ a l i v e ( 3 ) {\displaystyle loaded(2)\rightarrow \neg alive(3)} The first two formulae represent the initial state. The third formula formalizes the effect of loading the gun at time 1 {\displaystyle 1} . The fourth formula formalizes the effect of shooting at Fred at time 2 {\displaystyle 2} . This is a simplified formalization in which action names are neglected and the effects of actions are directly specified for the time points in which the actions are executed. See situation calculus for details. The formulae above, while being direct formalizations of the known facts, do not suffice to correctly characterize the domain. Indeed, ¬ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \neg alive(1)} is consistent with all these formulae, although there is no reason to believe that Fred dies before the gun has been shot. The problem is that the formulae above only include the effects of actions, but do not specify that all fluents not changed by the actions remain the same. In other words, a formula a l i v e ( 0 ) ≡ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)\equiv alive(1)} must be added to formalize the implicit assumption that loading the gun only changes the value of l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} and not the value of a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} . The necessity of a large number of formulae stating the obvious fact that conditions do not change unless an action changes them is known as the frame problem. An early solution to the frame problem was based on minimizing the changes. In other words, the scenario is formalized by the formulae above (that specify only the effects of actions) and by the assumption that the changes in the fluents over time are as minimal as possible. The rationale is that the formulae above enforce all effect of actions to take place, while minimization should restrict the changes to exactly those due to the actions. In the Yale shooting scenario, one possible evaluation of the fluents in which the changes are minimized is the following one. This is the expected solution. It contains two fluent changes: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} becomes false at time 3. The following evaluation also satisfies all formulae above. In this evaluation, there are still two changes only: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and false at time 2. As a result, this evaluation is considered a valid description of the evolution of the state, although there is no valid reason to explain l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} being false at time 2. The fact that minimization of changes leads to wrong solution is the motivation for the introduction of the Yale shooting problem. While the Yale shooting problem has been considered a severe obstacle to the use of logic for formalizing dynamical scenarios, solutions to it have been known since the late 1980s. One solution involves the use of predicate completion in the specification of actions: in this solution, the fact that shooting causes Fred to die is formalized by the preconditions: alive and loaded, and the effect is that alive changes value (since alive was true before, this corresponds to alive becoming false). By turning this implication into an if and only if statement, the effects of shooting are correctly formalized. (Predicate completion is more complicated when there is more than one implication involved.) A solution proposed by Erik Sandewall was to include a new condition of occlusion, which formalizes the “permission to change” for a fluent. The effect of an action that might change a fluent is therefore that the fluent has the new value, and that the occlusion is made (temporarily) true. What is minimized is not the set of changes, but the set of occlusions being true. Another constraint specifying that no fluent changes unless occlusion is true completes this solution. The Yale shooting scenario is also correctly formalized by the Reiter version of the situation calculus, the fluent calculus, and the action description languages. In 2005, the 1985 paper in which the Yale shooting scenario was first described received the AAAI Classic Paper award. In spite of being a solved problem, that example is still sometimes mentioned in recent research papers, where it is used as an illustrative example (e.g., for explaining the syntax of a new logic for reasoning about actions), rather than being presented as a problem.
Cognitive tutor
A cognitive tutor is a particular kind of intelligent tutoring system that utilizes a cognitive model to provide feedback to students as they are working through problems. This feedback will immediately inform students of the correctness, or incorrectness, of their actions in the tutor interface; however, cognitive tutors also have the ability to provide context-sensitive hints and instruction to guide students towards reasonable next steps. == Introduction == The name of Cognitive Tutor now usually refers to a particular type of intelligent tutoring system produced by Carnegie Learning for high school mathematics based on John Anderson's ACT-R theory of human cognition. However, cognitive tutors were originally developed to test ACT-R theory for research purposes since the early 1980s and they are developed also for other areas and subjects such as computer programming and science. Cognitive Tutors can be implemented into classrooms as a part of blended learning that combines textbook and software activities. The Cognitive Tutor programs utilize cognitive model and are based on model tracing and knowledge tracing. Model tracing means that the cognitive tutor checks every action performed by students such as entering a value or clicking a button, while knowledge tracing is used to calculate the required skills students learned by measuring them on a bar chart called Skillometer. Model tracing and knowledge tracing are essentially used to monitor students' learning progress, guide students to correct path to problem solving, and provide feedback. The Institute of Education Sciences published several reports regarding the effectiveness of Carnegie Cognitive Tutor. A 2013 report concluded that Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor was found to have mixed effects on mathematics achievement for high school students. The report identified 27 studies that investigate the effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor, and the conclusion is based on 6 studies that meet What Works Clearinghouse standards. Among the 6 studies included, 5 of them show intermediate to significant positive effect, while 1 study shows statistically significant negative effect. Another report published by Institute of Education Sciences in 2009 found that Cognitive Tutor Algebra I to have potentially positive effects on math achievement based on only 1 study out of 14 studies that meets What Works Clearinghouse standards. It should be understood that What Works Clearinghouse standards call for relatively large numbers of participants, true random assignments to groups, and for a control group receiving either no treatment or a different treatment. Such experimental conditions are difficult to meet in schools, and thus only a small percentage of studies in education meet the standards of this clearinghouse, even though they may still be of value. == Theoretical foundations == === Four-component architecture === Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) have a four-component architecture: a domain model, a student model, a tutoring model and an interface component. The domain model contains the rules, concepts, and knowledge related to the domain to be learned. It helps to evaluate students' performance and detect students' errors by setting a standard of domain expertise. The student model, the central component of an ITS, is expected to contain knowledge about the students: their cognitive and affective states, and their progress as they learn. The function of the student model is threefold: to gather data from and about the learner, to represent the learner's knowledge and learning process, and to perform diagnostics of a student's knowledge and select optimal pedagogical strategies. The tutoring model uses the data gained from the domain model and student model to make decisions about tutoring strategies such as whether or not to intervene, or when and how to intervene. Functions of the tutoring model include instruction delivery and content planning. The interface component reflects the decisions made by the tutoring model in different forms such as Socratic dialogs, feedback and hints. Students interact with the tutor through the learning interface, also known as communication. The interface provides domain knowledge elements. === Cognitive model === A cognitive model replicates the domain knowledge and skills comparable to that of a human expert or an advanced student of the domain. A cognitive model enables intelligent tutoring systems to respond to problem-solving situations in a way similar to a human tutor. A tutoring system adopting a cognitive model is called a cognitive tutor. A cognitive model is an expert system that generates a multitude of solutions to the problems presented to students. The cognitive model is used to trace each student's solution through complex alternative solution paths, enabling the tutor to provide step-by-step feedback and advice, and to maintain a targeted model of the student's knowledge based on student performance. === Cognitive Tutors === Cognitive Tutors provide step-by-step guidance as a learner develops a complex problem-solving skill through practice. Typically, cognitive tutors provide such forms of support as: (a) a problem-solving environment that is designed rich and "thinking visible"; (b) step-by-step feedback on student performance; (c) feedback messages specific to errors; (d) context-specific next-step hints at student's request, and (e) individualized problem selection. Cognitive Tutors accomplish two of the principal tasks characteristic of human tutoring: (1) monitors the student's performance and providing context-specific individual instruction, and (2) monitors the student's learning and selects appropriate problem-solving activities. Both cognitive model and two underlying algorithms, model tracing and knowledge tracing, are used to monitor the student's learning. In model tracing, the cognitive tutor uses the cognitive model in complex problems to follow the student's individual path and provide prompt accuracy feedback and context-specific advice. In knowledge tracing, the cognitive tutor uses a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing method of evaluating the student's knowledge and uses this student model to select appropriate problems for each student. === Cognitive architecture === Cognitive tutor development is guided by ACT-R cognitive architecture, which specifies the underlying framework developing the cognitive model or expert component of a cognitive tutor. ACT-R, a member of the ACT family, is the most recent cognitive architecture, devoted primarily to modelling human behavior. ACT-R includes a declarative memory of factual knowledge and a procedural memory of production rules. The architecture functions by matching productions on perceptions and facts, mediated by the real-valued activation levels of objects, and executing them to affect the environment or alter declarative memory. ACT-R has been used to model psychological aspects such as memory, attention, reasoning, problem solving, and language processing. == Application and utilization == The first real world applications of cognitive tutors were in the 1980s and involved a geometry proof tutor used by high school students and a LISP programming tutor used by college students in a mini course in introductory programming course at Carnegie Mellon University. Since then, cognitive tutors have been used in a variety of scenarios, with a few organizations developing their own cognitive tutor programs. These programs have been used with students spanning elementary school through university level, though primarily in the subject areas of Computer Programming, Mathematics, and Science. One of the first organizations to develop a system for use within the school system was the PACT Center at Carnegie Mellon University. Their aim was to "...develop systems that provide individualized assistance to students as they work on challenging real-world problems in complex domains such as computer programming, algebra and geometry". PACT's most successful product was the Cognitive Tutor Algebra course. Originally created in the early 1990s, this course was in use in 75 schools through the U.S. by 1999, and then its spin-off company, Carnegie Learning, now offers tutors to thousands of schools in the U.S. The Carnegie Mellon Cognitive Tutor has been shown to raise students' math test scores in high school and middle-school classrooms, and their Algebra course was designated one of five exemplary curricula for K-12 mathematics educated by the US Department of Education. There were several research projects conducted by the PACT Center to utilize Cognitive tutor for courses in Excel and to develop an intelligent tutoring system for algebra expression writing, called Ms. Lindquist. Further, in 2005, Carnegie Learning released Bridge to Algebra, a product intended for middle schools that was piloted in over 100 schools. Cognitive tutoring software is continuing to be used.
Omar Al Olama
Omar Sultan Al Olama (Arabic: عمر سلطان العلماء; born 16 February 1990) is Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy, and Remote Work Applications in the United Arab Emirates. He was appointed in October 2017 by Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. The UAE was the first country to appoint a minister for artificial intelligence. == Early life and education == Al Olama was born on 16 February 1990 in Dubai. He has a bachelor's degree in Business and Administration and Management from the American University in Dubai, and a Diploma in Excellence and Project Management from the American University in Sharjah. == Career == Between February 2012 and May 2014, Al Olama was member of the corporate planning at the UAE's Prime Minister's Office. From November 2015 to November 2016, he was Deputy Head of Minister's Office at the UAE's Prime Minister's Office. Between December 2015 and October 2017, he was Secretary General of the World Organization of Racing Drones. In November 2017, he was appointed member of the Board of Trustees of Dubai Future Foundation and Deputy Managing Director of the Foundation. In July 2016, Al Olama was appointed the managing director, and later in 2021 appointed Vice-Chair of the World Government Summit. In 2021, Al Olama was appointed as the Chairman of the Dubai Chamber of Digital Economy, a sub-section of Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry. During the cabinet reshuffle in 2023, Al Olama was appointed as the Director General of the Prime Minister's Office, concurrently maintaining his role as the Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications. == Memberships == In November 2017, Al Olama was appointed as a member of the Future of Digital Economy and Society Council, part of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Later in 2023, the World Economic Forum selected Al Olama to join the steering committee of the AI Governance Alliance, a group comprising 10 global leaders in the digital and technological fields. In 2019, Al Olama was appointed as Chair of the Advisory Board of the Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence. In 2022, Al Olama was appointed by the UAE Cabinet as Vice-Chair of the Higher Committee for Government Digital Transformation, and also appointed by the Government of Dubai as Vice-Chair of the Higher Committee for Future Technology. In 2022, Al Olama was appointed Chairman of the oversight committee of the Dubai Future District Fund. Since 2023, Al Olama has been on the High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence. In 2023, Al Olama, recognized as the world's first minister for artificial intelligence, was included in Time Magazine's inaugural list of the 100 most influential people in AI.
Model compression
Model compression is a machine learning technique for reducing the size of trained models. Large models can achieve high accuracy, but often at the cost of significant resource requirements. Compression techniques aim to compress models without significant performance reduction. Smaller models require less storage space, and consume less memory and compute during inference. Compressed models enable deployment on resource-constrained devices such as smartphones, embedded systems, edge computing devices, and consumer electronics computers. Efficient inference is also valuable for large corporations that serve large model inference over an API, allowing them to reduce computational costs and improve response times for users. Model compression is not to be confused with knowledge distillation, in which a smaller "student" model is trained to imitate the input-output behavior of a larger "teacher" model (as opposed to using the "teacher"'s trained parameters or the "teacher"'s training targets). == Techniques == Several techniques are employed for model compression. === Pruning === Pruning sparsifies a large model by setting some parameters to exactly zero. This effectively reduces the number of parameters. This allows the use of sparse matrix operations, which are faster than dense matrix operations. Pruning criteria can be based on magnitudes of parameters, the statistical pattern of neural activations, Hessian values, etc. === Quantization === Quantization reduces the numerical precision of weights and activations. For example, instead of storing weights as 32-bit floating-point numbers, they can be represented using 8-bit integers. Low-precision parameters take up less space, and takes less compute to perform arithmetic with. It is also possible to quantize some parameters more aggressively than others, so for example, a less important parameter can have 8-bit precision while another, more important parameter, can have 16-bit precision. Inference with such models requires mixed-precision arithmetic. Quantized models can also be used during training (rather than after training). PyTorch implements automatic mixed-precision (AMP), which performs autocasting, gradient scaling, and loss scaling. === Low-rank factorization === Weight matrices can be approximated by low-rank matrices. Let W {\displaystyle W} be a weight matrix of shape m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} . A low-rank approximation is W ≈ U V T {\displaystyle W\approx UV^{T}} , where U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are matrices of shapes m × k , n × k {\displaystyle m\times k,n\times k} . When k {\displaystyle k} is small, this both reduces the number of parameters needed to represent W {\displaystyle W} approximately, and accelerates matrix multiplication by W {\displaystyle W} . Low-rank approximations can be found by singular value decomposition (SVD). The choice of rank for each weight matrix is a hyperparameter, and jointly optimized as a mixed discrete-continuous optimization problem. The rank of weight matrices may also be pruned after training, taking into account the effect of activation functions like ReLU on the implicit rank of the weight matrices. == Training == Model compression may be decoupled from training, that is, a model is first trained without regard for how it might be compressed, then it is compressed. However, it may also be combined with training. The "train big, then compress" method trains a large model for a small number of training steps (less than it would be if it were trained to convergence), then heavily compress the model. It is found that at the same compute budget, this method results in a better model than lightly compressed, small models. In Deep Compression, the compression has three steps. First loop (pruning): prune all weights lower than a threshold, then finetune the network, then prune again, etc. Second loop (quantization): cluster weights, then enforce weight sharing among all weights in each cluster, then finetune the network, then cluster again, etc. Third step: Use Huffman coding to losslessly compress the model. The SqueezeNet paper reported that Deep Compression achieved a compression ratio of 35 on AlexNet, and a ratio of ~10 on SqueezeNets.
Resource Description Framework
The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a method to describe and exchange graph data. It was originally designed as a data model for metadata by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It provides a variety of syntax notations and formats, of which the most widely used is Turtle (Terse RDF Triple Language). RDF is a directed graph composed of triple statements. An RDF graph statement is represented by: (1) a node for the subject, (2) an arc from subject to object, representing a predicate, and (3) a node for the object. Each of these parts can be identified by a Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI). An object can also be a literal value. This simple, flexible data model has a lot of expressive power to represent complex situations, relationships, and other things of interest, while also being appropriately abstract. RDF was adopted as a W3C recommendation in 1999. The RDF 1.0 specification was published in 2004, and the RDF 1.1 specification in 2014. SPARQL is a standard query language for RDF graphs. RDF Schema (RDFS), Web Ontology Language (OWL) and SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) are ontology languages that are used to describe RDF data. == Overview == The RDF data model is similar to classical conceptual modeling approaches (such as entity–relationship or class diagrams). It is based on the idea of making statements about resources (in particular web resources) in expressions of the form subject–predicate–object, known as triples. The subject denotes the resource; the predicate denotes traits or aspects of the resource, and expresses a relationship between the subject and the object. For example, one way to represent the notion "The sky has the color blue" in RDF is as the triple: a subject denoting "the sky", a predicate denoting "has the color", and an object denoting "blue". Therefore, RDF uses subject instead of object (or entity) in contrast to the typical approach of an entity–attribute–value model in object-oriented design: entity (sky), attribute (color), and value (blue). RDF is an abstract model with several serialization formats (being essentially specialized file formats). In addition the particular encoding for resources or triples can vary from format to format. This mechanism for describing resources is a major component in the W3C's Semantic Web activity: an evolutionary stage of the World Wide Web in which automated software can store, exchange, and use machine-readable information distributed throughout the Web, in turn enabling users to deal with the information with greater efficiency and certainty. RDF's simple data model and ability to model disparate, abstract concepts has also led to its increasing use in knowledge management applications unrelated to Semantic Web activity. A collection of RDF statements intrinsically represents a labeled, directed multigraph. This makes an RDF data model better suited to certain kinds of knowledge representation than other relational or ontological models. As RDFS, OWL and SHACL demonstrate, one can build additional ontology languages upon RDF. == History == The initial RDF design, intended to "build a vendor-neutral and operating system- independent system of metadata", derived from the W3C's Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS), an early web content labelling system, but the project was also shaped by ideas from Dublin Core, and from the Meta Content Framework (MCF), which had been developed during 1995 to 1997 by Ramanathan V. Guha at Apple and Tim Bray at Netscape. A first public draft of RDF appeared in October 1997, issued by a W3C working group that included representatives from IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Nokia, Reuters, SoftQuad, and the University of Michigan. In 1999, the W3C published the first recommended RDF specification, the Model and Syntax Specification ("RDF M&S"). This described RDF's data model and an XML serialization. Two persistent misunderstandings about RDF developed at this time: firstly, due to the MCF influence and the RDF "Resource Description" initialism, the idea that RDF was specifically for use in representing metadata; secondly that RDF was an XML format rather than a data model, and only the RDF/XML serialisation being XML-based. RDF saw little take-up in this period, but there was significant work done in Bristol, around ILRT at Bristol University and HP Labs, and in Boston at MIT. RSS 1.0 and FOAF became exemplar applications for RDF in this period. The recommendation of 1999 was replaced in 2004 by a set of six specifications: "The RDF Primer", "RDF Concepts and Abstract", "RDF/XML Syntax Specification (revised)", "RDF Semantics", "RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0", and "The RDF Test Cases". This series was superseded in 2014 by the following six "RDF 1.1" documents: "RDF 1.1 Primer", "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax", "RDF 1.1 XML Syntax", "RDF 1.1 Semantics", "RDF Schema 1.1", and "RDF 1.1 Test Cases". == RDF topics == === Vocabulary === The vocabulary defined by the RDF specification is as follows: ==== Classes ==== ===== rdf ===== rdf:XMLLiteral the class of XML literal values rdf:Property the class of properties rdf:Statement the class of RDF statements rdf:Alt, rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq containers of alternatives, unordered containers, and ordered containers (rdfs:Container is a super-class of the three) rdf:List the class of RDF Lists rdf:nil an instance of rdf:List representing the empty list ===== rdfs ===== rdfs:Resource the class resource, everything rdfs:Literal the class of literal values, e.g. strings and integers rdfs:Class the class of classes rdfs:Datatype the class of RDF datatypes rdfs:Container the class of RDF containers rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty the class of container membership properties, rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ..., all of which are sub-properties of rdfs:member ==== Properties ==== ===== rdf ===== rdf:type an instance of rdf:Property used to state that a resource is an instance of a class rdf:first the first item in the subject RDF list rdf:rest the rest of the subject RDF list after rdf:first rdf:value idiomatic property used for structured values rdf:subject the subject of the RDF statement rdf:predicate the predicate of the RDF statement rdf:object the object of the RDF statement rdf:Statement, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object are used for reification (see below). ===== rdfs ===== rdfs:subClassOf the subject is a subclass of a class rdfs:subPropertyOf the subject is a subproperty of a property rdfs:domain a domain of the subject property rdfs:range a range of the subject property rdfs:label a human-readable name for the subject rdfs:comment a description of the subject resource rdfs:member a member of the subject resource rdfs:seeAlso further information about the subject resource rdfs:isDefinedBy the definition of the subject resource This vocabulary is used as a foundation for RDF Schema, where it is extended. === Serialization formats === Several common serialization formats are in use, including: Turtle, a compact, human-friendly format. TriG, an extension of Turtle to datasets. N-Triples, a very simple, easy-to-parse, line-based format that is not as compact as Turtle. N-Quads, a superset of N-Triples, for serializing multiple RDF graphs. JSON-LD, a JSON-based serialization. N3 or Notation3, a non-standard serialization that is very similar to Turtle, but has some additional features, such as the ability to define inference rules. RDF/XML, an XML-based syntax that was the first standard format for serializing RDF. RDF/JSON, an alternative syntax for expressing RDF triples using a simple JSON notation. RDF/XML is sometimes misleadingly called simply RDF because it was introduced among the other W3C specifications defining RDF and it was historically the first W3C standard RDF serialization format. However, it is important to distinguish the RDF/XML format from the abstract RDF model itself. Although the RDF/XML format is still in use, other RDF serializations are now preferred by many RDF users, both because they are more human-friendly, and because some RDF graphs are not representable in RDF/XML due to restrictions on the syntax of XML QNames. With a little effort, virtually any arbitrary XML may also be interpreted as RDF using GRDDL (pronounced 'griddle'), Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages. RDF triples may be stored in a type of database called a triplestore. === Resource identification === The subject of an RDF statement is either a uniform resource identifier (URI) or a blank node, both of which denote resources. Resources indicated by blank nodes are called anonymous resources. They are not directly identifiable from the RDF statement. The predicate is a URI which also indicates a resource, representing a relationship. The object is a URI, blank node or a Unicode string literal. As of RDF 1.1 resources are identified by Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs); IRIs are a generalization of URIs. In Semantic Web applications, and in re