DaVinci was a development tool produced by Incross, which aimed at creating HTML5 mobile applications and media content. It included a jQuery framework and a JavaScript library that enabled developers and designers to craft web applications designed for mobile devices with a user experience similar to native applications. Business applications, games, rich media content, such as HTML5 multi-media magazines, advertisements, and animation, may be produced with the tool. DaVinci was based on standard web technology – including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. == Features == DaVinci comprised DaVinci Studio and DaVinci Animator, which handled application programming and UI design. The tool had a WYSIWYG authoring environment. Open-source libraries, such as KnockOut, JsRender/JsViews, Impress.js, and turn.js, were included in the tool. Other open-source frameworks could also be integrated. The Model View Controller (MVC) and Data Binding in JavaScript could be handled through DaVinci's Data-Set Editor. In this mode, view components and model data could be visually bound, which allowed users to create web applications with server-integrated UI components without coding. Additionally, DaVinci included an N-Screen editor, which automatically adjusted designs and functionalities to fit the screen sizes of various devices, including smartphones, tablet PCs, and TVs. == DaVinci and jQuery == In collaboration with the jQuery Foundation, DaVinci played a significant role in hosting the first jQuery conference in an Asian district, which took place on November 12, 2012, in Seoul, South Korea. The conference showcased how DaVinci could be utilized in application development demonstrations.
Esdat
ESdat is a data management, analysis and reporting software for environmental and groundwater data, developed by EarthScience Information Systems (EScIS). It is used to manage many types of environmental data including laboratory chemistry (analytical results, QA data, lab sample planning, and electronic Chain of Custody), field chemistry (water, gas, and soil), hydrogeological data (groundwater, borehole and well construction, lithological, geotechnical and stratigraphic, and LNAPL), meteorological data (rain, wind, and temperature), emission data (dust deposition, HiVol, air quality, and noise) and logger data. Data can be compared against environmental standards or site-specific trigger levels to generate exceedence tables, time series graphs, maps, statistics, and other outputs. ESdat integrates with Power BI and ArcGIS and data can also be exported in a range of other database formats, including USEPA Regions 2,4 & 5, and NYS DEC. ESdat is used by environmental consultants, government, mining and industry for validation, interrogation, and reporting of data derived from complex environmental programs, such as contaminated sites, groundwater investigations, and regulatory compliance for landfills or mining operations.
Certifying algorithm
In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.
Golden record (informatics)
In informatics, a golden record is the valid version of a data element (record) in a single source of truth system. It may refer to a database, specific table or data field, or any unit of information used. A golden copy is a consolidated data set, and is supposed to provide a single source of truth and a "well-defined version of all the data entities in an organizational ecosystem". Other names sometimes used include master source or master version. The term has been used in conjunction with data quality, master data management, and similar topics. (Different technical solutions exist, see master data management). == Master data == In master data management (MDM), the golden copy refers to the master data (master version) of the reference data which works as an authoritative source for the "truth" for all applications in a given IT landscape.
Manhattan address algorithm
The Manhattan address algorithm is a series of formulas used to estimate the closest east–west cross street for building numbers on north–south avenues in the New York City borough of Manhattan. == Algorithm == To find the approximate number of the closest cross street, divide the building number by a divisor (generally 20) and add (or subtract) the "tricky number" from the table below: For the north–south avenues, there are typically 20 address numbers between consecutive east–west streets (10 on either side of the avenue). A standard land lot on each avenue was originally 20 feet (6.1 m) wide, and there is about 200 feet (61 m) between each pair of east–west streets, for ten land lots between each pair of streets. The exceptions are Riverside Drive, as well as Fifth Avenue and Central Park West between 59th and 110th streets, which use a divisor of 10. These avenues all have buildings only on one side of the street, with a park on the other side. The "tricky number" often corresponds to a street near the southern end of the avenue. There are some notable exceptions: York Avenue address numbers are continuations of Avenue A address numbers, since the avenue was originally called Avenue A. East End Avenue address numbers are continuations of Avenue B address numbers, since the avenue was originally called Avenue B. Sixth Avenue and Broadway start south of Houston Street, the southern boundary of the Manhattan street numbering system. Although Park Avenue's southern terminus is at 32nd Street, a homeowner at 34th Street wanted the address "1 Park Avenue" (this was later changed). === Examples === For example, if you are at 62 Avenue B, 62 ÷ 20 ≈ 3 {\displaystyle 62\div 20\approx 3} , then add the "tricky number" 3 {\displaystyle 3} to give 6 {\displaystyle 6} . The nearest cross street to 62 Avenue B is East 6th Street. If you are at 78 Riverside Drive, 78 ÷ 10 ≈ 8 {\displaystyle 78\div 10\approx 8} , then add the "tricky number" 72 {\displaystyle 72} to give 80 {\displaystyle 80} . The nearest cross street to 78 Riverside Drive is West 80th Street. If you are at 501 5th Avenue, 501 ÷ 20 ≈ 25 {\displaystyle 501\div 20\approx 25} , then add the "tricky number" 18 {\displaystyle 18} to give 43 {\displaystyle 43} . The nearest cross street to 501 5th Avenue is actually 42nd Street, not 43rd Street, as the Manhattan address algorithm only gives approximate answers.
Automated parking system
An automated (car) parking system (APS) is a mechanical system designed to minimize the area and/or volume required for parking cars. Like a multi-story parking garage, an APS provides parking for cars on multiple levels stacked vertically to maximize the number of parking spaces while minimizing land usage. The APS, however, utilizes a mechanical system to transport cars to and from parking spaces (rather than the driver) in order to eliminate much of the space wasted in a multi-story parking garage. While a multi-story parking garage is similar to multiple parking lots stacked vertically, an APS is more similar to an automated storage and retrieval system for cars. Parking systems are generally powered by electric motors or hydraulic pumps that move vehicles into a storage position.The paternoster (shown animated at the right) is an example of one of the earliest and most common types of APS. APS are also generically known by a variety of other names, including:automated parking facility (APF), automated vehicle storage and retrieval system (AVSRS), car parking system, mechanical parking, and robotic parking garage. == History == The concept for the automated parking system was and is driven by two factors: a need for parking spaces and a scarcity of available land. The earliest use of an APS was in Paris, France in 1905 at the Garage Rue de Ponthieu. The APS consisted of a groundbreaking multi-story concrete structure with an internal car elevator to transport cars to upper levels where attendants parked the cars. In the 1920s, a Ferris wheel-like APS (for cars rather than people) called a paternoster system became popular as it could park eight cars in the ground space normally used for parking two cars. Mechanically simple with a small footprint, the paternoster was easy to use in many places, including inside buildings. At the same time, Kent Automatic Garages was installing APS with capacities exceeding 1,000 cars. The “ferris-wheel,” or paternoster system — was created by the Westinghouse Corporation in 1923 and subsequently built in 1932 on Chicago's Monroe Street. The Nash Motor Company created the first glass-enclosed version of this system for the Chicago Century of Progress Exhibition in 1933 The first driverless parking garage opened in 1951 in Washington, D.C., but was replaced with office space due to increasing land values. APS saw a spurt of interest in the U.S. in the late 1940s and 1950s with the Bowser, Pigeon Hole and Roto Park systems. In 1957, 74 Bowser, Pigeon Hole systems were installed, and some of these systems remain in operation. However, interest in APS in the U.S. waned due to frequent mechanical problems and long waiting times for patrons to retrieve their cars. In the United Kingdom, the Auto Stacker opened in 1961 in Woolwich, south east London, but proved equally difficult to operate. Interest in APS in the U.S. was renewed in the 1990s, and there were 25 major current and planned APS projects (representing nearly 6,000 parking spaces) in 2012. The first American robotic parking garage opened in 2002 in Hoboken, New Jersey. While interest in the APS in the U.S. languished until the 1990s, Europe, Asia and Central America had been installing more technically advanced APS since the 1970s. In the early 1990s, nearly 40,000 parking spaces were being built annually using the paternoster APS in Japan. In 2012, there are an estimated 1.6 million APS parking spaces in Japan. The ever-increasing scarcity of available urban land (urbanization) and increase of the number of cars in use (motorization) have combined with sustainability and other quality-of-life issues to renew interest in APS as alternatives to multi-storey car parks, on-street parking, and parking lots. == Largest systems == The largest Automated Parking Facility in the world is in Al Jahra, Kuwait, and provides 2,314 parking spaces. The world's fastest Automated Parking System is in Wolfsburg, Germany, with a retrieval time of 1 minute and 44 seconds. The largest APS in Europe is at Dokk1 in Aarhus, Denmark, and provides 1,000 parking spaces via 20 car lifts. == Space saving == All APS take advantage of a common concept to decrease the area of parking spaces - removing the driver and passengers from the car before it is parked. With either fully automated or semi-automated APS, the car is driven up to an entry point to the APS and the driver and passengers exit the car. The car is then moved automatically or semi-automatically (with some attendant action required) to its parking space. The space-saving provided by the APS, compared to the multi-story parking garage, is derived primarily from a significant reduction in space not directly related to the parking of the car: Parking space width and depth (and distances between parking spaces) are dramatically reduced since no allowance need be made for driving the car into the parking space or for the opening of car doors (for drivers and passengers) No driving lanes or ramps are needed to drive the car to/from the entrance/exit to a parking space Ceiling height is minimized since there is no pedestrian traffic (drivers and passengers) in the parking area, and No walkways, stairways or elevators are needed to accommodate pedestrians in the parking area. With the elimination of ramps, driving lanes, pedestrians and the reduction in ceiling heights, the APS requires substantially less structural material than the multi-story parking garage. Many APS utilize a steel framework (some use thin concrete slabs) rather than the monolithic concrete design of the multi-story parking garage. These factors contribute to an overall volume reduction and further space savings for the APS. == Other considerations == In addition to the space saving, many APS designs provide a number of secondary benefits: The parked cars and their contents are more secure since there is no public access to parked cars Minor parking lot damage such as scrapes and dents are eliminated Drivers and passengers are safer not having to walk through parking lots or garages Driving around in search of a parking space is eliminated, thereby reducing engine emissions and wasted time Only minimal ventilation and lighting systems are needed Handicap access is improved The volume and visual impact of the parking structure is minimized Shorter construction time === Problems === There have been a number of problems with robotic parking systems, particularly in the United States. The systems work well in balanced throughput situations like shopping malls and train stations, but they are unsuited to high peak volume applications like rush hour usage or stadiums and they suffer from technical problems. Further, parkers not familiar with the system may cause problems, for example by failing to push the button to alert a fully automated system to the presence of a car to be parked. In London around 40 vehicles were trapped for two years in CBRE's system. == Fully automated vs semi-automated == Fully automated parking systems operate much like robotic valet parking. The driver drives the car into an APS entry (transfer) area. The driver and all passengers exit the car. The driver uses an automated terminal nearby for payment and receipt of a ticket. When driver and passengers have left the entry area, the mechanical system lifts the car and transports it to a pre-determined parking space in the system. More sophisticated fully automated APS will obtain the dimensions of cars on entry in order to place them in the smallest available parking space. The driver retrieves a car by inserting a ticket or code into an automated terminal. The APS lifts the car from its parking space and delivers it to an exit area. Most often, the retrieved car has been oriented to eliminate the need for the driver to back out. Fully automated APS theoretically eliminate the need for parking attendants. Semi-automated APS also use a mechanical system of some type to move a car to its parking space, however putting the car into and/or the operation of the system requires some action by an attendant or the driver. The choice between fully and semi-automated APS is often a matter of space and cost, however large capacity (> 100 cars) tend to be fully automated. == Applications == By virtue of their relatively smaller volume and mechanized parking systems, APS are often used in locations where a multi-story parking garage would be too large, too costly or impractical. Examples of such applications include, under or inside existing or new structures, between existing structures and in irregularly shaped areas. APS can also be applied in situations similar to multi-storey parking garages such as freestanding above ground, under buildings above grade and under buildings below grade. == Costs == The direct comparison of costs between an APS and a multi-story parking garage can be complicated by many variables such as capacity, land costs, area shape, number and location of entranc
Task Force on Process Mining
The IEEE Task Force on Process Mining (TFPM) is a non-commercial association for process mining. The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Task Force on Process Mining was established in October 2009 as part of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society at the Eindhoven University of Technology. The task force is supported by over 80 organizations and has around 750 members. The main goal of the task force is to promote the research, development, education, and understanding of process mining. == About == In 2012, the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence/ IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation held a session on Process Mining. Process mining is a type of research that is a mix of computational intelligence and data mining, as well as process modeling and analysis. === Activities and organization === The Task Force on Process Mining has a Steering Committee and an Advisory Board. The Steering Committee, was chaired by Wil van der Aalst in its inception in 2009, defined 15 action lines. These include the organization of the annual International Process Mining Conference (ICPM) series, standardization efforts leading to the IEEE XES standard for storing and exchanging event data, and the Process Mining Manifesto which was translated into 16 languages. The Task Force on Process Mining also publishes a newsletter, provides data sets, organizes workshops and competitions, and connects researchers and practitioners. In 2016, the IEEE Standards Association published the IEEE Standard for Extensible Event Stream (XES), which is a widely accepted file format by the process mining community. As of 2023, Boudewijn van Dongen serves as chair of the Steering Committee. Wil van der Aalst and Moe Wynn both serve as vice-chair of the Steering Committee.