Clara.io

Clara.io is web-based freemium 3D computer graphics software developed by Exocortex, a Canadian software company. The free or "Basic" component of their freemium offering, however, places severe restrictions, such as on saving models and importing texture maps, which are undisclosed in the company's own descriptions of their plans.vf TMN == History == Clara.io was announced in July 2013, and first presented as part of the official SIGGRAPH 2013 program later that month. By November 2013, when the open beta period started, Clara.io had 14,000 registered users. Clara.io claimed to have 26,000 registered users in January 2014, which grew to 85,000 by December 2014. Clara.io was permanently shut down on December 31, 2022, but the site is currently still partially functional to logged-in users. == Features == Polygonal modeling Constructive solid geometry Key frame animation Skeletal animation Hierarchical scene graph Texture mapping Photorealistic rendering (streaming cloud rendering using V-Ray Cloud) Scene publishing via HTML iframe embedding FBX, Collada, OBJ, STL and Three.js import/export Collaborative real-time editing Revision control (versioning & history) Scripting, Plugins & REST APIs 3D model library Unlisted and Private scenes (paid subscriptions only). == Technology == Clara.io is developed using HTML5, JavaScript, WebGL and Three.js. Clara.io does not rely on any browser plugins and thus runs on any platform that has a modern standards compliant browser. == Screenshots ==

Cloud computing

Cloud computing is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as "a paradigm for enabling network access to a scalable and elastic pool of shareable physical or virtual resources with self-service provisioning and administration on demand". It is commonly referred to as "the cloud". == Characteristics == In 2011, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identified five "essential characteristics" for cloud systems. Below are the exact definitions according to NIST: On-demand self-service: "A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service provider." Broad network access: "Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and workstations)." Resource pooling: " The provider's computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand." Rapid elasticity: "Capabilities can be elastically provisioned and released, in some cases automatically, to scale rapidly outward and inward commensurate with demand. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear unlimited and can be appropriated in any quantity at any time." Measured service: "Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service. By 2023, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) had expanded and refined the list. == History == The history of cloud computing extends to the 1960s, with the initial concepts of time-sharing becoming popularized via remote job entry (RJE). The "data center" model, where users submitted jobs to operators to run on mainframes, was predominantly used during this era. This period saw broad experimentation with making large-scale computing power more accessible through time-sharing, while optimizing infrastructure, platforms, and applications to improve efficiency for end users. The "cloud" metaphor for virtualized services dates to 1994, when it was used by General Magic for the universe of "places" that mobile agents in the Telescript environment could "go". The metaphor is credited to David Hoffman, a General Magic communications specialist, based on its long-standing use in networking and telecom. The expression cloud computing became more widely known in 1996 when Compaq Computer Corporation drew up a business plan for future computing and the Internet. The company's ambition was to supercharge sales with "cloud computing-enabled applications". The business plan foresaw that online consumer file storage would likely be commercially successful. As a result, Compaq decided to sell server hardware to internet service providers. In the 2000s, the application of cloud computing began to take shape with the establishment of Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2002, which allowed developers to build applications independently. In 2006 Amazon Simple Storage Service, known as Amazon S3, and the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) were released. In 2008 NASA's development of the first open-source software for deploying private and hybrid clouds. The following decade saw the launch of various cloud services. In 2010, Microsoft launched Microsoft Azure, and Rackspace Hosting and NASA initiated an open-source cloud-software project, OpenStack. IBM introduced the IBM SmartCloud framework in 2011, and Oracle announced the Oracle Cloud in 2012. In December 2019, Amazon launched AWS Outposts, a service that extends AWS infrastructure, services, APIs, and tools to customer data centers, co-location spaces, or on-premises facilities. == Value proposition == Cloud computing can shorten time to market by offering pre-configured tools, scalable resources, and managed services, allowing users to focus on core business value rather than maintaining infrastructure. Cloud platforms can enable organizations and individuals to reduce upfront capital expenditures on physical infrastructure by shifting to an operational expenditure model, where costs scale with usage. Cloud platforms also offer managed services and tools, such as artificial intelligence, data analytics, and machine learning, which might otherwise require significant in-house expertise and infrastructure investment. While cloud computing can offer cost advantages through effective resource optimization, organizations often face challenges such as unused resources, inefficient configurations, and hidden costs without proper oversight and governance. Many cloud platforms provide cost management tools, such as AWS Cost Explorer and Azure Cost Management, and frameworks like FinOps have emerged to standardize financial operations in the cloud. Cloud computing also facilitates collaboration, remote work, and global service delivery by enabling secure access to data and applications from any location with an internet connection. Cloud providers offer various redundancy options for core services, such as managed storage and managed databases, though redundancy configurations often vary by service tier. Advanced redundancy strategies, such as cross-region replication or failover systems, typically require explicit configuration and may incur additional costs or licensing fees. Cloud environments operate under a shared responsibility model, where providers are typically responsible for infrastructure security, physical hardware, and software updates, while customers are accountable for data encryption, identity and access management (IAM), and application-level security. These responsibilities vary depending on the cloud service model—Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), or Software as a Service (SaaS)—with customers typically having more control and responsibility in IaaS environments and progressively less in PaaS and SaaS models, often trading control for convenience and managed services. == Adoption and suitability == The decision to adopt cloud computing or maintain on-premises infrastructure depends on factors such as scalability, cost structure, latency requirements, regulatory constraints, and infrastructure customization. Organizations with variable or unpredictable workloads, limited capital for upfront investments, or a focus on rapid scalability benefit from cloud adoption. Startups, SaaS companies, and e-commerce platforms often prefer the pay-as-you-go operational expenditure (OpEx) model of cloud infrastructure. Additionally, companies prioritizing global accessibility, remote workforce enablement, disaster recovery, and leveraging advanced services such as AI/ML and analytics are well-suited for the cloud. In recent years, some cloud providers have started offering specialized services for high-performance computing and low-latency applications, addressing some use cases previously exclusive to on-premises setups. On the other hand, organizations with strict regulatory requirements, highly predictable workloads, or reliance on deeply integrated legacy systems may find cloud infrastructure less suitable. Businesses in industries like defense, government, or those handling highly sensitive data often favor on-premises setups for greater control and data sovereignty. Additionally, companies with ultra-low latency requirements, such as high-frequency trading (HFT) firms, rely on custom hardware (e.g., FPGAs) and physical proximity to exchanges, which most cloud providers cannot fully replicate despite recent advancements. Similarly, tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon build their own data centers due to economies of scale, predictable workloads, and the ability to customize hardware and network infrastructure for optimal efficiency. However, these companies also use cloud services selectively for certain workloads and applications where it aligns with their operational needs. In practice, many organizations are increasingly adopting hybrid cloud architectures, combining on-premises infrastructure with cloud services. This approach allows businesses to balance scalability, cost-effectiveness, and control, offering the benefits of both deployment models while mitigating their respective limitations. == Challenges and limitations == One of the primary challenges of cloud computing, compared with traditional on-premises systems, is maintaining data security and privacy. Cloud users entrust their sensitive data to third-party providers, who may not have adequate measures to protect it from unau

WYSIWYM (interaction technique)

What you see is what you meant (WYSIWYM) is a text editing interaction technique that emerged from two projects at University of Brighton. It allows users to create abstract knowledge representations such as those required by the Semantic Web using a natural language interface. Natural language understanding (NLU) technology is not employed. Instead, natural language generation (NLG) is used in a highly interactive manner. The text editor accepts repeated refinement of a selected span of text as it becomes progressively less vacuous of authored semantics. Using a mouse, a text property held in the evolving text can be further refined by a set of options derived by NLG from a built-in ontology. An invisible representation of the semantic knowledge is created which can be used for multilingual document generation, formal knowledge formation, or any other task that requires formally specified information. The two projects at Brighton worked in the field of Conceptual Authoring to lay a foundation for further research and development of a Semantic Web Authoring Tool (SWAT). This tool has been further explored as a means for developing a knowledge base by those without prior experience with Controlled Natural Language tools.

JaCoP (solver)

JaCoP is a constraint solver for constraint satisfaction problems. It is written in Java and it is provided as a Java library. JaCoP has an interface to the MiniZinc and AMPL modeling languages. Its main focus is on ease of use, modeling power, as well as efficiency. It has a large collection of global constraints implemented to facilitate problem modeling. JaCoP is actively developed since year 2001. Krzysztof Kuchcinski and Radoslaw Szymanek are the core developers of this Java library. There are number of people who have contributed to JaCoP development in addition to core developers. JaCoP development has been influenced by more than 20 research articles from Constraint Programming community. It has been used as a tool in more than 30 research articles. There are many different examples provided so it is easier to learn how to use JaCoP. The JaCoP project contains a wrapper for the Scala programming language, and a wrapper for Clojure is maintained as a separate project CloCoP.

OntoWiki

OntoWiki was a free and open-source semantic wiki application, meant to serve as an ontology editor and a knowledge acquisition system. It is a web-based application written in PHP and using either a MySQL database or a Virtuoso triple store. OntoWiki is form-based rather than syntax-based, and thus tries to hide as much of the complexity of knowledge representation formalisms from users as possible. OntoWiki is mainly being developed by the Agile Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web (AKSW) research group at the University of Leipzig, a group also known for the DBpedia project among others, in collaboration with volunteers around the world. In 2009 the AKSW research group got a budget of €425,000 from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany for the development of the OntoWiki. In 2010 OntoWiki became part of the technology stack supporting the LOD2 (linked open data) project. Leipzig University is one of the consortium members of the project, which is funded by a €6.5m EU grant. The development ended in 2016 due to the lack of capacity migrating from PHP 5 to 7 including the required Zend Framework from version 1 to 2.

Evolvability (computer science)

The term evolvability is a framework of computational learning introduced by Leslie Valiant in his paper of the same name. The aim of this theory is to model biological evolution and categorize which types of mechanisms are evolvable. Evolution is an extension of PAC learning and learning from statistical queries. == General framework == Let F n {\displaystyle F_{n}\,} and R n {\displaystyle R_{n}\,} be collections of functions on n {\displaystyle n\,} variables. Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , the goal is to find by local search a representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} that closely approximates f {\displaystyle f\,} . This closeness is measured by the performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} of r {\displaystyle r\,} with respect to f {\displaystyle f\,} . As is the case in the biological world, there is a difference between genotype and phenotype. In general, there can be multiple representations (genotypes) that correspond to the same function (phenotype). That is, for some r , r ′ ∈ R n {\displaystyle r,r'\in R_{n}} , with r ≠ r ′ {\displaystyle r\neq r'\,} , still r ( x ) = r ′ ( x ) {\displaystyle r(x)=r'(x)\,} for all x ∈ X n {\displaystyle x\in X_{n}} . However, this need not be the case. The goal then, is to find a representation that closely matches the phenotype of the ideal function, and the spirit of the local search is to allow only small changes in the genotype. Let the neighborhood N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} of a representation r {\displaystyle r\,} be the set of possible mutations of r {\displaystyle r\,} . For simplicity, consider Boolean functions on X n = { − 1 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X_{n}=\{-1,1\}^{n}\,} , and let D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} be a probability distribution on X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} . Define the performance in terms of this. Specifically, Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = ∑ x ∈ X n f ( x ) r ( x ) D n ( x ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\sum _{x\in X_{n}}f(x)r(x)D_{n}(x).} Note that Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) = r ( x ) ) − Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) ≠ r ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)=r(x))-\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)\neq r(x)).} In general, for non-Boolean functions, the performance will not correspond directly to the probability that the functions agree, although it will have some relationship. Throughout an organism's life, it will only experience a limited number of environments, so its performance cannot be determined exactly. The empirical performance is defined by Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) = 1 s ∑ x ∈ S f ( x ) r ( x ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)={\frac {1}{s}}\sum _{x\in S}f(x)r(x),} where S {\displaystyle S\,} is a multiset of s {\displaystyle s\,} independent selections from X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} according to D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} . If s {\displaystyle s\,} is large enough, evidently Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)} will be close to the actual performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} . Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , initial representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} , sample size s {\displaystyle s\,} , and tolerance t {\displaystyle t\,} , the mutator Mut ⁡ ( f , r , s , t ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Mut} (f,r,s,t)} is a random variable defined as follows. Each r ′ ∈ N ( r ) {\displaystyle r'\in N(r)} is classified as beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, depending on its empirical performance. Specifically, r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a beneficial mutation if Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) ≥ t {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)\geq t} ; r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a neutral mutation if − t < Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) < t {\displaystyle -t<\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r) 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0\,} , for all ideal functions f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} and representations r 0 ∈ R n {\displaystyle r_{0}\in R_{n}} , with probability at least 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon \,} , Perf ⁡ ( f , r g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) ) ≥ 1 − ϵ , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r_{g(n,1/\epsilon )})\geq 1-\epsilon ,} where the sizes of neighborhoods N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} for r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}\,} are at most p ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the sample size is s ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle s(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the tolerance is t ( 1 / n , ϵ ) {\displaystyle t(1/n,\epsilon )\,} , and the generation size is g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle g(n,1/\epsilon )\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable over D {\displaystyle D\,} if it is evolvable by some R {\displaystyle R\,} over D {\displaystyle D\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable if it is evolvable over all distributions D {\displaystyle D\,} . == Results == The class of conjunctions and the class of disjunctions are evolvable over the uniform distribution for short conjunctions and disjunctions, respectively. The class of parity functions (which evaluate to the parity of the number of true literals in a given subset of literals) are not evolvable, even for the uniform distribution. Evolvability implies PAC learnability.

Dendral

Dendral was a project in artificial intelligence (AI) of the 1960s, and the computer software expert system that it produced. Its primary aim was to study hypothesis formation and discovery in science. For that, a specific task in science was chosen: help organic chemists in identifying unknown organic molecules, by analyzing their mass spectra and using knowledge of chemistry. It was done at Stanford University by Edward Feigenbaum, Bruce G. Buchanan, Joshua Lederberg, and Carl Djerassi, along with a team of highly creative research associates and students. It began in 1964 and spans approximately half the history of AI research. The software program Dendral is considered the first expert system because it automated the decision-making process and problem-solving behavior of organic chemists. The project consisted of research on two main programs Heuristic Dendral and Meta-Dendral, and several sub-programs. It was written in the Lisp programming language, which was considered the language of AI because of its flexibility. Many systems were derived from Dendral, including MYCIN, MOLGEN, PROSPECTOR, XCON, and STEAMER. There are many other programs today for solving the mass spectrometry inverse problem, see List of mass spectrometry software, but they are no longer described as 'artificial intelligence', just as structure searchers. The name Dendral is an acronym of the term "Dendritic Algorithm". == Heuristic Dendral == Heuristic Dendral is a program that uses mass spectra or other experimental data together with a knowledge base of chemistry to produce a set of possible chemical structures that may be responsible for producing the data. A mass spectrum of a compound is produced by a mass spectrometer, and is used to determine its molecular weight, the sum of the masses of its atomic constituents. For example, the compound water (H2O), has a molecular weight of 18 since hydrogen has a mass of 1.01 and oxygen 16.00, and its mass spectrum has a peak at 18 units. Heuristic Dendral would use this input mass and the knowledge of atomic mass numbers and valence rules, to determine the possible combinations of atomic constituents whose mass would add up to 18. As the weight increases and the molecules become more complex, the number of possible compounds increases drastically. Thus, a program that is able to reduce this number of candidate solutions through the process of hypothesis formation is essential. New graph-theoretic algorithms were invented by Lederberg, Harold Brown, and others that generate all graphs with a specified set of nodes and connection-types (chemical atoms and bonds) -- with or without cycles. Moreover, the team was able to prove mathematically that the generator is complete, in that it produces all graphs with the specified nodes and edges, and that it is non-redundant, in that the output contains no equivalent graphs (e.g., mirror images). The CONGEN program, as it became known, was developed largely by computational chemists Ray Carhart, Jim Nourse, and Dennis Smith. It was useful to chemists as a stand-alone program to generate chemical graphs showing a complete list of structures that satisfy the constraints specified by a user. == Meta-Dendral == Meta-Dendral is a machine learning system that receives the set of possible chemical structures and corresponding mass spectra as input, and proposes a set of rules of mass spectrometry that correlate structural features with processes that produce the mass spectrum. These rules would be fed back to Heuristic Dendral (in the planning and testing programs described below) to test their applicability. Thus, "Heuristic Dendral is a performance system and Meta-Dendral is a learning system". The program is based on two important features: the plan-generate-test paradigm and knowledge engineering. === Plan-generate-test paradigm === The plan-generate-test paradigm is the basic organization of the problem-solving method, and is a common paradigm used by both Heuristic Dendral and Meta-Dendral systems. The generator (later named CONGEN) generates potential solutions for a particular problem, which are then expressed as chemical graphs in Dendral. However, this is feasible only when the number of candidate solutions is minimal. When there are large numbers of possible solutions, Dendral has to find a way to put constraints that rules out large sets of candidate solutions. This is the primary aim of Dendral planner, which is a “hypothesis-formation” program that employs “task-specific knowledge to find constraints for the generator”. Last but not least, the tester analyzes each proposed candidate solution and discards those that fail to fulfill certain criteria. This mechanism of plan-generate-test paradigm is what holds Dendral together. === Knowledge Engineering === The primary aim of knowledge engineering is to attain a productive interaction between the available knowledge base and problem solving techniques. This is possible through development of a procedure in which large amounts of task-specific information is encoded into heuristic programs. Thus, the first essential component of knowledge engineering is a large “knowledge base.” Dendral has specific knowledge about the mass spectrometry technique, a large amount of information that forms the basis of chemistry and graph theory, and information that might be helpful in finding the solution of a particular chemical structure elucidation problem. This “knowledge base” is used both to search for possible chemical structures that match the input data, and to learn new “general rules” that help prune searches. The benefit Dendral provides the end user, even a non-expert, is a minimized set of possible solutions to check manually. == Heuristics == A heuristic is a rule of thumb, an algorithm that does not guarantee a solution, but reduces the number of possible solutions by discarding unlikely and irrelevant solutions. The use of heuristics to solve problems is called "heuristics programming", and was used in Dendral to allow it to replicate in machines the process through which human experts induce the solution to problems via rules of thumb and specific information. Heuristics programming was a major approach and a giant step forward in artificial intelligence, as it allowed scientists to finally automate certain traits of human intelligence. It became prominent among scientists in the late 1940s through George Polya’s book, How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. As Herbert A. Simon said in The Sciences of the Artificial, "if you take a heuristic conclusion as certain, you may be fooled and disappointed; but if you neglect heuristic conclusions altogether you will make no progress at all." == History == During the mid 20th century, the question "can machines think?" became intriguing and popular among scientists, primarily to add humanistic characteristics to machine behavior. John McCarthy, who was one of the prime researchers of this field, termed this concept of machine intelligence as "artificial intelligence" (AI) during the Dartmouth summer in 1956. AI is usually defined as the capacity of a machine to perform operations that are analogous to human cognitive capabilities. Much research to create AI was done during the 20th century. Also around the mid 20th century, science, especially biology, faced a fast-increasing need to develop a "man-computer symbiosis", to aid scientists in solving problems. For example, the structural analysis of myoglobin, hemoglobin, and other proteins relentlessly needed instrumentation development due to its complexity. In the early 1960s, Joshua Lederberg started working with computers and quickly became tremendously interested in creating interactive computers to help him in his exobiology research. Specifically, he was interested in designing computing systems to help him study alien organic compounds. Lederberg had been heading a team designing instruments for the Mars Viking lander to search for precursor molecules of life in samples of the Mars surface, using a mass spectrometer coupled with a minicomputer. As he was not an expert in either chemistry or computer programming, he collaborated with Stanford chemist Carl Djerassi to help him with chemistry, and Edward Feigenbaum with programming, to automate the process of determining chemical structures from raw mass spectrometry data. Feigenbaum was an expert in programming languages and heuristics, and helped Lederberg design a system that replicated the way Djerassi solved structure elucidation problems. They devised a system called Dendritic Algorithm (Dendral) that was able to generate possible chemical structures corresponding to the mass spectrometry data as an output. Dendral then was still very inaccurate in assessing spectra of ketones, alcohols, and isomers of chemical compounds. Thus, Djerassi "taught" general rules to Dendral that could help eliminate most of the "chemically implausible" structures, and p