Lisp machines are general-purpose computers designed to efficiently run Lisp as their main software and programming language, usually via hardware support. They are an example of a high-level language computer architecture. In a sense, they were the first commercial single-user workstations. Despite being modest in number (perhaps 7,000 units total as of 1988) Lisp machines commercially pioneered some now-commonplace technologies, including networking innovations such as Chaosnet, and effective garbage collection. Several firms built and sold Lisp machines in the 1980s: Symbolics (3600, 3640, XL1200, MacIvory, and other models), Lisp Machines Incorporated (LMI Lambda), Texas Instruments (Explorer, MicroExplorer), and Xerox (Interlisp-D workstations). The operating systems were written in Lisp Machine Lisp, Interlisp (Xerox), and later partly in Common Lisp. == History == === Historical context === Artificial intelligence (AI) computer programs of the 1960s and 1970s intrinsically required what was then considered a huge amount of computer power, as measured in processor time and memory space. The power requirements of AI research were exacerbated by the Lisp symbolic programming language, when commercial hardware was designed and optimized for assembly- and Fortran-like programming languages. At first, the cost of such computer hardware meant that it had to be shared among many users. As integrated circuit technology shrank the size and cost of computers in the 1960s and early 1970s, and the memory needs of AI programs began to exceed the address space of the most common research computer, the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-10, researchers considered a new approach: a computer designed specifically to develop and run large artificial intelligence programs, and tailored to the semantics of the Lisp language. To provide consistent performance for interactive programs, these machines would often not be shared, but would be dedicated to a single user at a time. === Initial development === In 1973, Richard Greenblatt and Thomas Knight, programmers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (AI Lab), began what would become the MIT Lisp Machine Project when they first began building a computer hardwired to run certain basic Lisp operations, rather than run them in software, in a 24-bit tagged architecture. The machine also did incremental (or Arena) garbage collection. More specifically, since Lisp variables are typed at runtime rather than compile time, a simple addition of two variables could take five times as long on conventional hardware, due to test and branch instructions. Lisp Machines ran the tests in parallel with the more conventional single instruction additions. If the simultaneous tests failed, then the result was discarded and recomputed; this meant in many cases a speed increase by several factors. This simultaneous checking approach was used as well in testing the bounds of arrays when referenced, and other memory management necessities (not merely garbage collection or arrays). Type checking was further improved and automated when the conventional byte word of 32 bits was lengthened to 36 bits for Symbolics 3600-model Lisp machines and eventually to 40 bits or more (usually, the excess bits not accounted for by the following were used for error-correcting codes). The first group of extra bits were used to hold type data, making the machine a tagged architecture, and the remaining bits were used to implement compressed data representation (CDR) coding (wherein the usual linked list elements are compressed to occupy roughly half the space), aiding garbage collection by reportedly an order of magnitude. A further improvement was two microcode instructions which specifically supported Lisp functions, reducing the cost of calling a function to as little as 20 clock cycles, in some Symbolics implementations. The first machine was called the CONS machine (named after the list construction operator cons in Lisp). Often it was affectionately referred to as the Knight machine, perhaps since Knight wrote his master's thesis on the subject; it was extremely well received. It was subsequently improved into a version called CADR (a pun; in Lisp, the cadr function, which returns the second item of a list, is pronounced /ˈkeɪ.dəɹ/ or /ˈkɑ.dəɹ/, as some pronounce the word "cadre") which was based on essentially the same architecture. About 25 of what were essentially prototype CADRs were sold within and without MIT for ~$50,000; it quickly became the favorite machine for hacking – many of the most favored software tools were quickly ported to it (e.g. Emacs was ported from ITS in 1975). It was so well received at an AI conference held at MIT in 1978 that Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began funding its development. === Commercializing MIT Lisp machine technology === In 1979, Russell Noftsker, being convinced that Lisp machines had a bright commercial future due to the strength of the Lisp language and the enabling factor of hardware acceleration, proposed to Greenblatt that they commercialize the technology. In a counter-intuitive move for an AI Lab hacker, Greenblatt acquiesced, hoping perhaps that he could recreate the informal and productive atmosphere of the Lab in a real business. These ideas and goals were considerably different from those of Noftsker. The two negotiated at length, but neither would compromise. As the proposed firm could succeed only with the full and undivided assistance of the AI Lab hackers as a group, Noftsker and Greenblatt decided that the fate of the enterprise was up to them, and so the choice should be left to the hackers. The ensuing discussions of the choice divided the lab into two factions. In February 1979, matters came to a head. The hackers sided with Noftsker, believing that a commercial venture-fund-backed firm had a better chance of surviving and commercializing Lisp machines than Greenblatt's proposed self-sustaining start-up. Greenblatt lost the battle. It was at this juncture that Symbolics, Noftsker's enterprise, slowly came together. While Noftsker was paying his staff a salary, he had no building or any equipment for the hackers to work on. He bargained with Patrick Winston that, in exchange for allowing Symbolics' staff to keep working out of MIT, Symbolics would let MIT use internally and freely all the software Symbolics developed. A consultant from CDC, who was trying to put together a natural language computer application with a group of West-coast programmers, came to Greenblatt, seeking a Lisp machine for his group to work with, about eight months after the disastrous conference with Noftsker. Greenblatt had decided to start his own rival Lisp machine firm, but he had done nothing. The consultant, Alexander Jacobson, decided that the only way Greenblatt was going to start the firm and build the Lisp machines that Jacobson desperately needed was if Jacobson pushed and otherwise helped Greenblatt launch the firm. Jacobson pulled together business plans, a board, a partner for Greenblatt (one F. Stephen Wyle). The newfound firm was named LISP Machine, Inc. (LMI), and was funded by CDC orders, via Jacobson. Around this time Symbolics (Noftsker's firm) began operating. It had been hindered by Noftsker's promise to give Greenblatt a year's head start, and by severe delays in procuring venture capital. Symbolics still had the major advantage that while 3 or 4 of the AI Lab hackers had gone to work for Greenblatt, 14 other hackers had signed onto Symbolics. Two AI Lab people were not hired by either: Richard Stallman and Marvin Minsky. Stallman, however, blamed Symbolics for the decline of the hacker community that had centered around the AI lab. For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman worked by himself to clone the output of the Symbolics programmers, with the aim of preventing them from gaining a monopoly on the lab's computers. Regardless, after a series of internal battles, Symbolics did get off the ground in 1980/1981, selling the CADR as the LM-2, while Lisp Machines, Inc. sold it as the LMI-CADR. Symbolics did not intend to produce many LM-2s, since the 3600 family of Lisp machines was supposed to ship quickly, but the 3600s were repeatedly delayed, and Symbolics ended up producing ~100 LM-2s, each of which sold for $70,000. Both firms developed second-generation products based on the CADR: the Symbolics 3600 and the LMI-LAMBDA (of which LMI managed to sell ~200). The 3600, which shipped a year late, expanded on the CADR by widening the machine word to 36-bits, expanding the address space to 28-bits, and adding hardware to accelerate certain common functions that were implemented in microcode on the CADR. The LMI-LAMBDA, which came out a year after the 3600, in 1983, was compatible with the CADR (it could run CADR microcode), but hardware differences existed. Texas Instruments (TI) joined the fray whe
TAChart
TAChart is a component for the Lazarus IDE that provides charting services. Similar to Tchart and Teechart for Delphi it supports a collection of different chart types including bar charts, pie charts, line charts and point series. Apart from a screen canvas, output is possible in form of SVG, OpenGL, printer, WMF, and other formats. TAChart is bundled with the Lazarus Component Library. Although not intended to be a TChart clone, why its usage differs in certain points, its basic functionality is very similar and some source code written for TeeChart may be reused. == History == The first version of TAChart was developed by Philippe Martinole for the TeleAuto project, a program for automation of astronomic observations. Later functionality was introduced by Luis Rodrigues while porting the Epanet application from Delphi to Lazarus. In the ensuing years the code has extensively rewritten, expanded and is now maintained by Alexander Klenin. == Data sources == TAChart is able to use input from various sources. Examples include lists of real values, user defined buffers in the computer's memory, vectors of random values, fields in databases, calculated values provided by pre-defined functions and results of embedded code written in Pascal Script
Polynomial kernel
In machine learning, the polynomial kernel is a kernel function commonly used with support vector machines (SVMs) and other kernelized models, that represents the similarity of vectors (training samples) in a feature space over polynomials of the original variables, allowing learning of non-linear models. Intuitively, the polynomial kernel looks not only at the given features of input samples to determine their similarity, but also combinations of these. In the context of regression analysis, such combinations are known as interaction features. The (implicit) feature space of a polynomial kernel is equivalent to that of polynomial regression, but without the combinatorial blowup in the number of parameters to be learned. When the input features are binary-valued (booleans), then the features correspond to logical conjunctions of input features. == Definition == For degree-d polynomials, the polynomial kernel is defined as K ( x , y ) = ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=(\mathbf {x} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {y} +c)^{d}} where x and y are vectors of size n in the input space, i.e. vectors of features computed from training or test samples and c ≥ 0 is a free parameter trading off the influence of higher-order versus lower-order terms in the polynomial. When c = 0, the kernel is called homogeneous. (A further generalized polykernel divides xTy by a user-specified scalar parameter a.) As a kernel, K corresponds to an inner product in a feature space based on some mapping φ: K ( x , y ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\rangle } The nature of φ can be seen from an example. Let d = 2, so we get the special case of the quadratic kernel. After using the multinomial theorem (twice—the outermost application is the binomial theorem) and regrouping, K ( x , y ) = ( ∑ i = 1 n x i y i + c ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( x i 2 ) ( y i 2 ) + ∑ i = 2 n ∑ j = 1 i − 1 ( 2 x i x j ) ( 2 y i y j ) + ∑ i = 1 n ( 2 c x i ) ( 2 c y i ) + c 2 {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}+c\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(x_{i}^{2}\right)\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)+\sum _{i=2}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\left({\sqrt {2}}x_{i}x_{j}\right)\left({\sqrt {2}}y_{i}y_{j}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\sqrt {2c}}x_{i}\right)\left({\sqrt {2c}}y_{i}\right)+c^{2}} From this it follows that the feature map is given by: φ ( x ) = ( x n 2 , … , x 1 2 , 2 x n x n − 1 , … , 2 x n x 1 , 2 x n − 1 x n − 2 , … , 2 x n − 1 x 1 , … , 2 x 2 x 1 , 2 c x n , … , 2 c x 1 , c ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=\left(x_{n}^{2},\ldots ,x_{1}^{2},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{n-1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{1},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{n-2},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{2}x_{1},{\sqrt {2c}}x_{n},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2c}}x_{1},c\right)} generalizing for ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}} , where x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , y ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and applying the multinomial theorem: ( x T y + c ) d = ∑ j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + 1 = d d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! y 1 j 1 ⋯ y n j n c j n + 1 = φ ( x ) T φ ( y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}&=\sum _{j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n+1}=d}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}y_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots y_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\\&=\varphi (\mathbf {x} )^{T}\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\end{alignedat}}} The last summation has l d = ( n + d d ) {\displaystyle l_{d}={\tbinom {n+d}{d}}} elements, so that: φ ( x ) = ( a 1 , … , a l , … , a l d ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\left(a_{1},\dots ,a_{l},\dots ,a_{l_{d}}\right)} where l = ( j 1 , j 2 , . . . , j n , j n + 1 ) {\displaystyle l=(j_{1},j_{2},...,j_{n},j_{n+1})} and a l = d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 | j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + j n + 1 = d {\displaystyle a_{l}={\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\quad |\quad j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n}+j_{n+1}=d} == Practical use == Although the RBF kernel is more popular in SVM classification than the polynomial kernel, the latter is quite popular in natural language processing (NLP). The most common degree is d = 2 (quadratic), since larger degrees tend to overfit on NLP problems. Various ways of computing the polynomial kernel (both exact and approximate) have been devised as alternatives to the usual non-linear SVM training algorithms, including: full expansion of the kernel prior to training/testing with a linear SVM, i.e. full computation of the mapping φ as in polynomial regression; basket mining (using a variant of the apriori algorithm) for the most commonly occurring feature conjunctions in a training set to produce an approximate expansion; inverted indexing of support vectors. One problem with the polynomial kernel is that it may suffer from numerical instability: when xTy + c < 1, K(x, y) = (xTy + c)d tends to zero with increasing d, whereas when xTy + c > 1, K(x, y) tends to infinity.
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition is an annual conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. == Affiliations == The conference was first held in 1983 in Washington, DC, organized by Takeo Kanade and Dana H. Ballard. From 1985 to 2010 it was sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society. In 2011 it was also co-sponsored by University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Since 2012 it has been co-sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and the Computer Vision Foundation, which provides open access to the conference papers. == Scope == The conference considers a wide range of topics related to computer vision and pattern recognition—basically any topic that is extracting structures or answers from images or video or applying mathematical methods to data to extract or recognize patterns. Common topics include object recognition, image segmentation, motion estimation, 3D reconstruction, and deep learning. The conference generally has less than 30% acceptance rates for all papers and less than 5% for oral presentations. It is managed by a rotating group of volunteers who are chosen in a public election at the Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence-Technical Community (PAMI-TC) meeting four years before the meeting. The conference uses a multi-tier double-blind peer review process. The program chairs, who cannot submit papers, select area chairs who manage the reviewers for their subset of submissions. == Location and time == The conference is usually held in June in North America. == Awards == === Best Paper Award === These awards are picked by committees delegated by the program chairs of the conference. === Longuet-Higgins Prize === The Longuet-Higgins Prize recognizes papers from ten years ago that have made a significant impact on computer vision research. === PAMI Young Researcher Award === The Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Young Researcher Award is an award given by the Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence of the IEEE Computer Society to a researcher within 7 years of completing their Ph.D. for outstanding early career research contributions. Candidates are nominated by the computer vision community, with winners selected by a committee of senior researchers in the field. This award was originally instituted in 2012 by the journal Image and Vision Computing, also presented at the conference, and the journal continues to sponsor the award. === PAMI Thomas S. Huang Memorial Prize === The Thomas Huang Memorial Prize was established at the 2020 conference and is awarded annually starting from 2021 to honor researchers who are recognized as examples in research, teaching/mentoring, and service to the computer vision community.
Shattered set
A class of sets is said to shatter another set if it is possible to "pick out" any element of that set using intersection. The concept of shattered sets plays an important role in Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as VC-theory. Shattering and VC-theory are used in the study of empirical processes as well as in statistical computational learning theory. == Definition == Suppose A is a set and C is a class of sets. The class C shatters the set A if for each subset a of A, there is some element c of C such that a = c ∩ A . {\displaystyle a=c\cap A.} Equivalently, C shatters A when their intersection is equal to A's power set: P(A) = { c ∩ A | c ∈ C }. We employ the letter C to refer to a "class" or "collection" of sets, as in a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class (VC-class). The set A is often assumed to be finite because, in empirical processes, we are interested in the shattering of finite sets of data points. == Example == We will show that the class of all discs in the plane (two-dimensional space) does not shatter every set of four points on the unit circle, yet the class of all convex sets in the plane does shatter every finite set of points on the unit circle. Let A be a set of four points on the unit circle and let C be the class of all discs. To test where C shatters A, we attempt to draw a disc around every subset of points in A. First, we draw a disc around the subsets of each isolated point. Next, we try to draw a disc around every subset of point pairs. This turns out to be doable for adjacent points, but impossible for points on opposite sides of the circle. Any attempt to include those points on the opposite side will necessarily include other points not in that pair. Hence, any pair of opposite points cannot be isolated out of A using intersections with class C and so C does not shatter A. As visualized below: Because there is some subset which can not be isolated by any disc in C, we conclude then that A is not shattered by C. And, with a bit of thought, we can prove that no set of four points is shattered by this C. However, if we redefine C to be the class of all elliptical discs, we find that we can still isolate all the subsets from above, as well as the points that were formerly problematic. Thus, this specific set of 4 points is shattered by the class of elliptical discs. Visualized below: With a bit of thought, we could generalize that any set of finite points on a unit circle could be shattered by the class of all convex sets (visualize connecting the dots). == Shatter coefficient == To quantify the richness of a collection C of sets, we use the concept of shattering coefficients (also known as the growth function). For a collection C of sets s ⊂ Ω {\displaystyle s\subset \Omega } , Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } being any space, often a sample space, we define the nth shattering coefficient of C as S C ( n ) = max ∀ x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω card { { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } ∩ s , s ∈ C } {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=\max _{\forall x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega }\operatorname {card} \{\,\{\,x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}\cap s,s\in C\}} where card {\displaystyle \operatorname {card} } denotes the cardinality of the set and x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega } is any set of n points,. S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is the largest number of subsets of any set A of n points that can be formed by intersecting A with the sets in collection C. For example, if set A contains 3 points, its power set, P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} , contains 2 3 = 8 {\displaystyle 2^{3}=8} elements. If C shatters A, its shattering coefficient(3) would be 8 and S C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)} would be 2 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2^{2}=4} . However, if one of those sets in P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} cannot be obtained through intersections in c, then S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would only be 7. If none of those sets can be obtained, S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would be 0. Additionally, if S C ( 2 ) = 3 {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)=3} , for example, then there is an element in the set of all 2-point sets from A that cannot be obtained from intersections with C. It follows from this that S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would also be less than 8 (i.e. C would not shatter A) because we have already located a "missing" set in the smaller power set of 2-point sets. This example illustrates some properties of S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} : S C ( n ) ≤ 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)\leq 2^{n}} for all n because { s ∩ A | s ∈ C } ⊆ P ( A ) {\displaystyle \{s\cap A|s\in C\}\subseteq P(A)} for any A ⊆ Ω {\displaystyle A\subseteq \Omega } . If S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} , that means there is a set of cardinality n, which can be shattered by C. If S C ( N ) < 2 N {\displaystyle S_{C}(N)<2^{N}} for some N > 1 {\displaystyle N>1} then S C ( n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)<2^{n}} for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} . The third property means that if C cannot shatter any set of cardinality N then it can not shatter sets of larger cardinalities. == Vapnik–Chervonenkis class == If A cannot be shattered by C, there will be a smallest value of n that makes the shatter coefficient(n) less than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} because as n gets larger, there are more sets that could be missed. Alternatively, there is also a largest value of n for which the S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is still 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} , because as n gets smaller, there are fewer sets that could be omitted. The extreme of this is S C ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(0)} (the shattering coefficient of the empty set), which must always be 2 0 = 1 {\displaystyle 2^{0}=1} . These statements lends themselves to defining the VC dimension of a class C as: V C ( C ) = min n { n : S C ( n ) < 2 n } {\displaystyle VC(C)={\underset {n}{\min }}\{n:S_{C}(n)<2^{n}\}\,} or, alternatively, as V C 0 ( C ) = max n { n : S C ( n ) = 2 n } . {\displaystyle VC_{0}(C)={\underset {n}{\max }}\{n:S_{C}(n)=2^{n}\}.\,} Note that V C ( C ) = V C 0 ( C ) + 1. {\displaystyle VC(C)=VC_{0}(C)+1.} . The VC dimension is usually defined as V C 0 {\displaystyle VC_{0}} , the largest cardinality of points chosen that will still shatter A (i.e. n such that S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} ). Altneratively, if for any n there is a set of cardinality n which can be shattered by C, then S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} for all n and the VC dimension of this class C is infinite. A class with finite VC dimension is called a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class or VC class. A class C is uniformly Glivenko–Cantelli if and only if it is a VC class.
Feng Office Community Edition
Feng Office Community Edition (formerly OpenGoo) is an open-source collaboration platform developed and supported by Feng Office and the OpenGoo community. It is a fully featured online office suite with a similar set of features as other online office suites, like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zimbra, LibreOffice Online and Zoho Office Suite. The application can be downloaded and installed on a server. Feng Office could also be categorized as collaborative software and as personal information manager software. == Features == Feng Office Community Edition main features include project management, document management, contact management, e-mail and time management. Text documents and presentations can be created and edited online. Files can be uploaded, organized and shared, independent of file formats. Organization of the information in Feng Office Community Edition is done using workspaces and tags. The application presents the information stored using different interfaces such as lists, dashboards and calendar views. == Licensing == Feng Office Community Edition is distributed under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 only. == Technology used == Feng Office uses PHP, JavaScript, AJAX (ExtJS) and MySQL technology. Several open source projects served as a basis for development. ActiveCollab's last open sourced release was used as the initial code base. It includes CKEditor for online document editing. == System requirements == The server could run on any operating system. The system needs the following packages: Apache HTTP Server 2.0+ PHP 5.0+ MySQL 4.1+ (InnoDB support recommended) On the client side, the user is only required to use a modern Web browser. == History == OpenGoo started as a degree project at the faculty of Engineering of the University of the Republic, Uruguay. The project was presented and championed by Software Engineer Conrado Viña. Software Engineers Marcos Saiz and Ignacio de Soto developed the first prototype as their thesis. Professors Eduardo Fernández and Tomas Laurenzo served as tutors. Conrado, Ignacio and Marcos founded the OpenGoo community and remain active members and core developers. The thesis was approved with the highest score. In 2008, Viña joined the Uruguayan software development company Moove It. Currently there is a second project for OpenGoo at the same university being developed by students Fernando Rodríguez, Ignacio Vázquez and Juan Pedro del Campo. Their project aims to build an open source Web-based spreadsheet. In December 2009 the OpenGoo name was changed to Feng Office Community Edition.
Ground truth
Ground truth is information that is known to be real or true, provided by direct observation and measurement (i.e. empirical evidence) as opposed to information provided by inference. The term ground truth appeared in remote sensing literature as early as 1972, when NASA described it as essential "data about ... materials on the earth's surface" used to calibrate measurements. It was later adopted by the statistical modeling and machine learning communities. == Etymology == The Oxford English Dictionary (s.v. ground truth) records the use of the word Groundtruth in the sense of 'fundamental truth' from Henry Ellison's poem "The Siberian Exile's Tale", published in 1833. == Usage == The term "ground truth" can be used as a noun, adjective, and verb. Noun: "ground truth" (no hyphen). Example: "The ground truth is essential for training accurate models." Adjective: "ground-truth" (hyphenated compound adjective). Example: "We need to use ground-truth data to validate the model." Verb: "to ground-truth" or "to groundtruth" (compound verb,). Example: "We need to ground-truth the results to ensure their accuracy." == Statistics and machine learning == In statistics and machine learning, ground truth is the ideal expected result, used in statistical models to prove or disprove research hypotheses. "Ground truthing" is the process of gathering the good data for this test. Ground truth is typically included in labeled data. In machine learning, "ground truth" is not necessarily objectively correct or true. For example, in training AI models or relevance rankers, it may be a set of judgments made by people or inferred from user behavior, which may depend on context. For example, in Bayesian spam filtering, a supervised learning system is typically trained by examples labeled as spam and non-spam. Although these labels may be subjective or inaccurate, they are considered ground truth. True ground truth in machine learning is objective data. For example, suppose we are testing a stereo vision system to see how well it can estimate 3D positions. A calibrated laser rangefinder may provide accurate distances as ground truth. == Remote sensing == In remote sensing, "ground truth" refers to information collected at the imaged location. Ground truth allows image data to be related to real features and materials on the ground. The collection of ground truth data enables calibration of remote-sensing data, and aids in the interpretation and analysis of what is being sensed. Examples include cartography, meteorology, analysis of aerial photographs, satellite imagery and other techniques in which data are gathered at a distance. More specifically, ground truth may refer to a process in which "pixels" on a satellite image are compared to what is imaged (at the time of capture) in order to verify the contents of the "pixels" in the image (noting that the concept of "pixel" is imaging-system-dependent). In the case of a classified image, supervised classification can help to determine the accuracy of the classification by the remote sensing system which can minimize error in the classification. Ground truth is usually done on site, correlating what is known with surface observations and measurements of various properties of the features of the ground resolution cells under study in the remotely sensed digital image. The process also involves taking geographic coordinates of the ground resolution cell with GPS technology and comparing those with the coordinates of the "pixel" being studied provided by the remote sensing software to understand and analyze the location errors and how it may affect a particular study. Ground truth is important in the initial supervised classification of an image. When the identity and location of land cover types are known through a combination of field work, maps, and personal experience these areas are known as training sites. The spectral characteristics of these areas are used to train the remote sensing software using decision rules for classifying the rest of the image. These decision rules such as Maximum Likelihood Classification, Parallelopiped Classification, and Minimum Distance Classification offer different techniques to classify an image. Additional ground truth sites allow the remote sensor to establish an error matrix that validates the accuracy of the classification method used. Different classification methods may have different percentages of error for a given classification project. It is important that the remote sensor chooses a classification method that works best with the number of classifications used while providing the least amount of error. Ground truth also helps with atmospheric correction. Since images from satellites have to pass through the atmosphere, they can get distorted because of absorption in the atmosphere. So ground truth can help fully identify objects in satellite photos. === Errors of commission === An example of an error of commission is when a pixel reports the presence of a feature (such a tree) that, in reality, is absent (no tree is actually present). Ground truthing ensures that the error matrices have a higher accuracy percentage than would be the case if no pixels were ground-truthed. This value is the complement of the user's accuracy, i.e. Commission Error = 1 - user's accuracy. === Errors of omission === An example of an error of omission is when pixels of a certain type, for example, maple trees, are not classified as maple trees. The process of ground-truthing helps to ensure that the pixel is classified correctly and the error matrices are more accurate. This value is the complement of the producer's accuracy, i.e. Omission Error = 1 - producer's accuracy == Geographical information systems == In GIS the spatial data is modeled as field (like in remote sensing raster images) or as object (like in vectorial map representation). They are modeled from the real world (also named geographical reality), typically by a cartographic process (illustrated). Geographic information systems such as GIS, GPS, and GNSS, have become so widespread that the term "ground truth" has taken on special meaning in that context. If the location coordinates returned by a location method such as GPS are an estimate of a location, then the "ground truth" is the actual location on Earth. A smart phone might return a set of estimated location coordinates such as 43.87870, −103.45901. The ground truth being estimated by those coordinates is the tip of George Washington's nose on Mount Rushmore. The accuracy of the estimate is the maximum distance between the location coordinates and the ground truth. We could say in this case that the estimate accuracy is 10 meters, meaning that the point on Earth represented by the location coordinates is thought to be within 10 meters of George's nose—the ground truth. In slang, the coordinates indicate where we think George Washington's nose is located, and the ground truth is where it really is. In practice a smart phone or hand-held GPS unit is routinely able to estimate the ground truth within 6–10 meters. Specialized instruments can reduce GPS measurement error to under a centimeter. == Military usage == US military slang uses "ground truth" to refer to the facts comprising a tactical situation—as opposed to intelligence reports, mission plans, and other descriptions reflecting the conative or policy-based projections of the industrial·military complex. The term appears in the title of the Iraq War documentary film The Ground Truth (2006), and also in military publications, for example Stars and Stripes saying: "Stripes decided to figure out what the ground truth was in Iraq."