The AI effect is a phenomenon in which advances in artificial intelligence lead to a redefinition of what is considered intelligence, such that capabilities achieved by AI systems are no longer regarded as examples of "real" intelligence. The concept has been used to describe both a cognitive tendency and a sociotechnical pattern, in which successful AI techniques are reclassified as routine computation or absorbed into other domains. Historian Pamela McCorduck described this as a recurring feature of AI research, noting in her 2004 book Machines Who Think that once a problem is solved, it is no longer considered evidence of intelligence. Researcher Rodney Brooks similarly observed in 2002 that once systems are understood, they are often regarded as "just computation". == Definition == The AI effect refers to a shift in how intelligence is defined as machines acquire new capabilities. Tasks such as playing chess, recognizing speech, or interpreting images were historically considered indicators of intelligence, but after successful automation they are often reclassified as routine computation. McCorduck described this as an "odd paradox", in which successful AI systems are assimilated into other domains, leaving AI researchers to focus on unsolved problems. The phenomenon is often interpreted as an instance of moving the goalposts. A commonly cited formulation is Tesler's theorem, often expressed as "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet". When problems are not fully formalised, they may be described using models involving human computation, such as human-assisted Turing machines. == Historical examples == === Game playing === Early AI systems capable of playing games such as checkers and chess were initially regarded as demonstrations of machine intelligence. As these systems improved and became better understood, their achievements were often reinterpreted as examples of computation rather than intelligence. The victory of IBM's Deep Blue over Garry Kasparov in 1997 is a frequently cited example. Critics argued that the system relied on brute-force methods rather than genuine understanding. === Pattern recognition === Technologies such as optical character recognition and speech recognition were once considered core problems in artificial intelligence. As these systems became reliable and widely deployed, they were increasingly treated as standard engineering solutions. === Integration into applications === Many techniques originally developed within AI research have been incorporated into broader technological systems, including marketing, automation, and software applications. Michael Swaine reported in 2007 that AI advances are often presented as developments in other fields. Marvin Minsky observed that successful AI innovations often evolve into separate disciplines. Nick Bostrom noted in 2006 that widely adopted technologies are often no longer labeled as AI. == Contemporary discussion == The AI effect continues to be discussed in the context of recent advances in machine learning, particularly large language models and other generative AI systems. As these systems have become more widely used, some researchers and commentators have noted that their capabilities are frequently described as statistical or mechanical once understood, rather than as intelligence. A 2016 survey of artificial intelligence also noted that AI systems are increasingly embedded in everyday applications, reinforcing earlier observations that successful AI technologies tend to become normalized and no longer identified as AI. At the same time, the widespread commercial use of artificial intelligence has led to greater visibility of the field, contrasting with earlier periods in which AI techniques were often present but unacknowledged. == Interpretations == === Cognitive bias === Some authors describe the AI effect as a cognitive bias in which expectations of intelligence shift as machines achieve new capabilities. === Sociotechnical perspective === Another interpretation emphasizes how technologies are reclassified over time as they become widespread and commercially successful. === Philosophical debate === Some philosophers argue that reclassification reflects genuine conceptual distinctions rather than bias. == Historical context == During periods such as the AI winter, researchers sometimes avoided the term "artificial intelligence" due to negative perceptions. In the 21st century, however, the term "AI" has become widely used in public discourse and marketing. == Broader implications == The AI effect has been linked to broader questions about human uniqueness and the nature of intelligence. Michael Kearns suggested that people may seek to preserve a special role for humans. Similar patterns have been observed in studies of animal cognition. Herbert A. Simon noted that artificial intelligence can provoke strong emotional reactions.
Intelligent control
Intelligent control is a class of control techniques that use various artificial intelligence computing approaches like neural networks, Bayesian probability, fuzzy logic, machine learning, reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms. == Overview == Intelligent control can be divided into the following major sub-domains: Neural network control Machine learning control Reinforcement learning Bayesian control Fuzzy control Neuro-fuzzy control Expert Systems Genetic control New control techniques are created continuously as new models of intelligent behavior are created and computational methods developed to support them. === Neural network controller === Neural networks have been used to solve problems in almost all spheres of science and technology. Neural network control basically involves two steps: System identification Control It has been shown that a feedforward network with nonlinear, continuous and differentiable activation functions have universal approximation capability. Recurrent networks have also been used for system identification. Given, a set of input-output data pairs, system identification aims to form a mapping among these data pairs. Such a network is supposed to capture the dynamics of a system. For the control part, deep reinforcement learning has shown its ability to control complex systems. === Bayesian controllers === Bayesian probability has produced a number of algorithms that are in common use in many advanced control systems, serving as state space estimators of some variables that are used in the controller. The Kalman filter and the Particle filter are two examples of popular Bayesian control components. The Bayesian approach to controller design often requires an important effort in deriving the so-called system model and measurement model, which are the mathematical relationships linking the state variables to the sensor measurements available in the controlled system. In this respect, it is very closely linked to the system-theoretic approach to control design.
Organizational information theory
Organizational Information Theory (OIT) is a communication theory, developed by Karl Weick, offering systemic insight into the processing and exchange of information within organizations and among its members. Unlike the past structure-centered theory, OIT focuses on the process of organizing in dynamic, information-rich environments. Given that, it contends that the main activity of organizations is the process of making sense of equivocal information. Organizational members are instrumental to reduce equivocality and achieve sensemaking through some strategies — enactment, selection, and retention of information. With a framework that is interdisciplinary in nature, organizational information theory's desire to eliminate both ambiguity and complexity from workplace messaging builds upon earlier findings from general systems theory and phenomenology. == Inspiration and influence of pre-existing theories == 1. General Systems Theory The General Systems Theory, on its most basic premise, describes the phenomenon of a cohesive group of interrelated parts. When one part of the system is changed or affected, it will affect the system as a whole. Weick uses this theoretical framework from 1950 to influence his organizational information theory. Likewise, organizations can be viewed as a system of related parts that work together towards a common goal or vision. Applying this to Weick's organizational information theory, organizations must work to reduce ambiguity and complexity in the workplace to maximize cohesiveness and efficiency. Weick uses the term, coupling, to describe how organizations, like a system, can be composed of interrelated and dependent parts. Coupling looks at the relationship between people and work. There are two types of coupling: 1. Loose coupling Loose coupling describes that while people within the organization or system are connected and often work together, they do not depend on one another to continue or fully complete individual work. The dependencies are weak and workflow is flexible. For example, "if the whole Science department completely shuts down because all of teachers are sick or for whatsoever reason, the school can still continue to operate because other departments are still present." 2. Tight coupling Tight coupling describes when connections within an organization are strong and dependent. If one part of the organization is not operating correctly, the organization as a whole cannot continue to their fullest potential. " For instance, the format and ink section completely shuts down hence the succeeding steps cannot be continued, so the whole process of the organization will be dropped. Thus, components of a system are directly dependent on one another." 2. Theory of evolution The theory of evolution, by Charles Darwin, is a framework for survival of the fittest. According to Darwin, organisms attempt to adapt and live in an unforgiving environment. Those that are unsuccessful in adaptation do not survive, while the strong organisms continue to thrive and reproduce. Weick invokes inspiration from Darwin, to incorporate a biological perspective to his theory. It is natural for organizations to have to adapt to incoming information that often interfere with the preexisting environment. Organizations that are able to plan and alter strategies in accordance with their constant need of organizing and sense making, will survive and be the most successful. However, there is a notable difference between animal evolution and survival of the fittest in organizations, "A given animal is what it is; variation comes through mutation. But the nature of an organization can change when its members alter their behavior." == Assumptions == 1. Human organizations exist in an information environment Unlike senders and receivers models, OIT stands on the situational perspective. Karl Weick views a human organization as an open social system. People in that system develop a mechanism to establish goals, obtain and process information, or perceive the environment. In this process, people and the environment come to conclusions on "what's going on here?". Colville believes that this attributional process is retrospective. Take an education institution as an example. A university can obtain information regarding students' needs in numerous ways. It might create feedback section in its website. It could organize alumni panels or academic affairs to attract prospective students and collect concrete questions they are interested in. It may also conduct the survey or host focus group to get the information. After that, the staff of the university have to decide how to deal with these information, based on which, it has to set and accomplish its goals for current and prospective students. 2. The information an organization receives differs in terms of equivocality Weick posits that numerous feasible interpretations of reality exist when organizations process information. Their varying levels of understandability lead to different outcomes of information inputs. In other academic works, scholars tend to say that messages are uncertain or ambiguous. While according to OIT, messages are described to be equivocal. believes that people proactively exclude a number of possibilities to perceive what is going on in the environment. Due to OIT's situational perspective, the meanings of messages consist of the messages, the interpretations of receivers, and the interactional context. However, ambiguity and uncertainty can mean that a standard answer - the only one true objective interpretation - exists. Also, Weick emphasizes that "the equivocality is the engine that motivates people to organize". Maitlis and Christianson states that the equivocality trigger sensemaking for three reasons: environment jolts and organizational crises, threats to identity, and planned change interventions. 3. Human organizations engage in information processing to reduce equivocality of information Based upon the first two assumption, OIT proposes that information processing within organizations is a social activity. Sharing is the key feature of organizational information processing. In that particular context, members jointly make sense the reality by reducing equivocality. It other words, the sensemaking is a joint responsibility which includes numerous interdependent people to accomplish. In this process, organizations and its members combine actions and attributions together in order to find the balance between the complexity of thoughts and the simplicity of actions. Weick also proposes that people create their own environment though enactment, which is the action of making sense. This is because people have different perceptual schemas and selective perception, so people create different information environments. In creating different information environments, people can arrive at the same or close to the same understanding or solution through different thought processes and overall understanding. == Key concepts == === The organization === In order to place Weick's vision regarding Organizational Information Theory into proper working context, exploring his view regarding what constitutes the organization and how its individuals embody that construct might yield significant insights. From a fundamental standpoint, he shared a belief that organizational validation is derived---not through bricks and mortar, or locale—but from a series of events which enable entities to "collect, manage and use the information they receive." In elaborating further on what constitutes an organization during early writings outlining OIT, Weick said, "The word organization is a noun and it is also a myth. if one looks for an organization, one will not find it. What will be found is that there are events linked together, that transpire within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization". When viewed in this modular fashion, the organization meets Weick's theoretical vision by encompassing parameters that are less bound by concrete, wood, and structural restraints and more by an ability to serve as a repository where information can be consistently and effectively channeled. Taking these defining characteristics into account, proper channel execution relies on maximization of messaging clarity, context, delivery and evolution through any system. One example as to how these interactions might unfold on a more granular level within these confines can be gleaned through Weick's double interact loop, which he considers the "building blocks of every organization". Simply put, double interacts describe interpersonal exchanges that, inherently, occur across the organizational chain of command and in life, itself. Thus: "An act occurs when you say something (Can I have a Popsicle?). An interact occurs when you say something and I respond ("No, it will spoil your dinner
Long division
In arithmetic, long division is a standard division algorithm suitable for dividing multi-digit numbers that is simple enough to perform by hand. It breaks down a division problem into a series of easier steps. As in all division problems, one number, called the dividend, is divided by another, called the divisor, producing a result called the quotient. It enables computations involving arbitrarily large numbers to be performed by following a series of simple steps. The abbreviated form of long division is called short division, which is almost always used instead of long division when the divisor has only one digit. == History == Related algorithms have existed since the 12th century. Al-Samawal al-Maghribi (1125–1174) performed calculations with decimal numbers that essentially require long division, leading to infinite decimal results, but without formalizing the algorithm. Caldrini (1491) is the earliest printed example of long division, known as the Danda method in medieval Italy, and it became more practical with the introduction of decimal notation for fractions by Pitiscus (1608). The specific algorithm in modern use was introduced by Henry Briggs c. 1600. == Education == Inexpensive calculators and computers have become the most common tools for performing division in educational and professional contexts worldwide, reducing reliance on traditional paper-and-pencil techniques. Internally, these devices implement various division algorithms, many of which rely on iterative approximations and multiplication to improve computational efficiency. Educational approaches to teaching division vary across countries and regions, reflecting differing curricular priorities. In North America, long division has been de-emphasized or, in some cases, removed from portions of the curriculum as part of reform mathematics, which emphasizes conceptual understanding and the use of technology. In contrast, many education systems in Europe and Asia continue to emphasize mastery of standard algorithms, including long division, as a foundational arithmetic skill. For example, curricula in countries such as Japan and Germany typically introduce and reinforce long division during primary education, often alongside mental arithmetic strategies and problem-solving techniques. International assessments such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) highlight these differences, showing variation in how procedural fluency and conceptual understanding are balanced across educational systems. These differing approaches reflect broader educational philosophies regarding the balance between procedural fluency, conceptual understanding, and the role of technology in mathematics education. == Method == In English-speaking countries, long division does not use the division slash ⟨∕⟩ or division sign ⟨÷⟩ symbols but instead constructs a tableau. The divisor is separated from the dividend by a right parenthesis ⟨)⟩ or vertical bar ⟨|⟩; the dividend is separated from the quotient by a vinculum (i.e., an overbar). The combination of these two symbols is sometimes known as a long division symbol, division bracket, or even a bus stop. It developed in the 18th century from an earlier single-line notation separating the dividend from the quotient by a left parenthesis. The process is begun by dividing the left-most digit of the dividend by the divisor. The quotient (rounded down to an integer) becomes the first digit of the result, and the remainder is calculated (this step is notated as a subtraction). This remainder carries forward when the process is repeated on the following digit of the dividend (notated as 'bringing down' the next digit to the remainder). When all digits have been processed and no remainder is left, the process is complete. An example is shown below, representing the division of 500 by 4 (with a result of 125). 125 (Explanations) 4)500 4 ( 4 × 1 = 4) 10 ( 5 - 4 = 1) 8 ( 4 × 2 = 8) 20 (10 - 8 = 2) 20 ( 4 × 5 = 20) 0 (20 - 20 = 0) A more detailed breakdown of the steps goes as follows: Find the shortest sequence of digits starting from the left end of the dividend, 500, that the divisor 4 goes into at least once. In this case, this is simply the first digit, 5. The largest number that the divisor 4 can be multiplied by without exceeding 5 is 1, so the digit 1 is put above the 5 to start constructing the quotient. Next, the 1 is multiplied by the divisor 4, to obtain the largest whole number that is a multiple of the divisor 4 without exceeding the 5 (4 in this case). This 4 is then placed under and subtracted from the 5 to get the remainder, 1, which is placed under the 4 under the 5. Afterwards, the first as-yet unused digit in the dividend, in this case the first digit 0 after the 5, is copied directly underneath itself and next to the remainder 1, to form the number 10. At this point the process is repeated enough times to reach a stopping point: The largest number by which the divisor 4 can be multiplied without exceeding 10 is 2, so 2 is written above as the second leftmost quotient digit. This 2 is then multiplied by the divisor 4 to get 8, which is the largest multiple of 4 that does not exceed 10; so 8 is written below 10, and the subtraction 10 minus 8 is performed to get the remainder 2, which is placed below the 8. The next digit of the dividend (the last 0 in 500) is copied directly below itself and next to the remainder 2 to form 20. Then the largest number by which the divisor 4 can be multiplied without exceeding 20, which is 5, is placed above as the third leftmost quotient digit. This 5 is multiplied by the divisor 4 to get 20, which is written below and subtracted from the existing 20 to yield the remainder 0, which is then written below the second 20. At this point, since there are no more digits to bring down from the dividend and the last subtraction result was 0, we can be assured that the process finished. If the last remainder when we ran out of dividend digits had been something other than 0, there would have been two possible courses of action: We could just stop there and say that the dividend divided by the divisor is the quotient written at the top with the remainder written at the bottom, and write the answer as the quotient followed by a fraction that is the remainder divided by the divisor. We could extend the dividend by writing it as, say, 500.000... and continue the process (using a decimal point in the quotient directly above the decimal point in the dividend), in order to get a decimal answer, as in the following example. 31.75 4)127.00 12 (12 ÷ 4 = 3) 07 (0 remainder, bring down next figure) 4 (7 ÷ 4 = 1 r 3) 3.0 (bring down 0 and the decimal point) 2.8 (7 × 4 = 28, 30 ÷ 4 = 7 r 2) 20 (an additional zero is brought down) 20 (5 × 4 = 20) 0 In this example, the decimal part of the result is calculated by continuing the process beyond the units digit, "bringing down" zeros as being the decimal part of the dividend. This example also illustrates that, at the beginning of the process, a step that produces a zero can be omitted. Since the first digit 1 is less than the divisor 4, the first step is instead performed on the first two digits 12. Similarly, if the divisor were 13, one would perform the first step on 127 rather than 12 or 1. === Basic procedure for long division of n ÷ m === Find the location of all decimal points in the dividend n and divisor m. If necessary, simplify the long division problem by moving the decimals of the divisor and dividend by the same number of decimal places, to the right (or to the left), so that the decimal of the divisor is to the right of the last digit. When doing long division, keep the numbers lined up straight from top to bottom under the tableau. After each step, be sure the remainder for that step is less than the divisor. If it is not, there are three possible problems: the multiplication is wrong, the subtraction is wrong, or a greater quotient is needed. In the end, the remainder, r, is added to the growing quotient as a fraction, r⁄m. === Invariant property and correctness === The basic presentation of the steps of the process (above) focuses on what steps are to be performed, rather than the properties of those steps that ensure the result will be correct (specifically, that q × m + r = n, where q is the final quotient and r the final remainder). A slight variation of presentation requires more writing, and requires that we change, rather than just update, digits of the quotient, but can shed more light on why these steps actually produce the right answer by allowing evaluation of q × m + r at intermediate points in the process. This illustrates the key property used in the derivation of the algorithm (below). Specifically, we amend the above basic procedure so that we fill the space after the digits of the quotient under construction with 0's, to at least the 1's place, and include those 0's in the numbers we write below the division bra
Upper ontology
In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e
Information space analysis
Within the field of information science, information space analysis is a deterministic method, enhanced by machine intelligence, for locating and assessing resources for team-centric efforts. Organizations need to be able to quickly assemble teams backed by the support services, information, and material to do the job. To do so, these teams need to find and assess sources of services that are potential participants in the team effort. To support this initial team and resource development, information needs to be developed via analysis tools that help make sense of sets of data sources in an Intranet or Internet. Part of the process is to characterize them, partition them, and sort and filter them. These tools focus on three key issues in forming a collaborative team: Help individuals responsible for forming the team understand what is available. Assist team members in identifying the structure and categorize the information available to them in a manner specifically suited to the task at hand. Aid team members to understand the mappings of their information between their organization and that used by others who might participate. Information space analysis tools combine multiple methods to assist in this task. This causes the tools to be particularly well-suited to integrating additional technologies in order to create specialized systems.
Metadirectory
A metadirectory system provides for the flow of data between one or more directory services and databases in order to maintain synchronization of that data. It is an important part of identity management systems. The data being synchronized typically are collections of entries that contain user profiles and possibly authentication or policy information. Most metadirectory deployments synchronize data into at least one LDAP-based directory server, to ensure that LDAP-based applications such as single sign-on and portal servers have access to recent data, even if the data is mastered in a non-LDAP data source. Metadirectory products support filtering and transformation of data in transit. Most identity management suites from commercial vendors include a metadirectory product, or a user provisioning product.