Google Messages (formerly known as Messenger, Android Messages, and Messages by Google) is a text messaging software application developed by Google for its Android and Wear OS mobile operating systems. It is also available as a web app. Google's official universal messaging platform for the Android ecosystem, Messages employs SMS, MMS, and Rich Communication Services (RCS). Starting in 2023, Google has RCS activated by default on participating Android devices, similar to the implementation of iMessage on Apple devices. Samsung Messages will be discontinued on July 6th 2026, with Samsung transitioning users to Google Messages as the default messaging application. == History == The original code for Android SMS messaging was released in 2009 integrated into the operating system. It was released as a standalone application independent of Android with the release of Android 5.0 Lollipop in 2014, replacing Google Hangouts as the default SMS app on Google's Nexus line of phones. In 2018, Messages adopted RCS messages and evolved to send larger data files, sync with other apps, and even create mass messages. This was in preparation for when Google launched Messages for web. In December 2019, Google began to introduce support for Rich Communication Services (RCS) messaging via an RCS service hosted by Google, referred to in the user interface as "chat features". This was followed by a wider global rollout throughout 2020. The app surpassed 1 billion installs in April 2020, doubling its number of installs in less than a year. Initially, RCS did not support end-to-end encryption. In June 2021, Google introduced end-to-end encryption in Messages by default using the Signal Protocol, for all one-to-one RCS-based conversations, for all RCS group chats in December 2022 for beta users, and for all RCS users by August 2023, as well as enabling RCS for all users by default to encourage encryption. In July 2023, Google announced it would build the Message Layer Security (MLS) end-to-end encryption protocol into Google Messages. Beginning with the Samsung Galaxy S21, Messages replaces Samsung's in-house Messages app as the default text messaging app for One UI for some regions and carriers. In April 2021, the app began to receive UI modifications on Samsung devices to follow aspects of One UI, including pushing the top of the message list towards the middle of the screen to improve ergonomics. In February 2023, Google began to replace references to "chat features" in the Messages user interface with "RCS". In August 2023, Google announced that Messages will use RCS by default for all users unless they opt out, to allow them to benefit from secure messaging. In December 2023, with the arrival of several new features, the app was renamed "Google Messages". In July 2024, Samsung announced it would no longer pre-install Samsung Messages on its Galaxy devices in some regions, starting with the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip, favoring Google Messages instead. In April 2026, Samsung announced that Samsung Messages would be discontinued in July 2026. It encouraged users to switch to Google Messages. == Features == Some of the most important features in Google Messages are: Send instant text and voice messages in 1:1 or group chat conversations over mobile data and Wi-Fi, via Android, Wear OS or the web. End-to-end encryption for RCS chats. Typing, sent, delivered and read status Reply and react to specific messages Share files and high-resolution photos Voice message transcriptions Schedule messages In-app reminders for birthdays and messages you didn't respond to after some time with Nudges Tight integration with the Google ecosystem, e.g. Google Calendar, Meet, Maps, YouTube, Photos, Contacts, Assistant, Search, Safe Browsing etc. Web interface: Users can visit https://messages.google.com/web and either sign in with their Google account or scan the QR code that is shown with their smartphone to access a limited web version of the app that allows them to send and receive messages, provided the smartphone remains connected. Phone number recognition: The app shows the country and province of the caller. Additionally, it can show the company's name or a warning for spam calls if the number is registered in a data base. Access to the Gemini chatbot on select Pixel, Galaxy and Android devices.
GEPIR
GEPIR (Global Electronic Party Information Registry) was a distributed database operated and owned by GS1 that contains basic information on over 1,000,000 companies in over 100 countries. The database could be searched by Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) code (including Universal Product Code (UPC) and EAN-13 codes), container Code (Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC)), location number (Global Location Number (GLN)), and (in some countries) the company name. A SOAP webservice existed for API access. As of end December 2023, GEPIR was replaced by a service called Verified by GS1. While it operated, GEPIR had more than 1 million members in more than 100 countries. In 2013, all GS1 111 member organisations joined GEPIR. == Access == GEPIR was accessible for free in almost all countries but the number of request per day was limited (from 20 to 30). Since October 2013, GS1 France restricts access to GEPIR to companies (registration with SIREN code was required to use it). A premium access service had been created by GS1 France in January 2010 which allows companies to use GS1 web and SOAP interface without any limit. == System architecture == GEPIR was a lookup service coordinated by the GS1 GO that provided all end users with the ability to look up information about GS1 Identification Keys. Depending on the service, systems were provided by GS1 Member Organisations (MOs) or 3rd party service providers, or both. Where a GS1 MO did not choose to provide the service directly to its end users, the GS1 Global Office provided the service for that geography. Some services involved a technical component deployed by the GS1 Global Office that coordinates the systems provided by GS1 MOs and/or 3rd party service providers. The GEPIR service was provided by systems deployed by GS1 MOs, with the GS1 GO providing a central point of coordination to federate the local systems. The GS1 GO also provides the MO-level service for MOs that could not or did not wish to deploy their own system.
Quality of Data
Quality of Data (QoD) is a designation coined by L. Veiga, that specifies and describes the required Quality of Service of a distributed storage system from the Consistency point of view of its data. It can be used to support big data management frameworks, Workflow management, and HPC systems (mainly for data replication and consistency). It takes into account data semantics, namely the Time interval of data freshness, the Sequence of tolerable number of outstanding versions of the data read before ore refresh, and the Value divergence allowed before displaying it. Initially it was based on a model from an existing research work regarding vector-field Consistency, awarded the best-paper prize in the ACM/IFIP/Usenix Middleware Conference 2007 and later enhanced for increased scalability and fault-tolerance. This consistency model has been successfully applied and proven in big data key/value store Apache HBase, initially designed as a middleware module seating between clusters from separate data centres. The HBase-QoD coupling minimises bandwidth usage and optimises resources allocation during replication achieving the desired consistency level at a more fine-grained level. QoD is defined by the three-dimensions of vector k=(θ,σ,ν), but with a broader view of the issue, applicable also to large-scale data management techniques in regards to their timely delivery. == Other descriptions == Quality of Data should not be confused with other definitions for data quality such as completeness, validity, and accuracy.
Harold Borko
Harold Borko (1922-2012) was an American psychologist and researcher working primarily in the field of information science. == Biography == Borko was born in 1922 in New York City, New York. After serving in the US Army from 1942 to 1946 he obtained a BA in Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1948 and both his MA and PhD from the University of Southern California in Psychology in 1952. He returned to the army as a psychologist until 1956 after which he began a career working in and teaching information science. He died in California in 2012. == Information Science Career == After leaving the military Borko began working at the RAND Corporation as a Systems Training Specialist in 1956 and moved to the Systems Development Corporation a year later working in the Language Processing and Retrieval department. Alongside this work he taught Psychology at USC from 1957-65 and then moved into teaching Library Science at UCLA from 1965. In 1967 Borko left his role at the Systems Development Corporation and continued as a full-time professor at UCLA until his retirement in 1993.. From 1961 to 1995 Borko authored and co-authored over 100 articles on new developments in the field as well as the historiography of information science. He served as an editor of the Journal of Educational Data Processing from 1963-1975 and as President of the American Society for Information Science in 1966 == Partial list of works == Borko, H. (1962, May). The construction of an empirically based mathematically derived classification system. In Proceedings of the May 1-3, 1962, spring joint computer conference (pp. 279-289). Borko, H., & Bernick, M. (1963). Automatic document classification. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 10(2), 151-162. Borko, H. (1964). The Storage and Retrieval of Educational Information. Journal of Teacher Education, 15(4), 449-452. Borko, H. (1964). Measuring the reliability of subject classification by men and machines. American Documentation, 15(4), 268-273. Borko, H. (1965). The conceptual foundations of information systems. Borko, H. (1968), Information science: What is it?†. Amer. Doc., 19: 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090190103 Borko, H. (1970). Experiments in book indexing by computer. Information storage and retrieval, 6(1), 5-16. Borko, H. (1985). An introduction to computer-based library systems (Lucy A. Tedd). Education for Information, 3(1), 61.
International Philosophical Bibliography
The International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB), also known in French as Répertoire bibliographique de la philosophie (RBP), is a bibliographic database covering publications on the history of philosophy and continental philosophy. The database comprises records of publications in over 30 languages. Annually, about 12,000 records are added. The indexes include, among other elements, over 84,000 names of authors, editors, translators, reviewers, and collaborators, as well as more than 3,000 commentaries on philosophical works, making it the world's most complete index in Philosophy. Since 1934, the IPB has been developed by the Higher Institute of Philosophy at the University of Louvain (UCLouvain), first in Leuven and since 1978 in Louvain-la-Neuve. The online version was launched by Peeters Publishers in 1997 and continues to be updated quarterly.
Trazzler
Trazzler is a travel destination app that specializes in unique and local destinations. The initial concept was developed by Adam Rugel and Biz Stone in 2006 at Twitter's original offices under the name "71 miles". More than 10,000 writers and photographers have contributed and more than $350,000 in freelance contracts have been issued as a result of Trazzeler's weekly writing and photography contests. Investors in the company include SV Angel, AOL Founder Steve Case, and the Twitter founders, Evan Williams, Jack Dorsey, and Biz Stone. The company's partners are the City of Chicago, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Salon.com, and Air New Zealand. Trazzler is designed for use on the iOS, Android, and Facebook.
Subject (documents)
In library and information science documents (such as books, articles and pictures) are classified and searched by subject – as well as by other attributes such as author, genre and document type. This makes "subject" a fundamental term in this field. Library and information specialists assign subject labels to documents to make them findable. There are many ways to do this and in general there is not always consensus about which subject should be assigned to a given document. To optimize subject indexing and searching, we need to have a deeper understanding of what a subject is. The question: "what is to be understood by the statement 'document A belongs to subject category X'?" has been debated in the field for more than 100 years (see below) == Theoretical view == === Charles Ammi Cutter (1837–1903) === For Cutter the stability of subjects depends on a social process in which their meaning is stabilized in a name or a designation. A subject "referred [...] to those intellections [...] that had received a name that itself represented a distinct consensus in usage" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 60) and: the "systematic structure of established subjects" is "resident in the public realm" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 69); "[s]ubjects are by their very nature locations in a classificatory structure of publicly accumulated knowledge (Miksa, 1983a, p. 61). Bernd Frohmann adds: "The stability of the public realm in turn relies upon natural and objective mental structures which, with proper education, govern a natural progression from particular to general concepts. Since for Cutter, mind, society, and SKO [Systems of Knowledge Organization] stand one behind the other, each supporting each, all manifesting the same structure, his discursive construction of subjects invites connections with discourses of mind, education, and society. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), by contrast, severs those connections. Melvil Dewey emphasized more than once that his system maps no structure beyond its own; there is neither a "transcendental deduction" of its categories nor any reference to Cutter's objective structure of social consensus. It is content-free: Dewey disdained any philosophical excogitation of the meaning of his class symbols, leaving the job of finding verbal equivalents to others. His innovation and the essence of the system lay in the notation. The DDC is a poorly semiotic system of expanding nests of ten digits, lacking any referent beyond itself. In it, a subject is wholly constituted in terms of its position in the system. The essential characteristic of a subject is a class symbol which refers only to other symbols. Its verbal equivalent is accidental, a merely pragmatic characteristic... .... The conflict of interpretations over "subjects" became explicit in the battles between "bibliography" (an approach to subjects having much in common with Cutter's) and Dewey's "close classification". William Fletcher spoke for the scholarly bibliographer.... Fletcher's "subjects", like Cutter's, referred to the categories of a fantasized, stable social order, whereas Dewey's subjects were elements of a semiological system of standardized, techno-bureaucratic administrative software for the library in its corporate, rather than high culture, incarnation". (Frohmann, 1994, 112–113). Cutter's early view on what a subject is, is probably wiser than most understandings that dominated the 20th century – and also the understanding reflected in the ISO-standard quoted below. The early statements quoted by Frohmann indicate that subjects are somehow shaped in social processes. When that is said, it should be added that they are not particularly detailed or clear. We only get a vague idea of the social nature of subjects. === S. R. Ranganathan (1892–1972) === A classification system with an explicit theoretical foundation is Ranganathan's Colon Classification. Ranganathan provided an explicit definition of the concept of "subject": Subject – an organized body of ideas, whose extension and intension are likely to fall coherently within the field of interests and comfortably within the intellectual competence and the field of inevitable specialization of a normal person. A related definition is given by one of Ranganathan's students: A subject is an organized and systematized body of ideas. It may consist of one idea or a combination of several... Ranganathan's definition of "subject" is strongly influenced by his Colon Classification system. The colon system is based on the combination of single elements from facets to subject designation. This is the reason why the combined nature of subjects are emphasized so strongly. It leads, however, to absurdities such as the claim that gold cannot be a subject (but is alternatively termed "an isolate"). This aspect of the theory has been criticized by Metcalfe (1973, p. 318). Metcalfe's skepticism regarding Ranganathan's theory is formulated in hard words (op. cit., p. 317): "This pseudo-science imposed itself on British disciples from about 1950 on...". It seems unacceptable that Ranganathan defines the word subject in a way that favors his own system. A scientific concept like "subject" should make it possible to compare different ways of establishing access to information. Whether or not subjects are combined or not should be examined once their definition has been given, it should not determined a priori, in the definition. Besides the emphasis on the combined, organizing and systematizing nature of subjects contains Ranganathan's definition of subject the pragmatic demand, that a subject should be determined in a way that suits a normal person's competency or specialization. Again we see a strange kind of wishful thinking mixing a general understanding of a concept with demands put by his own specific system. One thing is what the word subject means, quite another issue is how to provide subject descriptions that fulfill demands such as the specificity of a given information retrieval language which fulfill demands put on the system, such as precision and recall. If researchers too often define terms in ways that favor specific kinds of systems, that are such definitions not useful to provide more general theories about subjects, subject analysis and IR. Among other things are comparative studies of different kinds of systems made difficult. Based on these arguments, as well as additional arguments which have been used in the literature, we may conclude that Ranganathan's definition of the concept "subject" is not suited for scientific use. Like the definition of "subject" given by the ISO-standard for topic maps, may Ranganathan's definition be useful within his own closed system. The purpose of a scientific and scholarly field is, however, to examine the relative fruitfulness of systems such as topic maps and Colon Classification. For such purpose is another understanding of "subject" necessary. === Patrick Wilson (1927–2003) === In his book Wilson (1968) examined – in particular by thought experiments – the suitability of different methods of examining the subject of a document. The methods were: identifying the author's purpose for writing the document, weighing the relative dominance and subordination of different elements in the picture, which the reading imposes on the reader, grouping or count the document's use of concepts and references, construing a set of rules for selecting elements deemed necessary (as opposed to unnecessary) for the work as a whole. Patrick Wilson shows convincingly that each of these methods are insufficient to determine the subject of a document and is led to conclude ( p. 89): "The notion of the subject of a writing is indeterminate..." or, on p. 92 (about what users may expect to find using a particular position in a library classification system): "For nothing definite can be expected of the things found at any given position". In connection to the last quote has Wilson an interesting footnote in which he writes that authors of documents often use terms in ambiguous ways ("hostility" is used as an example). Even if the librarian could personally develop a very precise understanding of a concept, he would be unable to use it in his classification, because none of the documents use the term in the same precise way. Based on this argumentation is Wilson led to conclude: "If people write on what are for them ill-defined phenomena, a correct description of their subjects must reflect the ill-definedness". Wilson's concept of subject was discussed by Hjørland (1992) who found that it is problematic to give up the precise understanding of such a basic term in LIS. Wilson's arguments led him to an agnostic position which Hjørland found unacceptable and unnecessary. Concerning the authors' use of ambiguous terms, the role of the subject analysis is to determine which documents would be fruitful for users to identify whether or not the documents use one or another term or whether a given term i