Hancom Office is a proprietary office suite that includes a word processor, spreadsheet software, presentation software, and a PDF editor as well as their online versions accessible via a web browser. It is primarily addressed to Korean users. Hancom Office is written in Java and C++ that runs on Android, iOS, macOS and Windows platforms. == Products == Hangul - Hangul is a word processor developed by Hancom. It is a product that eliminates the inconvenience of the original Hangul word processor, which was limited to Hangul cards or PC models. Originally, the name was written using the '아래아' character, a vowel letter that is obsolete in modern Korean, and it was referred to as 'HWP' (an abbreviation for Hangul Word Processor), '아래아 한글' (Arae-a Hangul), '한/글' (Han/Geul), and so on. Hangul is currently the most widely used word processor in South Korea, often used alongside Microsoft Word. HanWord - word processor compatible with Word HanCell - spreadsheet program HanShow - presentation program Hancom Office Hanword Viewer - For viewing documents created by Hancom Office or Microsoft Office
List of 3D rendering software
3D rendering software products are the dedicated engines used for rendering computer-generated imagery. This is not the same as 3D modeling software, which involves the creation of 3D models, for which the software listed below can produce realistically rendered visualisations.General-purpose packages which can have their own built-in rendering capabilities are not listed here; these can be found in the list of 3D computer graphics software and list of 3D animation software. See 3D computer graphics software for more discussion about the distinctions.
Penril
Penril DataComm Networks, Inc. was a computer telecommunications hardware company that made some acquisitions and was eventually split into two parts: one was acquired by Bay Networks and the other was a newly formed company named Access Beyond. The focus of both company's products was end-to-end data transfer. By the mid-1990s, with the popularization of the internet, this was no longer of wide interest. == History == Penril, whose earnings reports and other financials were followed by The New York Times in the 1990s, made several acquisitions but also grew internally. Following its Datability acquisition it renamed itself Penril Datability Networks. By the time the 1968-founded Penril was acquired by Bay their name was Penril DataComm Networks. The company, which as of 1985 "had made 14 acquisitions in 12 years," also had done extensive work regarding quality control, and leveraged their product line by what The Washington Post called clever packaging: "software, cables, instructions and telephone support" sold to those less technically skilled as "Network in a Box." == Datability == Datability Software Systems Inc. was the initial name of what by 1991 became 'Datability, Inc.', "a manufacturer of hardware that links computer networks." The 1977-founded firm began as a software consulting company, especially in the area of databases. To speed up project development they built a program generator, which they marketed as Control 10/20 (targeted at users of Digital Equipment Corporation's DECsystem-10 and DECSYSTEM-20). After trying their hand at time-sharing they built hardware to enhance bridging these computers to DEC's VAX product line. In particular they focused on Digital's LAT protocol, selling "boxes" that reimplemented the protocol, at a lower price than DEC's. They later expanded into other areas of telecommunications hardware The firm relocated to a larger manufacturing plant in 1991 and was acquired by Penril in 1993. == Access Beyond == Access Beyond was initially housed by Penril, from which it was spun off. A securities analyst noted that Access began operations with no debt. They subsequently merged with Hayes Corporation. Some of the funds brought to the merger came from a sale by Penril of two of its divisions, each bringing about $4 million. == Ron Howard == Ron Howard, founder of Datability, became part of Penril when the latter acquired the former, and was CEO of Access Beyond when it was spun off by Penril. Access merged with Hayes Microcomputer Products and was renamed Hayes Corp, at which time Howard became executive VP of business development and corporate vice chairman of Hayes. == People == In the matter of hiring immigrants, in an industry where recent arrivals came from a culture of six day work weeks, and subcontracting was then common, these assembly line workers at Penril comprised about 25%, compared to double in other firms. Placement was overseen by government agencies. == Controversy == Penril had a joint development agreement, beginning in 1990, with a Standard Microsystems Corporation (SMSC) subsidiary. A dispute arose, and the matter was brought to court. Penril was awarded $3.5 million in 1996.
Enterprise bus matrix
The enterprise bus matrix is a data warehouse planning tool and model created by Ralph Kimball, and is part of the data warehouse bus architecture. The matrix is the logical definition of one of the core concepts of Kimball's approach to dimensional modeling conformed dimension. The bus matrix defines part of the data warehouse bus architecture and is an output of the business requirements phase in the Kimball lifecycle. It is applied in the following phases of dimensional modeling and development of the data warehouse. The matrix can be categorized as a hybrid model, being part technical design tool, part project management tool and part communication tool == Background == The need for an enterprise bus matrix stems from the way one goes about creating the overall data warehouse environment. Historically there have been two approaches: a structured, centralized and planned approach and a more loosely defined, department specific approach, in which solutions are developed in a more independent matter. Autonomous projects can result in a range of isolated stove pipe data marts. Naturally each approach has its issues; the visionary approach often struggles with long delivery cycles and lack of reaction time as needs emerge and scope issues arise. On the other hand, the development of isolated data marts leads to stovepipe systems that lack synergy in development. Over time this approach will lead to a so-called data-mart-in-a-box architecture where interoperability and lack of cohesion is apparent, and can hinder the realization of an overall enterprise data warehouse. As an attempt to handle this issue, Ralph Kimball introduced the enterprise bus. == Description == The bus matrix purpose is one of high abstraction and visionary planning on the data warehouse architectural level. By dictating coherency in the development and implementation of an overall data warehouse the bus architecture approach enables an overall vision of the broader enterprise integration and consistency while at the same time dividing the problem into more manageable parts – all in a technology and software independent manner. The bus matrix and architecture builds upon the concept of conformed dimensions, creating a structure of common dimensions that ideally can be used across the enterprise by all business processes related to the data warehouse and the corresponding fact tables from which they derive their context. According to Kimball and Margy Ross's article “Differences of Opinion” "The Enterprise Data warehouse built on the bus architecture ”identifies and enforces the relationship between business process metrics (facts) and descriptive attributes (dimensions)”. The concept of a bus is well known in the language of information technology, and is what reflects the conformed dimension concept in the data warehouse, creating the skeletal structure where all parts of a system connect, ensuring interoperability and consistency of data, and at the same time considers future expansion. This makes the conformed dimensions act as the integration ‘glue’, creating a robust backbone of the enterprise Data Warehouse.
Web data integration
Web data integration (WDI) is the process of aggregating and managing data from different websites into a single, homogeneous workflow. This process includes data access, transformation, mapping, quality assurance and fusion of data. Data that is sourced and structured from websites is referred to as "web data". WDI is an extension and specialization of data integration that views the web as a collection of heterogeneous databases. Data integration techniques in the context of the web, forms the foundation for businesses taking advantage of data available on the ever-increasing number of publicly-accessible websites. Corporate spending on this area amounted to about USD 2.5bn in 2017, and it is expected that by 2020 the market will reach almost USD 7bn.
ImageMixer
ImageMixer is a brand name of video editing software that edits digital video and still image in camcorders and authors to VCD and DVD. It is a second-party Japanese product, distributed by Pixela Corporation, a Japanese manufacturer of PC peripheral hardware and multimedia software. == Bundling == ImageMixer is widely used for several camcorder brands, such as JVC, Hitachi and Canon. Also, Sony has chosen to package ImageMixer with its DVD and HDD Handycam. == ImageMixer series == ImageMixer has other series of software for digital camera, such as ImageMixer Label Maker and ImageMixer DVD dubbing. ImageMixer also has movie editing solution for Macintosh. == Windows Vista version of ImageMixer == A Windows Vista version of ImageMixer has been developed (ImageMixer3).
Upper ontology
In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e