Function Representation (FRep or F-Rep) is used in solid modeling, volume modeling and computer graphics. FRep was introduced in "Function representation in geometric modeling: concepts, implementation and applications" as a uniform representation of multidimensional geometric objects (shapes). An object as a point set in multidimensional space is defined by a single continuous real-valued function f ( X ) {\displaystyle f(X)} of point coordinates X [ x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ] {\displaystyle X[x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}]} which is evaluated at the given point by a procedure traversing a tree structure with primitives in the leaves and operations in the nodes of the tree. The points with f ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) ≥ 0 {\displaystyle f(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})\geq 0} belong to the object, and the points with f ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) < 0 {\displaystyle f(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})<0} are outside of the object. The point set with f ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})=0} is called an isosurface. == Geometric domain == The geometric domain of FRep in 3D space includes solids with non-manifold models and lower-dimensional entities (surfaces, curves, points) defined by zero value of the function. A primitive can be defined by an equation or by a "black box" procedure converting point coordinates into the function value. Solids bounded by algebraic surfaces, skeleton-based implicit surfaces, and convolution surfaces, as well as procedural objects (such as solid noise), and voxel objects can be used as primitives (leaves of the construction tree). In the case of a voxel object (discrete field), it should be converted to a continuous real function, for example, by applying the trilinear or higher-order interpolation. Many operations such as set-theoretic, blending, offsetting, projection, non-linear deformations, metamorphosis, sweeping, hypertexturing, and others, have been formulated for this representation in such a manner that they yield continuous real-valued functions as output, thus guaranteeing the closure property of the representation. R-functions originally introduced in V.L. Rvachev's "On the analytical description of some geometric objects", provide C k {\displaystyle C^{k}} continuity for the functions exactly defining the set-theoretic operations (min/max functions are a particular case). Because of this property, the result of any supported operation can be treated as the input for a subsequent operation; thus very complex models can be created in this way from a single functional expression. FRep modeling is supported by the special-purpose language HyperFun. == Shape Models == FRep combines and generalizes different shape models like algebraic surfaces skeleton based "implicit" surfaces set-theoretic solids or CSG (Constructive Solid Geometry) sweeps volumetric objects parametric models procedural models A more general "constructive hypervolume" allows for modeling multidimensional point sets with attributes (volume models in 3D case). Point set geometry and attributes have independent representations but are treated uniformly. A point set in a geometric space of an arbitrary dimension is an FRep based geometric model of a real object. An attribute that is also represented by a real-valued function (not necessarily continuous) is a mathematical model of an object property of an arbitrary nature (material, photometric, physical, medicine, etc.). The concept of "implicit complex" proposed in "Cellular-functional modeling of heterogeneous objects" provides a framework for including geometric elements of different dimensionality by combining polygonal, parametric, and FRep components into a single cellular-functional model of a heterogeneous object.
Human-centered AI
Human-centered AI is the initiative at the intersection of the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and human-computer interaction (HCI) to develop AI systems in a way that prioritizes human values, needs, and general flourishing. Emphasis is placed on the recognition that artificial intelligence systems are rapidly changing, and will continue to influence, many aspects of the human experience, in areas ranging from scientific inquiry, governance and policy, labor and the economy, and creative expression, with an aim set to adapt current developments and guide future developments on a trajectory which is most beneficial to the human population at large, with the goal of augmenting human intelligence and capacities across these areas, as opposed to replacing them. Particular attention is paid to mitigating negative effects of AI automation on the livelihoods of the labor force, the use of AI in healthcare fields, and imbuing AI systems with societal values. Human-centered AI is linked to related endeavors in AI alignment and AI safety, but while these fields primarily focus on mitigating risks posed by AI that is unaligned to human values and/or uncontrollable AI self-development, human-centered AI places significant focus in exploring how AI systems can augment human capacities and serve as collaborators. == Conceptual history == The importance of the alignment of artificial intelligence development towards human values in some sense predates artificial intelligence itself, as before the modern conception of artificial intelligence as coined at the 1956 Dartmouth Workshop, the conception of robots as constructed, autonomous agents entered the cultural consciousness as early as the 1920s, with Karel Capek's Rossum's Universal Robots. The imagined issues relating to robots' aims and values requiring intentional alignment and direction with those of humans followed soon after, most widely known from science fiction author Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, dating to his 1942 short story “Runaround”. Two of the three eponymous laws are directly concerned with robots’ interaction with and positioned deference towards humans, and have in recent times been reexamined in the face of modern AI. In 1985, after artificial intelligence research had taken off and its effects were more acutely conceptualized, Asimov added a Rule Zero, treating robots' relationship with humanity as a whole, distinct from individual humans. While modern artificial intelligence is largely distinct from robotics, the conceptualization of both robots and AI systems as autonomous agents positions this as a foundation for conceptions of human-centered AI. Aside from robots, artificially intelligent autonomous agents in interaction with humans have been conceived of for at least 75 years. In 1950, Alan Turing published his famous "Imitation Game", often also called the Turing Test, a thought experiment that uses human-machine interaction as an assessor for the intelligence of a system. In recent times, artificial intelligence researchers such as Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson have conceived of rapid AI development leading to a so-called "Turing Trap". == Augmentation and automation == A major stated aim of human-centered AI is to promote the development of AI in ways that augment human capabilities, rather than replacing them. To this end, organizations and initiatives that take a human-centered approach to AI development focus on frameworks that encourage collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence systems to build towards even greater progress, rather than attempting to automate tasks currently handled by humans. Such avenues include everything from data visualization for big data, allowing human engineers to better understand extremely large datasets, allowing for the design of better machine learning models to handle them, to AI-powered sensors to monitor vitals, allowing for better responsiveness from healthcare providers. Many human-centered AI initiatives often position it as a better alternative to the apparent mainstream in AI development, which is primarily concerned with automation. Driven by the pressures of the market economy, AI development that does replace tasks currently performed by humans with automated processes is incentivized, as it allows for greater profit margins; this often comes at the detriment of the human whose performance is replaced, thus leading to an environment wherein human workers are outcompeted by AI systems across various service-sector and technology-based industries. At the same time, automation and augmentation are not always incompatible; a major aim of human-centered AI is towards the automation of rote tasks that would otherwise hinder a human’s productivity or creativity, freeing them to direct their energy and intelligence towards higher-level tasks, thus achieving augmentation through automation. Empirical research in pharmaceutical sales has shown that a human-centered implementation - where work procedures, training, and incentives are designed around individuals' cognitive needs - improves augmentation performance, while implementation without such adaptation can worsen outcomes relative to a legacy system. == Research == Much of the work done on human-centered AI comes from research institutes, within universities, companies, and as freestanding organizations. The Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (abbreviated to HAI) is one such group, engaging academics, industry professionals, and policymakers centered in Stanford University to conduct research and inform policy in various areas in human-centered AI, including on aspects of the intelligence itself, augmentation, and on measuring the impacts of AI systems on sociopolitcal and cultural institutions. Similar groups exist at other universities, including the Chicago Human + AI (CHAI) Lab at the University of Chicago, the HCAI@GU group at the University of Gothenburg, and the Human-Centered AI (HAI) Lab at the University of Oxford. Outside of the academy, companies such as IBM have research initiatives dedicated to advancements in human-centered AI. At Kenyon College, the Integrated Program for Humane Studies (IPHS) launched a human-centered AI program in 2016 integrating artificial intelligence research with humanities and social science inquiry. This approach treats computation and humanistic scholarship as a single unified field of research rather than as separate disciplines requiring collaboration. The program's researchers have published in both AI venues (such as the International Conference on Machine Learning and Frontiers of Computer Science) and humanities journals (such as PMLA and Poetics Today), and the lab was selected in December 2025 by Schmidt Sciences for its Humanities and AI Virtual Institute to apply AI methods to cultural heritage preservation.
Conceptions of Library and Information Science
Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) is a series of conferences about historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives in Library and Information Science. == CoLIS conferences == CoLIS 1 1991 in Tampere, Finland CoLIS 2 1996 in Copenhagen, Denmark CoLIS 3 1999 in Dubrovnik, Croatia CoLIS 4 2002 in Seattle, US CoLIS 5 2005 in Glasgow, Scotland CoLIS 6 2007 in Borås, Sweden CoLIS 7 June 2010 in London, at City University London. CoLIS 8 August 19–22, 2013, in Copenhagen, Denmark, at The Royal School of Library and Information Science. CoLIS 9 June 27–29, 2016, in Uppsala, Sweden, at Uppsala University. CoLIS 10 June 16–19, 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Faculty of Arts CoLIS 11 May 29–June 1, 2022, in Oslo, Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University.
Microsoft Query
Microsoft Query is a visual method of creating database queries using examples based on a text string, the name of a document or a list of documents. The QBE system converts the user input into a formal database query using Structured Query Language (SQL) on the backend, allowing the user to perform powerful searches without having to explicitly compose them in SQL, and without even needing to know SQL. It is derived from Moshé M. Zloof's original Query by Example (QBE) implemented in the mid-1970s at IBM's Research Centre in Yorktown, New York. In the context of Microsoft Access, QBE is used for introducing students to database querying, and as a user-friendly database management system for small businesses. Microsoft Excel allows results of QBE queries to be embedded in spreadsheets.
Best arm identification
Best arm identification (BAI) is a sequential one-player game where the player has to find the best action (arm) among a list of actions (arms) by collecting information in the most efficient way. It is a multi-armed bandit game as a player only gets information about an arm by playing it. The most common objective in multi-armed bandit games is to minimize the regret (i.e., play the best action as much as possible), but in BAI, the goal is to find the best arm as efficiently as possible. This problem naturally arises in scenarios such as adaptive clinical trials where the number of patients is limited and the quantification of the confidence in a treatment is important. It also arises in hyperparameter optimization where the goal is to find the optimal choice of hyperparameters for an algorithm with the smallest possible number of experiments, as it can be costly in terms of time, energy, or money. == Stochastic multi-armed bandit == The stochastic multi-armed bandit (MAB) is a sequential game with one player and K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Each arm has an unknown probability distribution associated with it. At each turn, the player has to choose one action and receive an observation from the probability distribution associated with the arm. The more you play an arm, the more you get information on its probability distribution. === Best arm identification === In BAI the goal is to find the arm that has the probability distribution with the highest mean. BAI may be either fixed confidence or fixed horizon. In a fixed-confidence game, a confidence level δ {\displaystyle \delta } is fixed at the beginning of the game and the goal is to find the best arm with this confidence level in as few turns as possible. In a fixed horizon game, the number of turns T {\displaystyle T} is fixed, and the goal is to find the best arm with the highest possible confidence in T {\displaystyle T} turns. === Math formalisation === We have one player and K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind each arm k ∈ { 1 , … , K } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}} lies an unknown distribution ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} with mean μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} . Each distribution ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} belongs to a known family D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} (such as the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each time step t {\displaystyle t} , the player selects an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} and observes an independent sample X t ∼ ν a t {\displaystyle X_{t}\sim \nu _{a_{t}}} from the corresponding distribution. We will note μ ∗ := max μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max \mu _{a}} the highest mean. An arm a {\displaystyle a} that satisfies μ a = μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{a}=\mu ^{}} is called an optimal arm; otherwise it is called suboptimal arm. In best arm identification (BAI) the objective is to identify an optimal arm. Two main settings for BAI appear in the literature: Fixed confidence: In this setting, one typically assumes that there exists a unique optimal arm. A confidence level δ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta \in (0,1)} is specified at the beginning. The algorithm must stop at some finite stopping time τ δ < + ∞ {\displaystyle \tau _{\delta }<+\infty } and return an arm a ^ τ δ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau _{\delta }}} such that the probability of error is bounded: P ( a ^ τ δ ≠ a ∗ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau _{\delta }}\neq a^{})\leq \delta } . The objective is to minimize the expected sample complexity E [ τ δ ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} [\tau _{\delta }]} . Such a setting appears, for example, when a constraint on the confidence is required (for example, if we require a confidence level of 95%, so δ = 1 − 0.95 = 0.05 {\displaystyle \delta =1-0.95=0.05} ). Fixed horizon: In this setting, the number of samples T {\displaystyle T} is fixed in advance. The goal is to design an algorithm that minimizes the probability of misidentifying the optimal arm: P ( a ^ T ≠ a ∗ ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{T}\neq a^{})} . This setting appears when the number of experiments is limited (for drug tests, the number of patients can be fixed in advance). === Example of simple modelling === In the case where we have K {\displaystyle K} treatments and we want to be sure with a confidence level of 95% which treatment is the best to heal a specific disease. Each treatment heals or does not heal the disease with a probability μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} , which means that each distribution is a Bernoulli distribution, so D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} is the set of Bernoulli distributions. We can use a BAI algorithm to minimize E [ τ 0.05 ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} [\tau _{0.05}]} , the number of patients required to find the best treatment with probability 95%. == Applications == Best arm identification naturally arises in several practical domains: Adaptive clinical trials: The objective is to identify the most effective treatment based on sequentially collected patient data. Each treatment can be modeled as having an underlying distribution of outcomes. The goal is to identify the treatment with the highest expected outcome with high confidence (fixed confidence setting δ {\displaystyle \delta } ) while minimizing the number of drug test patients (minimise E [ τ δ ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} [\tau _{\delta }]} ), as it costs to pay patients for this and we would like to use as little as possible less effective drugs. Hyperparameter tuning: Selecting the best configuration for machine learning models efficiently by treating each hyperparameter setting as an arm. The goal is to find the best hyperparameter with as few experiments possible as experiments are costly in time and in energy == Fixed confidence level == In the fixed-confidence setting, the goal is to design an algorithm that identifies the best arm with a prescribed confidence level δ {\displaystyle \delta } while minimizing the expected number of samples. Any such algorithm requires two key components: Stopping rule: A decision criterion that determines when to stop sampling. Formally, this defines a stopping time τ δ {\displaystyle \tau _{\delta }} and returns an arm a ^ τ δ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau _{\delta }}} such that P ( a ^ τ δ ≠ a ⋆ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau _{\delta }}\neq a^{\star })\leq \delta } and P ( τ δ < + ∞ ) = 1 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (\tau _{\delta }<+\infty )=1} . Sampling rule: A policy π {\displaystyle \pi } that, at each round t {\displaystyle t} , selects the next arm to sample a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} based on all previous observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s Ideonomy is a combinatorial "science of ideas" developed by American independent scholar Patrick M. Gunkel (1947–2017). Specifically, Ideonomy is concerned with the systematic organization of ideas and the discovery of the rules behind how ideas combine, diverge, and transform. Gunkel defined ideonomy as "the science of the laws of ideas and of the application of such laws to the generation of all possible ideas in connection with any subject, idea, or thing." In his 1992 book A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren compared ideonomy to a "mining operation" that excavates meanings and thought to discover treasures hidden deep within language. Sources from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrate that ideonomy was useful to academic researchers in fields including biology, toxicology, and nursing/patient care. Beginning in the 2010s, academics in a wide range of fields including machine learning, marketing, computational modeling, and cybersecurity have relied on materials generated for ideonomy to provide methodological support for their research. == Etymology and definition == The word "ideonomy" combines the Greek roots ideo- (from idea, meaning pattern or form) and -nomy (from nomos, meaning law or custom). The suffix -nomy suggests the laws concerning or the totality of knowledge about a given subject, as in astronomy or taxonomy. In a note posted on the MIT ideonomy website, Gunkel states that the word was supposedly first coined by the French Encyclopedists to refer to a science of ideas. No evidence is provided for this statement, however. The concept bears some relationship to Antoine Destutt de Tracy's "ideology" (1796), which originally meant a systematic science of ideas before acquiring its modern political connotations. Gunkel provided several metaphorical descriptions of ideonomy: An "idea bank": a computer network enabling systematic exploration of infinite possible ideas A "kaleidoscope" that can exhibit all possible combinations and transformations of ideas A "prism" capable of diffracting any idea into its cognitive components A "gigantic microscope for magnifying the ideocosm" == History and development == In 1984, Gunkel received a five-year unsolicited grant from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York to develop ideonomy. A June 1, 1987 article on the front page of The Wall Street Journal brought Gunkel and ideonomy to wider public attention. Some academics were interested in using ideonomy's techniques, including biologist Betsey Dyer, who published several contemporaneous peer-reviewed studies citing ideonomy. Academic researchers in the field of toxicology and nursing/patient care also used ideonomy. However, ideonomy's broadest contribution to date came beginning in the 2010s, as a list of personality traits generated for combinatorial matching was used by researchers in artificial intelligence to code human emotions for machine-learning tasks, develop computational models related to personality, develop a measurement framework for influencer-brand recommender systems, and aid information awareness/cybersecurity assessment. == Methodology == The foundational empirical method of ideonomy involves the systematic creation of extensive lists. Gunkel's apartment reportedly contained thousands of lists on every conceivable topic. Gunkel termed each list an "organon," which he described as expanding through "combination, permutation, transformation, generalization, specialization, intersection, interaction, reapplication, recursive use, etc. of existing organons." The ideonomic process follows a progressive structure. The ideonomist begins with a simple list of examples of a particular idea, concept, or thing. The list need not be exhaustive. By studying this list, the ideonomist isolates and identifies types. This categorical analysis then reveals missing items, allowing the primary list to be improved and refined. Gunkel emphasized that list items must not only cover genuine categories of nature but also be formulated in ways that yield the largest possible number of syntactically coherent possibilities when combined. The core technique of ideonomy is "ideocombinatorics"—the systematic intersection and combination of items from different lists to generate novel composite concepts. Gunkel developed computer programs to automate this process. For example, combining a list of 230 Universal Elementary Shapes (pits, pyramids, trenches, hemispheres, needles) with a list of 74 Types of Order (recurrence, identity, likeness of parts) yields 17,020 possible "shapes of order." These combinations, when phrased as questions ("Can there be pits of recurrence?"), could suggest new categories of phenomena worthy of investigation. The computer-generated output is typically repetitive and often meaningless. However, with sufficient frequency, the combinations yield results that are unexpectedly interesting and fruitful. In one documented case, Gunkel's programs generated 45,540 questions about toxins for microbiologist David Bermudes. One question—"Can hierarchies of cell process be used as a basis for classifying toxic action?"—prompted Bermudes to develop a novel approach to classifying biological toxins by the type of molecule they attack, rather than by chemical structure or physiological system affected. According to one contemporaneous account of ideonomy, "Gunkel takes for his field all fields and all ideas about anything. He uses a computer to generate lists of words and phrases and by juxtaposition reviews the resultant patterns for novel ideas. The computer is ideal for this task because the mind would rebel at the formidable processing task ideonomy involves. What we have here is computer generated originality." == Applications == Gunkel and his supporters identified several practical applications for ideonomic methods: Scientific research: Biologist Betsey Dyer of Wheaton College published research crediting ideonomy for helping to generate ideas. Medical science: When Austin pathologist Michael T. O'Brien was presented with the ideonomically-generated question "Can arteries have rashes?", he initially dismissed it as nonsense. Upon reflection, he realized that large arteries are supplied with blood by tiny vessels that might become inflamed and dilated, analogous to skin vessels in a rash—a phenomenon potentially worth researching. Analogical thinking: Harvard law professor Robert Clark used ideonomic analogies to write a research paper comparing plant structure with human hierarchies. Artificial intelligence: Douglas Lenat, a researcher at Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, suggested that Gunkel's lists enumerating types of human mistakes could help design AI systems capable of recognizing and correcting their own errors. == Reception and criticism == Ideonomy received mixed reactions from the academic and scientific communities. Prominent supporters included: Edward Fredkin, former director of MIT's computer science laboratory, who praised Gunkel's "provocative ideas on artificial intelligence." Marvin Minsky, AI scientist and MIT professor, who described ideonomy as "perhaps the most extensive study of ways to generate ideas." Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, who noted Gunkel's "encyclopedic scope" Robert C. Clark, Harvard law professor, who called Gunkel "the most intelligent person I ever met" However, skeptics questioned whether ideonomy constituted a genuine science. Fredkin himself noted that Gunkel "pours out about 60 ideas a minute, and 59 of them are bad," though he added that "even with one good idea out of 60, it's still an amazing accomplishment." Douglas Lenat observed that brainstorming with Gunkel was "a bit like being hit over the head by the muse with a sledgehammer" and that "he puts people off." Gunkel himself acknowledged that ideonomy was in its infancy and might seem "absurdly utopian." His planned magnum opus on ideonomy remained incomplete, and was posted on an MIT website thanks to faculty advisor Whitman Richards. Gunkel wrote: "Pioneering in a completely new field, yes in a new science, is almost unreal. It is heartbreaking, it is pitiable, it is almost inhuman. Honestly, it is a hell. There is nothing heroic about it." == Related concepts == Gunkel identified several historical precedents for ideonomic thinking: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): The philosopher's work on a universal characteristic (characteristica universalis) and calculus of reasoning Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869): Creator of Roget's Thesaurus, which organized concepts into a systematic taxonomy Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907): Developer of the periodic table, demonstrating how combining lists of element families could reveal previously unseen connections Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974): The Caltech astrophysicist whom Gunkel called the "grandfather of ideonomy" for his development of "morphological research"—systematic exploration of all possible solutions t In information science and information technology, single source of truth (SSOT) architecture, or single point of truth (SPOT) architecture, for information systems is the practice of structuring information models and associated data schemas such that every data element is mastered (or edited) in only one place, providing data normalization to a canonical form (for example, in database normalization or content transclusion). There are several scenarios with respect to copies and updates: The master data is never copied and instead only references to it are made; this means that all reads and updates go directly to the SSOT. The master data is copied but the copies are only read and only the master data is updated; if requests to read data are only made on copies, this is an instance of CQRS. The master data is copied and the copies are updated; this needs a reconciliation mechanism when there are concurrent updates. Updates on copies can be thrown out whenever a concurrent update is made on the master, so they are not considered fully committed until propagated to the master. (many blockchains work that way.) Concurrent updates are merged. (if an automatic merge fails, it could fall back on another strategy, which could be the previous strategy or something else like manual intervention, which most source version control systems do.) The advantages of SSOT architectures include easier prevention of mistaken inconsistencies (such as a duplicate value/copy somewhere being forgotten), and greatly simplified version control. Without a SSOT, dealing with inconsistencies implies either complex and error-prone consensus algorithms, or using a simpler architecture that's liable to lose data in the face of inconsistency (the latter may seem unacceptable but it is sometimes a very good choice; it is how most blockchains operate: a transaction is actually final only if it was included in the next block that is mined). Ideally, SSOT systems provide data that are authentic (and authenticatable), relevant, and referable. Deployment of an SSOT architecture is becoming increasingly important in enterprise settings where incorrectly linked duplicate or de-normalized data elements (a direct consequence of intentional or unintentional denormalization of any explicit data model) pose a risk for retrieval of outdated, and therefore incorrect, information. Common examples (i.e., example classes of implementation) are as follows: In electronic health records (EHRs), it is imperative to accurately validate patient identity against a single referential repository, which serves as the SSOT. Duplicate representations of data within the enterprise would be implemented by the use of pointers rather than duplicate database tables, rows, or cells. This ensures that data updates to elements in the authoritative location are comprehensively distributed to all federated database constituencies in the larger overall enterprise architecture. EHRs are an excellent class for exemplifying how SSOT architecture is both poignantly necessary and challenging to achieve: it is challenging because inter-organization health information exchange is inherently a cybersecurity competence hurdle, and nonetheless it is necessary, to prevent medical errors, to prevent the wasted costs of inefficiency (such as duplicated work or rework), and to make the primary care and medical home concepts feasible (to achieve competent care transitions). Single-source publishing as a general principle or ideal in content management relies on having SSOTs, via transclusion or (otherwise, at least) substitution. Substitution happens via libraries of objects that can be propagated as static copies which are later refreshed when necessary (that is, when refreshing of the copy-paste or import is triggered by a larger updating event). Component content management systems are a class of content management systems that aim to provide competence on this level. == Implementation == === Ontologic interactions === An acknowledged prerequisite (of the notion that any given single source of truth can exist) is that it depends on the ontologic condition that no more than a single truth (about any particular fact or idea) exists, an assertion that is ontologic in both the IT sense and the general sense of that word. In many instances, this presents no problem (for example, within particular namespaces, or even across them, as long as naming collisions or broader name conflicts are adequately handled). The broadest contexts (and thus thorniest, regarding ontologic discrepancies) require adequate epistemic regime comparison and reconciliation (or at least negotiation or transactional exchanges). An archetypal example of this class of reconciliation is that two theological seminary libraries, from two different religions (X and Y), could exchange information with an SSOT architecture, but the unification of truth would reside on the level of the statement that "religion X asserts that God is purple whereas religion Y asserts that God is green", rather than on the level of "God is purple" or "God is green". === Architectures or architectural features === An ideal implementation of SSOT is rarely possible in most enterprises. This is because many organisations have multiple information systems, each of which needs access to data relating to the same entities (e.g., customer). Often these systems are purchased as commercial off-the-shelf products from vendors and cannot be modified in trivial ways. Each of these various systems therefore needs to store its own version of common data or entities, and therefore each system must retain its own copy of a record (hence immediately violating the SSOT approach defined above). For example, an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (such as SAP or Oracle e-Business Suite) may store a customer record; the customer relationship management (CRM) system also needs a copy of the customer record (or part of it) and the warehouse dispatch system might also need a copy of some or all of the customer data (e.g., shipping address). In cases where vendors do not support such modifications, it is not always possible to replace these records with pointers to the SSOT. For organisations (with more than one information system) wishing to implement a Single Source of Truth (without modifying all but one master system to store pointers to other systems for all entities), some supporting architectures are: Master data management (MDM) Event store and event sourcing (ES) ==== Master data management (MDM) ==== A master data management system typically serves as the source of truth for an organization's metadata, helping to ensure accuracy and consistency throughout that organizations multiple data sources. Typically the MDM acts as a hub for multiple systems, many of which could allow (be the source of truth for) updates to different aspects of information on a given entity. For example, the CRM system may be the "source of truth" for most aspects of the customer, and is updated by a call centre operator. However, a customer may (for example) also update their address via a customer service web site, with a different back-end database from the CRM system. The MDM application receives updates from multiple sources, acts as a broker to determine which updates are to be regarded as authoritative (the golden record) and then syndicates this updated data to all subscribing systems. The MDM application normally requires an ESB to syndicate its data to multiple subscribing systems. ==== Event store and event sourcing (ES) ==== In event oriented architectures, it has become increasingly common to find an implementation of the Event Sourcing pattern which stores the system state as an ordered sequence of state changes. To do this, you need an Event Store, a particular type of database designed to hold all the events that change the state of the system. The event store in an Event Sourcing + Command Query Responsibility Separation + Domain Driven Design + Messaging architecture is in fact a "single source of truth", with the additional advantage that it can also act as an Enterprise Service Bus as it can listen directly to the event store for status changes as everything passes by. In addition, by saving all the events, it also plays the role of Data Warehouse. One last advantage is that through this system the Shared Database pattern can be implemented, another technique not mentioned to obtain a single source of truth. ==== Data warehouse (DW) ==== While the primary purpose of a data warehouse is to support reporting and analysis of data that has been combined from multiple sources, the fact that such data has been combined (according to business logic embedded in the data transformation and integration processes) means that the data warehouse is often used as a de facto SSOT. Generally, however, the data available from the data warehouse are not used to update other systems; rather the DW becomes Ideonomy
Single source of truth