Master data management (MDM) is a discipline in which business and information technology collaborate to ensure the uniformity, accuracy, stewardship, semantic consistency, and accountability of the enterprise's official shared master data assets. == Reasons for master data management == Data consistency and accuracy: MDM ensures that the organization's critical data is consistent and accurate across all systems, reducing discrepancies and errors caused by multiple, siloed copies of the same data. Improved decision-making: By providing a single version of the truth (SVOT), MDM enables organizations to deliver the right data to decision makers, allowing them to clearly understand business performance and make informed, data-driven decisions. Operational efficiency: With the consistent and accurate data provided by an MDM, operational processes such as reporting and inventory management can be automated to improve efficiency. Employee learning, onboarding, and customer service also become more efficient, as MDM data facilitates rapid, accurate, and thorough information retrieval, permitting more employee time to be spent on work. Regulatory compliance: MDM tries to help organizations comply with industry standards and regulations by ensuring that master data is accurately recorded, maintained, and audited. However, issues with data quality, classification, and reconciliation may require data transformation. As with other Extract, Transform, Load-based data movements, these processes are expensive and inefficient, reducing return on investment for a project. == Business unit and product line segmentation == As a result of business unit and product line segmentation, the same entity (whether a customer, supplier, or product) will be included in different product lines. This leads to data redundancy and even confusion. For example, a customer takes out a mortgage at a bank. If the marketing and customer service departments have separate databases, advertisements might still be sent to the customer, even though they've already signed up. The two parts of the bank are unaware, and the customer is sent irrelevant communications. Record linkage can associate different records corresponding to the same entity, mitigating this issue. == Mergers and acquisitions == One of the most common problems for master data management is company growth through mergers or acquisitions. Reconciling these separate master data systems can present difficulties, as existing applications have dependencies on the master databases. Ideally, database administrators resolve this problem through deduplication of the master data as part of the merger. Over time, as further mergers and acquisitions occur, the problem can multiply. Data reconciliation processes can become extremely complex or even unreliable. Some organizations end up with 10, 15, or even 100 separate and poorly integrated master databases. This can cause serious problems in customer satisfaction, operational efficiency, decision support, and regulatory compliance. Another problem involves determining the proper degrees of detail and normalization to include in the master data schema. For example, in a federated Human Resources environment, the enterprise software may focus on storing people's data as current status, adding a few fields to identify the date of hire, date of last promotion, etc. However, this simplification can introduce business-impacting errors into dependent systems for planning and forecasting. The stakeholders of such systems may be forced to build a parallel network of new interfaces to track the onboarding of new hires, planned retirements, and divestment, which works against one of the aims of master data management. == People, processes and technology == Master data management is enabled by technology, but is more than the technologies that enable it. An organization's master data management capability will also include people and processes in its definition. === People === Several roles should be staffed within MDM. Most prominently, the Data Owner and the Data Steward. Several people would likely be allocated to each role and each person responsible for a subset of Master Data (e.g. one data owner for employee master data, another for customer master data). The Data Owner is responsible for the requirements for data definition, data quality, data security, etc. as well as for compliance with data governance and data management procedures. The Data Owner should also be funding improvement projects in case of deviations from the requirements. The Data Steward is running the master data management on behalf of the data owner and probably also being an advisor to the Data Owner. === Processes === Master data management can be viewed as a "discipline for specialized quality improvement" defined by the policies and procedures put in place by a data governance organization. It has the objective of providing processes for collecting, aggregating, matching, consolidating, quality-assuring, persisting and distributing master data throughout an organization to ensure a common understanding, consistency, accuracy and control, in the ongoing maintenance and application use of that data. Processes commonly seen in master data management include source identification, data collection, data transformation, normalization, rule administration, error detection and correction, data consolidation, data storage, data distribution, data classification, taxonomy services, item master creation, schema mapping, product codification, data enrichment, hierarchy management, business semantics management and data governance. === Technology === A master data management tool can be used to support master data management by removing duplicates, standardizing data (mass maintaining), and incorporating rules to eliminate incorrect data from entering the system to create an authoritative source of master data. Master data are the products, accounts, and parties for which the business transactions are completed. Where the technology approach produces a "golden record" or relies on a "source of record" or "system of record", it is common to talk of where the data is "mastered". This is accepted terminology in the information technology industry, but care should be taken, both with specialists and with the wider stakeholder community, to avoid confusing the concept of "master data" with that of "mastering data". ==== Implementation models ==== There are several models for implementing a technology solution for master data management. These depend on an organization's core business, its corporate structure, and its goals. These include: Source of record Registry Consolidation Coexistence Transaction/centralized ===== Source of record ===== This model identifies a single application, database, or simpler source (e.g. a spreadsheet) as being the "source of record" (or "system of record" where solely application databases are relied on). The benefit of this model is its conceptual simplicity, but it may not fit with the realities of complex master data distribution in large organizations. The source of record can be federated, for example by groups of attributes (so that different attributes of a master data entity may have different sources of record) or geographically (so that different parts of an organization may have different master sources). Federation is only applicable in certain use cases, where there is a clear delineation of which subsets of records will be found in which sources. The source of record model can be applied more widely than simply to master data, for example to reference data. ==== Transmission of master data ==== There are several ways in which master data may be collated and distributed to other systems. This includes: Data consolidation – The process of capturing master data from multiple sources and integrating it into a single hub (operational data store) for replication to other destination systems. Data federation – The process of providing a single virtual view of master data from one or more sources to one or more destination systems. Data propagation – The process of copying master data from one system to another, typically through point-to-point interfaces in legacy systems. == Change management in implementation == Challenges in adopting master data management within large organizations often arise when stakeholders disagree on a "single version of the truth" concept is not affirmed by stakeholders, who believe that their local definition of the master data is necessary. For example, the product hierarchy used to manage inventory may be entirely different from the product hierarchies used to support marketing efforts or pay sales representatives. It is above all necessary to identify if different master data is genuinely required. If it is required, then the solution implemented (technology and process) must be able to allow multiple versions of the truth to exist but will prov
Clean Email
Clean Email is an automated software as a service email management application which identifies and clears junk mail from inboxes. The service uses a subscription business model with a free trial for the first 1,000 emails. and is available on macOS, iOS, Android, and on the web. == History == Clean Email is a self-funded company headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Initially developed by the founder for personal use, the service was designed to address the growing issue of inbox clutter and privacy concerns. In 2017, John Gruber recognized Clean Email as a trustworthy alternative to Unroll.me after the latter was found to be selling user data. == Features == Clean Email uses algorithms to identify and categorize emails, enabling users to group, remove, label, and archive email messages in bulk. Its Unsubscriber tool consolidates all subscriptions and newsletters into a single view for quick management, allowing users to bulk unsubscribe or temporarily pause mail. Its Screener feature transforms the inbox into an "opt-in" system, enabling users to pre-approve mail from new senders. Cleaning Suggestions identifies frequently cleaned mail, recommending actions accordingly. Additional functionalities include automatic deletion of aging emails, delivery of messages to specified folders, and options to mute or block senders.
Nortel Speech Server
The Nortel Speech Server (formerly known as Periphonics Speech Processing Platform) in telecommunications is a speech processing system that was originally developed by Nortel. Following the bankruptcy of Nortel, it is now sold by Avaya. The system is primarily used for large vocabulary speech recognition, natural language understanding, text-to-speech, and speaker verification. The Nortel Speech Server was based on the Periphonics OSCAR platform. The original OSCAR Platform was based upon Solaris servers. The current range of Speech Servers is Windows based. Nortel Speech Server is a component of the MPS 500, MPS 1000, and ICP platforms. On MPS systems, it may be used to stream prerecorded audio.
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.
Brain.js
Brain.js is a JavaScript library used for neural networking, which is released as free and open-source software under the MIT License. It can be used in both the browser and Node.js backends. Brain.js is most commonly used as a simple introduction to neural networking, as it hides complex mathematics and has a familiar modern JavaScript syntax. It is maintained by members of the Brain.js organization and open-source contributors. == Examples == Creating a feedforward neural network with backpropagation: Creating a recurrent neural network: Train the neural network on RGB color contrast:
AdBlock
AdBlock is an ad-blocking browser extension for Google Chrome, Apple Safari (desktop and mobile), Firefox, Samsung Internet, Microsoft Edge and Opera. AdBlock allows users to prevent page elements, such as advertisements, from being displayed. It is free to download and use, and it includes optional donations to the developers. The AdBlock extension was created on December 8, 2009, which is the day that supports for extensions was added to Google Chrome. It was one of the first Google Chrome extensions that was made. Since 2016, AdBlock has been based on the Adblock Plus source code. In July 2018, AdBlock acquired uBlock, a commercial ad-blocker owned by uBlock LLC and based on uBlock Origin. In April 2021, eyeo GmbH (developer of Adblock Plus) announced its purchase of AdBlock, Inc (formerly BetaFish, Inc). == Crowdfunding == Gundlach launched a crowdfunding campaign on Crowdtilt in August 2013 in order to fund an ad campaign to raise awareness of ad-blocking and to rent a billboard at Times Square. After the one-month campaign, it raised $55,000. == Sales and acceptable ads == AdBlock was sold to an anonymous buyer in 2015 and on October 15, 2015, Gundlach's name was taken down from the site. In the terms of the deal, the original developer Michael Gundlach left operations to Adblock's continuing director, Gabriel Cubbage, and as of October 2, 2015, AdBlock began participating in the Acceptable Ads program. Acceptable Ads identifies "non-annoying" ads, which AdBlock shows by default. The intent is to allow non-invasive advertising, to either maintain support for websites that rely on advertising as a main source of revenue or for websites that have an agreement with the program. == Filters == AdBlock uses EasyList, the same filter syntax as Adblock Plus for Firefox, and natively supports the use of a number of filter lists. == Partnership with Amnesty International == On March 12, 2016, in support of World Day Against Cyber Censorship, and in partnership with Amnesty International, instead of blocking ads, AdBlock replaced ads with banners linked to articles on Amnesty's website, written by prominent free speech advocates such as Edward Snowden, to raise awareness of government-imposed online censorship and digital privacy issues around the world. The campaign was met with both praise and criticism, with AdBlock's CEO, Gabriel Cubbage, defending the decision in an essay on AdBlock's website, saying "We’re showing you Amnesty banners, just for today, because we believe users should be part of the conversation about online privacy. Tomorrow, those spaces will be vacant again. But take a moment to consider that in an increasingly information-driven world, when your right to digital privacy is threatened, so is your right to free expression." Meanwhile, Simon Sharwood of The Register characterized Cubbage's position as "'You should control your computer except when we feel political', says AdBlock CEO". == AdBlock for Firefox == On September 13, 2014, the AdBlock team released a version for Firefox users, ported from the code for Google Chrome, released under the same free software license as the original Adblock. The extension was removed on April 2, 2015, by an administrator on Mozilla Add-ons. On December 7, 2015, the official AdBlock site's knowledge base article stated that with version 44 or higher of Firefox desktop and Firefox Mobile, AdBlock will not be supported. The last version of Adblock for those platforms will work on older versions of Firefox. AdBlock was released again on Mozilla Add-ons on November 17, 2016. On April 1, 2012, Adblock developer Michael Gundlach tweaked the code to display LOLcats instead of simply blocking ads. Initially developed as a short-lived April Fools joke, the response was so positive that CatBlock was continued to be offered as an optional add-on supported by a monthly subscription. On October 23, 2014, the developer decided to end official support for CatBlock, and made it open-source, under GPLv3 licensing, as the original extension.
Daisy Intelligence
Daisy Intelligence is a Canadian artificial intelligence (AI) company that provides data analysis services to help retailers, mainly grocers and supermarkets, to determine optimal pricing and promotional mix. The company also helps insurance companies detect fraudulent claims. The company uses a subset of AI known as reinforcement learning. In October 2019, the company moved from the suburban Vaughan, Ontario, to downtown Toronto, joining other AI and technology startups concentrated in the King Street East area. In 2019, the company was ranked No. 39 on The Globe and Mail's annual list of Canada's "top growing companies by three-year revenue growth."