AI Assistant Jobs Remote

AI Assistant Jobs Remote — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Dropbox Paper

  Dropbox Paper, or simply Paper, is a collaborative document-editing service developed by Dropbox. Originating from the company's acquisition of document collaboration company Hackpad in April 2014, Dropbox Paper was officially announced in October 2015, and launched in January 2017. It offers a web application, as well as mobile apps for Android and iOS. Dropbox Paper was described in the official announcement post as "a flexible workspace that brings people and ideas together. With Paper, teams can create, review, revise, manage, and organize — all in shared documents". Reception of Dropbox Paper has been mixed. Critics praised collaboration functionality, including content available immediately, the ability to mention specific collaborators, assign tasks, write comments, as well as editing attribution, and revision history. It received particular praise for its support for rich media from a variety of sources, with one reviewer noting that the Paper's support for rich media exceeds the capabilities of most of its competitors. However, it was criticized for a lack of formatting options and editing features. While the user interface was liked for being minimal, reviewers cited the lack of a fixed formatting bar and missing features present in competitors' products as making Dropbox Paper seem like a "light" tool. == History == Dropbox acquired document collaboration company Hackpad in April 2014. A year later, Dropbox launched a Dropbox Notes note-taking product in beta testing phase. Dropbox Paper was officially announced on October 15, 2015, followed by an open beta and release of mobile Android and iOS apps in August 2016. Dropbox Paper was officially released on January 30, 2017. == Reception == In a comparison between Dropbox Paper and Evernote, PC World's Michael Ansaldo wrote that "With its emphasis on document creation, you might expect formatting to be front and center in Dropbox Paper. That's not the case." Ansaldo noted the lack of a "fixed formatting toolbar as you'd find in Evernote or a word processor like Google Docs or Microsoft Word. Instead, the text editor appears as a floating ribbon only when you highlight selected text." The only formatting options available for emphasis were bolding, strikethrough, bulleted and numbered lists, and H1 and H2 tags. Users can also add links, convert text to checklists, and add comments. Ansaldo wrote that "Both Evernote and Dropbox Paper make it easy to add images to a document", but also noted that "Dropbox Paper doesn't support any image editing". Paper supports rich media, and users can "add rich content to your document just by pasting a link to the file. In addition to Dropbox, Paper supports media from a variety of popular services including YouTube, Spotify, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Facebook, and Google's productivity suite. Once the file appears, you can delete the link for a cleaner display." To start working with other people, Paper "allows you to invite people via email from within a document", with sharing options for who can view the link (anyone with the link or just the invited person), and action permissions (edit or only comment). Regarding collaboration, Ansaldo wrote that "Creative collaboration is Paper’s marquee feature, and it provides a variety of ways to work effectively with others in real time". Users can "make any content immediately visible and accessible to a specific collaborator with "@mentions"", and "You can also use @mentions to create and assign task lists within a document." Paper also "boasts essential collaboration tools including comments, editing attribution, and revision history." Writing for TechRadar, John Brandon wrote that Dropbox Paper "might be a 'light' tool for now without the extensive templates of Microsoft Office or the integration with other apps in the Zoho suite, but it does work well with the Dropbox storage service that's so popular with office workers these days." Kyle Wiggers of Digital Trends wrote that Paper is "all about minimizing distractions. Its interface is quite literally a big, blank canvas on which you tap out your agenda. You can organize notes by title and create to-do lists, but even basic formatting tools are obscured from view", noting Paper's "floating box above words and phrases highlighted by your cursor". Wiggers stated that "Paper is not a to-do organizer", but that it's "well suited to the purpose thanks to a bevy of labor-saving conveniences", highlighting that Paper "supports more media than most of its to-do and note-taking counterparts". He praised the collaboration tools, writing that they "are as extensive as you'd hope, and then some", citing its invitation system with permission controls, lists of changes and revision history, comment and chat support, and "perhaps best of all", the ability to assign tasks with a "@" mention. Business Insider's Alex Heath praised that "Paper's interface is spotless and friendly to write in. You don't feel overwhelmed with formatting options", but criticized the available features, writing that "Google Docs is much more full-featured in the formatting department, so Paper has some catching up to do if it wants to be on par with the competition". Writing for The Verge, Casey Newton praised Paper's handling of rich media, complimenting it for being "great", and added that "I imagine that creative types who work on teams will appreciate having rich media embedded in the documents they're working on rather than in a series of infinite tabs".

  Read more →
• 

  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

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithm characterizations

  Algorithm characterizations are attempts to formalize the word algorithm. Algorithm does not have a generally accepted formal definition. Researchers are actively working on this problem. This article will present some of the "characterizations" of the notion of "algorithm" in more detail. == The problem of definition == Over the last 200 years, the definition of the algorithm has become more complicated and detailed as researchers have tried to pin down the term. Indeed, there may be more than one type of "algorithm". But most agree that algorithm has something to do with defining generalized processes for the creation of "output" integers from other "input" integers – "input parameters" arbitrary and infinite in extent, or limited in extent but still variable—by the manipulation of distinguishable symbols (counting numbers) with finite collections of rules that a person can perform with paper and pencil. The most common number-manipulation schemes—both in formal mathematics and in routine life—are: (1) the recursive functions calculated by a person with paper and pencil, and (2) the Turing machine or its Turing equivalents—the primitive register-machine or "counter-machine" model, the random-access machine model (RAM), the random-access stored-program machine model (RASP) and its functional equivalent "the computer". When we are doing "arithmetic" we are really calculating by the use of "recursive functions" in the shorthand algorithms we learned in grade school, for example, adding and subtracting. The proofs that every "recursive function" we can calculate by hand we can compute by machine and vice versa—note the usage of the words calculate versus compute—is remarkable. But this equivalence together with the thesis (unproven assertion) that this includes every calculation/computation indicates why so much emphasis has been placed upon the use of Turing-equivalent machines in the definition of specific algorithms, and why the definition of "algorithm" itself often refers back to "the Turing machine". This is discussed in more detail under Stephen Kleene's characterization. The following are summaries of the more famous characterizations (Kleene, Markov, Knuth) together with those that introduce novel elements—elements that further expand the definition or contribute to a more precise definition. [ A mathematical problem and its result can be considered as two points in a space, and the solution consists of a sequence of steps or a path linking them. Quality of the solution is a function of the path. There might be more than one attribute defined for the path, e.g. length, complexity of shape, an ease of generalizing, difficulty, and so on. ] == Chomsky hierarchy == There is more consensus on the "characterization" of the notion of "simple algorithm". All algorithms need to be specified in a formal language, and the "simplicity notion" arises from the simplicity of the language. The Chomsky (1956) hierarchy is a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars that generate formal languages. It is used for classifying of programming languages and abstract machines. From the Chomsky hierarchy perspective, if the algorithm can be specified on a simpler language (than unrestricted), it can be characterized by this kind of language, else it is a typical "unrestricted algorithm". Examples: a "general purpose" macro language, like M4 is unrestricted (Turing complete), but the C preprocessor macro language is not, so any algorithm expressed in C preprocessor is a "simple algorithm". See also Relationships between complexity classes. == Features of a good algorithm == The following are desirable features of a well-defined algorithm, as discussed in Scheider and Gersting (1995): Unambiguous Operations: an algorithm must have specific, outlined steps. The steps should be exact enough to precisely specify what to do at each step. Well-Ordered: The exact order of operations performed in an algorithm should be concretely defined. Feasibility: All steps of an algorithm should be possible (also known as effectively computable). Input: an algorithm should be able to accept a well-defined set of inputs. Output: an algorithm should produce some result as an output, so that its correctness can be reasoned about. Finiteness: an algorithm should terminate after a finite number of instructions. Properties of specific algorithms that may be desirable include space and time efficiency, generality (i.e. being able to handle many inputs), or determinism. == 1881 John Venn's negative reaction to W. Stanley Jevons's Logical Machine of 1870 == In early 1870 W. Stanley Jevons presented a "Logical Machine" (Jevons 1880:200) for analyzing a syllogism or other logical form e.g. an argument reduced to a Boolean equation. By means of what Couturat (1914) called a "sort of logical piano [,] ... the equalities which represent the premises ... are "played" on a keyboard like that of a typewriter. ... When all the premises have been "played", the panel shows only those constituents whose sum is equal to 1, that is, ... its logical whole. This mechanical method has the advantage over VENN's geometrical method..." (Couturat 1914:75). For his part John Venn, a logician contemporary to Jevons, was less than thrilled, opining that "it does not seem to me that any contrivances at present known or likely to be discovered really deserve the name of logical machines" (italics added, Venn 1881:120). But of historical use to the developing notion of "algorithm" is his explanation for his negative reaction with respect to a machine that "may subserve a really valuable purpose by enabling us to avoid otherwise inevitable labor": (1) "There is, first, the statement of our data in accurate logical language", (2) "Then secondly, we have to throw these statements into a form fit for the engine to work with – in this case the reduction of each proposition to its elementary denials", (3) "Thirdly, there is the combination or further treatment of our premises after such reduction," (4) "Finally, the results have to be interpreted or read off. This last generally gives rise to much opening for skill and sagacity." He concludes that "I cannot see that any machine can hope to help us except in the third of these steps; so that it seems very doubtful whether any thing of this sort really deserves the name of a logical engine."(Venn 1881:119–121). == 1943, 1952 Stephen Kleene's characterization == This section is longer and more detailed than the others because of its importance to the topic: Kleene was the first to propose that all calculations/computations—of every sort, the totality of—can equivalently be (i) calculated by use of five "primitive recursive operators" plus one special operator called the mu-operator, or be (ii) computed by the actions of a Turing machine or an equivalent model. Furthermore, he opined that either of these would stand as a definition of algorithm. A reader first confronting the words that follow may well be confused, so a brief explanation is in order. Calculation means done by hand, computation means done by Turing machine (or equivalent). (Sometimes an author slips and interchanges the words). A "function" can be thought of as an "input-output box" into which a person puts natural numbers called "arguments" or "parameters" (but only the counting numbers including 0—the nonnegative integers) and gets out a single nonnegative integer (conventionally called "the answer"). Think of the "function-box" as a little man either calculating by hand using "general recursion" or computing by Turing machine (or an equivalent machine). "Effectively calculable/computable" is more generic and means "calculable/computable by some procedure, method, technique ... whatever...". "General recursive" was Kleene's way of writing what today is called just "recursion"; however, "primitive recursion"—calculation by use of the five recursive operators—is a lesser form of recursion that lacks access to the sixth, additional, mu-operator that is needed only in rare instances. Thus most of life goes on requiring only the "primitive recursive functions." === 1943 "Thesis I", 1952 "Church's Thesis" === In 1943 Kleene proposed what has come to be known as Church's thesis: "Thesis I. Every effectively calculable function (effectively decidable predicate) is general recursive" (First stated by Kleene in 1943 (reprinted page 274 in Davis, ed. The Undecidable; appears also verbatim in Kleene (1952) p.300) In a nutshell: to calculate any function the only operations a person needs (technically, formally) are the 6 primitive operators of "general" recursion (nowadays called the operators of the mu recursive functions). Kleene's first statement of this was under the section title "12. Algorithmic theories". He would later amplify it in his text (1952) as follows: "Thesis I and its converse provide the exact definition of the notion of a calculation (decision) procedure or algorithm, for the

  Read more →
• 

  List of algorithm general topics

  This is a list of algorithm general topics. Analysis of algorithms Ant colony algorithm Approximation algorithm Best and worst cases Big O notation Combinatorial search Competitive analysis Computability theory Computational complexity theory Embarrassingly parallel problem Emergent algorithm Evolutionary algorithm Fast Fourier transform Genetic algorithm Graph exploration algorithm Heuristic Hill climbing Implementation Las Vegas algorithm Lock-free and wait-free algorithms Monte Carlo algorithm Numerical analysis Online algorithm Polynomial time approximation scheme Problem size Pseudorandom number generator Quantum algorithm Random-restart hill climbing Randomized algorithm Running time Sorting algorithm Search algorithm Stable algorithm (disambiguation) Super-recursive algorithm Tree search algorithm

  Read more →
• 

  Ibotta

  Ibotta, Inc. is an American mobile technology company headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Founded in 2011, the company offers cash back rewards on various purchases through its Ibotta Performance Network and direct to consumer app. Ibotta partners with CPG (consumer packaged goods) brands and network publishers to provide these rewards. As of 2024, the company operates solely in the United States. The company's rewards-as-a-service offering, the Ibotta Performance Network, went live in 2022. In August 2019, Ibotta received a $1 billion valuation after its Series D funding, and in 2023, the company surpassed $1.5 billion cash rewards paid to over 50 million consumers since the company's founding. Ibotta became a publicly traded company in April 2024 with a listing on the New York Stock Exchange. As of September 2025, Ibotta is trading at approximately $27.13 per share, marking a 69% decline from its initial public offering price of $88 per share on April 18, 2024. == History == === Founding through early 2019 === Ibotta was founded by current CEO Bryan Leach. The company was incorporated in 2011 and the app launched to both the App Store and Google Play stores in 2012. Early investors included entrepreneur and computer scientist Jim Clark and Tom “TJ” Jermoluk, Chairman of @Home Network. In 2015, Ibotta expanded beyond item level grocery, adding the ability to get cash back on in-store retail purchases. In 2016, in-app mobile commerce began, allowing users to navigate from the Ibotta app to its partners' apps to earn cash back on purchases. In 2016 with a Series C investment, Ibotta had raised over $73 million in funding. In March of that year, Ibotta partnered with Anheuser-Busch to offer cash back for adults who purchased its products. In May, the company partnered with LiveRamp so that companies could use their CRM data to create segmented, personalized campaigns. At the time, the company had around 200 full- and part-time employees and moved from offices in Lower Downtown Denver (LoDo) to a 40,000-square-foot office in the central Denver business district. A year later, the company had to expand to a second floor as it added almost another 100 employees. In 2017, Ibotta added cash back for Uber to its app as well as cash back rewards for online and mobile purchases. In 2018, Ibotta was listed on the Inc. 5,000 list as one of the fastest growing private companies in the U.S. A year later, in January 2019, the Ibotta app had been downloaded more than 30 million times with users receiving a reported $500 million in cash back rewards. That year, Ibotta was the largest mobile company in Colorado with six million monthly active users. === August 2019 to present === In August 2019, Ibotta was valued at $1 billion, following a Series D round of funding. The round was led by Koch Disruptive Technologies, a subsidiary of Koch Industries. 2019 was also the year the company introduced Pay with Ibotta, which allowed users to complete purchases at key retailers on the Ibotta app and earn instant cash back in the process. With that new service, users were able to enter their purchase total and use a QR code to checkout and receive immediate cash back. In 2020, the company partnered with Trees for the Future to plant up to 1 million trees as part of an Earth Month campaign to raise awareness about the waste of unused paper coupons. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ibotta partnered with CPG brands in their “Here to Help” campaign and together committed over $10 million in cash back to American consumers. The company added the ability to earn cash back from online grocery pick-up and delivery orders. Later that year, Ibotta started its free Thanksgiving program, providing users with 100% cash back on select groceries needed for a Thanksgiving meal. By 2022, the company had provided approximately 10 million Thanksgiving meals. In 2021, Ibotta acquired the company OctoShop (originally InStok), a shopping browser extension company. The OctoShop app enables users to compare prices across stores and set restock and price-drop alerts. In April 2022, the Ibotta Performance Network (IPN) was launched. The IPN allows brands to deliver digital offers to consumers through third party publishers. Retailers including Walmart, Dollar General and Family Dollar, food delivery services including Instacart, and convenience stores including Shell are all part of the Ibotta Performance Network. This pay-per-sales or success-based performance network reaches over 200 million consumers. On April 18, 2024, Ibotta had its initial public offering (IPO), trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol IBTA. It was the largest technology IPO in Colorado history. In October 2025, Ibotta announced a partnership with technology and analytics company Circana, integrating Circana's Household Lift measurement into Ibotta campaigns to give CPG brands an increased understanding of the impact of their promotional campaigns. On November 3, 2025, Ibotta launched LiveLift, a tool for companies to measure the return on investment of digital promotions, in order to optimize performance marketing goals. === Athletic partnerships === Ibotta became the official jersey patch partner of the New Orleans Pelicans, a professional men's basketball team in the National Basketball Association (NBA), for the 2020–2021 and 2023–2024 seasons. Ibotta became the official jersey patch partner of the 2023 NBA champion Denver Nuggets baskeetball team beginning in the 2023–2024 season. In March 2023, F1 driver Logan Sargeant, the first U.S. racer to compete in F1 since 2015, partnered with Ibotta. The Ibotta logo was displayed on Sargeant's racing helmet throughout his F1 career. In June 2023, UConn Huskies women's basketball player Paige Bueckers entered into a "name, image, and likeness" (NIL) promotional agreement with Ibotta. According to a press release by Ibotta, the company has agreements with The Brandr Group, which finds NIL opportunities for women college athletes, and the Pearpop social media marketing platform to promote Ibotta. == Legal issues == In April 2025, shareholders filed a class action lawsuit—Fortune v. Ibotta, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 25-cv-01213)—alleging that the registration statement in connection with Ibotta’s April 2024 initial public offering omitted material information. The complaint claims that, although Ibotta disclosed detailed terms for its contract with Walmart Inc., it failed to warn investors that its agreement with The Kroger Co., its second-largest client, was terminable at will and thus could be canceled without warning, creating a misleading impression of stability.

  Read more →
• 

  Wearable computer

  A wearable computer, also known as a body-borne computer or wearable, is a computing device worn on the body. The definition of 'wearable computer' may be narrow or broad, extending to smartphones or even ordinary wristwatches. Wearables may be for general use, in which case they are just a particularly small example of mobile computing. Alternatively, they may be for specialized purposes such as fitness trackers. They may incorporate special sensors such as accelerometers, heart rate monitors, or on the more advanced side, electrocardiogram (ECG) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) monitors. Under the definition of wearable computers, we also include novel user interfaces such as Google Glass, an optical head-mounted display controlled by gestures. It may be that specialized wearables will evolve into general all-in-one devices, as happened with the convergence of PDAs and mobile phones into smartphones. Wearables are typically worn on the wrist (e.g. fitness trackers), hung from the neck (like a necklace), strapped to the arm or leg (electronic tagging), or on the head (as glasses or a helmet), though some have been located elsewhere (e.g. on a finger or in a shoe). Devices carried in a pocket or bag – such as smartphones and before them, pocket calculators and PDAs, may or may not be regarded as 'worn'. Wearable computers have various technical issues common to other mobile computing, such as batteries, heat dissipation, software architectures, wireless and personal area networks, and data management. Many wearable computers are active all the time, e.g. processing or recording data continuously. == Applications == Wearable computers are not only limited to computers such as fitness trackers that are worn on wrists; they also include wearables such as heart pacemakers and other prosthetics. They are used most often in research that focuses on behavioral modeling, health monitoring systems, IT and media development, where the person wearing the computer actually moves or is otherwise engaged with his or her surroundings. Wearable computers have been used for the following: general-purpose computing (e.g. smartphones and smartwatches) sensory integration, e.g. to help people see better or understand the world better (whether in task-specific applications like camera-based welding helmets or for everyday use like Google Glass) behavioral modeling health care monitoring systems service management electronic textiles and fashion design, e.g. Microsoft's 2011 prototype "The Printing Dress". Wearable computing is the subject of active research, especially the form-factor and location on the body, with areas of study including user interface design, augmented reality, and pattern recognition. The use of wearables for specific applications, for compensating disabilities or supporting elderly people steadily increases. == Operating systems == The dominant operating systems for wearable computing are: FreeRTOS is a real-time operating system kernel for embedded devices; most of the Smartbands that are currently available in the market are based on FreeRTOS, which include Huawei, Honor, Lenovo, realme, TCL and Xiaomi smartbands. LiteOS is a lightweight open source real-time operating system that is part of Huawei's "1+8+N" Internet of Things solution. Tizen OS from Samsung (there was an announcement in May 2021 that Wear OS and Tizen OS will merge and will be called simply Wear.) watchOS watchOS is a proprietary mobile operating system developed by Apple Inc. to run on the Apple Watch. Wear OS Wear OS (previously known as Android Wear) is a smartwatch operating system developed by Google Inc. == History == Due to the varied definitions of wearable and computer, the first wearable computer could be as early as the first abacus on a necklace, a 16th-century abacus ring, a wristwatch and 'finger-watch' owned by Queen Elizabeth I of England, or the covert timing devices hidden in shoes to cheat at roulette by Thorp and Shannon in the 1960s and 1970s. However, a general-purpose computer is not merely a time-keeping or calculating device, but rather a user-programmable item for arbitrary complex algorithms, interfacing, and data management. By this definition, the wearable computer was invented by Steve Mann, in the late 1970s: Steve Mann, a professor at the University of Toronto, was hailed as the father of the wearable computer and the ISSCC's first virtual panelist, by moderator Woodward Yang of Harvard University (Cambridge Mass.). The development of wearable items has taken several steps of miniaturization from discrete electronics over hybrid designs to fully integrated designs, where just one processor chip, a battery, and some interface conditioning items make the whole unit. === 1500s === Queen Elizabeth I of England received a watch from Robert Dudley in 1571, as a New Year's present; it may have been worn on the forearm rather than the wrist. She also possessed a 'finger-watch' set in a ring, with an alarm that prodded her finger. === 1600s === The Qing dynasty saw the introduction of a fully functional abacus on a ring, which could be used while it was being worn. === 1960s === In 1961, mathematicians Edward O. Thorp and Claude Shannon built some computerized timing devices to help them win a game of roulette. One such timer was concealed in a shoe and another in a pack of cigarettes. Various versions of this apparatus were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Thorp refers to himself as the inventor of the first "wearable computer". In other variations, the system was a concealed cigarette-pack-sized analog computer designed to predict the motion of roulette wheels. A data-taker would use microswitches hidden in his shoes to indicate the speed of the roulette wheel, and the computer would indicate an octant of the roulette wheel to bet on by sending musical tones via radio to a miniature speaker hidden in a collaborator's ear canal. The system was successfully tested in Las Vegas in June 1961, but hardware issues with the speaker wires prevented it from being used beyond test runs. This was not a wearable computer because it could not be re-purposed during use; rather it was an example of task-specific hardware. This work was kept secret until it was first mentioned in Thorp's book Beat the Dealer (revised ed.) in 1966 and later published in detail in 1969. === 1970s === Pocket calculators became mass-market devices in 1970, starting in Japan. Programmable calculators followed in the late 1970s, being somewhat more general-purpose computers. The HP-01 algebraic calculator watch by Hewlett-Packard was released in 1977. A camera-to-tactile vest for the blind, launched by C.C. Collins in 1977, converted images into a 1024-point, ten-inch square tactile grid on a vest. === 1980s === The 1980s saw the rise of more general-purpose wearable computers. In 1981, Steve Mann designed and built a backpack-mounted 6502-based wearable multimedia computer with text, graphics, and multimedia capability, as well as video capability (cameras and other photographic systems). Mann went on to be an early and active researcher in the wearables field, especially known for his 1994 creation of the Wearable Wireless Webcam, the first example of lifelogging. Seiko Epson released the RC-20 Wrist Computer in 1984. It was an early smartwatch, powered by a computer on a chip. In 1989, Reflection Technology marketed the Private Eye head-mounted display, which scans a vertical array of LEDs across the visual field using a vibrating mirror. This display gave rise to several hobbyist and research wearables, including Gerald "Chip" Maguire's IBM/Columbia University Student Electronic Notebook, Doug Platt's Hip-PC, and Carnegie Mellon University's VuMan 1 in 1991. The Student Electronic Notebook consisted of the Private Eye, Toshiba diskless AIX notebook computers (prototypes), a stylus based input system and a virtual keyboard. It used direct-sequence spread spectrum radio links to provide all the usual TCP/IP based services, including NFS mounted file systems and X11, which all ran in the Andrew Project environment. The Hip-PC included an Agenda palmtop used as a chording keyboard attached to the belt and a 1.44 megabyte floppy drive. Later versions incorporated additional equipment from Park Engineering. The system debuted at "The Lap and Palmtop Expo" on 16 April 1991. VuMan 1 was developed as part of a Summer-term course at Carnegie Mellon's Engineering Design Research Center, and was intended for viewing house blueprints. Input was through a three-button unit worn on the belt, and output was through Reflection Tech's Private Eye. The CPU was an 8 MHz 80188 processor with 0.5 MB ROM. === 1990s === In the 1990s PDAs became widely used, and in 1999 were combined with mobile phones in Japan to produce the first mass-market smartphone. In 1993, the Private Eye was used in Thad Starner's wearable, based on Doug Platt's system and built from a kit from Park Enterprises, a Pri

  Read more →
• 

  Non-personal data

  Non-Personal Data (NPD) is electronic data that does not contain any information that can be used to identify a natural person. Thus, it can either be data that has no personal information to begin with (such as weather data, stock prices, data from anonymous IoT sensors); or it is data that had personal data that was subsequently pseudoanonymized (for example, identifiable strings substituted with random strings) or anonymized (such as by irreversibly removing all personal data). NPD is part of the overall Data Governance Strategy of a region or country. While personal data are covered by Data Protection Legislation such as GDPR, other kinds of data would fall under the scope of NPD Regulation. == Importance of non-personal data == It has been pointed out that the future is data-driven. What this means is that much of the present innovation taking place in domains such as Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence is fueled by data, which is needed for calibrating the complex models (comprising neural network-based as well as other kinds). The larger the volume, diversity and quality of the data, the higher is the quality of the model, leading to better predictions and explanations. However, there is a flip-side to data availability. The newly-emerging awareness of privacy and the consequent need for powerful Data Protection Regulations (such as GDPR) makes it increasingly difficult or impossible to obtain data in the quantities required. This is a contradiction, and the only way out would be to remove all personal data from data sets (either by Data anonymization or Pseudonymization coupled with noise injection, at which point it becomes NPD. Therefore, many innovation-friendly countries are coming out with regulatory regimes that would ensure that personal data is protected, while, at the same time, non-personal data can be extracted from personal data so that innovation is fostered. In other words, NPD 'unlocks' value that was locked away in data sets that have personally-identifiable information. It is expected that multiple NPD data sets will begin to be available on free or commercial basis from different providers once the regulations are in place. == Emerging regulatory frameworks == Non-Personal Data has significant uses that may be economic, social, political or security-related. Several countries and regions are in the process of regulating the use of NPD. In May 2019, the European Union operationalized its Regulation of the Free Flow of NPD. India announced a nine-member expert committee to make recommendations on the regulation of NPD in 2019, which published its first report in mid-2020. The report was opened for public comments, after which it was revised and published in December 2020. == Proposed NPD regulatory framework in India == The following were the objectives of the proposed Indian regulation as per the revised report: Sovereignty: India has rights over the data of India, its people and organisations. Benefit India: Benefits of data must accrue to India and its people. Benefits the world: Innovation, new models and algorithms for the world. Privacy: Misuse, reidentification and harms must be prevented. Simplicity: The regulations should be simple, digital and unambiguous. Innovation and entrepreneurship: The data should be freely available for innovation and entrepreneurship in India. == Concerns == The major concern in the use of NPD is if there are techniques (statistical or AI-based) by which multiple data sets can be used to extract personally-identifiable data.

  Read more →
• 

  Information audit

  The information audit (IA) extends the concept of auditing from a traditional scope of accounting and finance to the organisational information management system. Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA. Prior the 1990s and the methodologies of Orna, Henczel, Wood, Buchanan and Gibb, IA approaches and methodologies focused mainly upon an identification of formal information resources (IR). Later approaches included an organisational analysis and the mapping of the information flow. This gave context to analysis within an organisation's information systems and a holistic view of their IR and as such could contribute to the development of the information systems architecture (ISA). In recent years the IA has been overlooked in favour of the systems development process which can be less expensive than the IA, yet more heavily technically focused, project specific (not holistic) and does not favour the top-down analysis of the IA. == Definition == A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting, the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task. == Role and scope of an IA == In much the same way as the IA is difficult to define, it can be utilised in a range of contexts by the information professional, from complying with freedom of information legislation to identifying any existing gaps, duplications, bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in information flows and to understand how existing channels can be used for knowledge transfer In 2007 Buchanan and Gibb developed upon their 1998 examination of the IA process by outlining a summary of its main objectives: To identify an organisation’s information resource To identify an organisation’s information needs Furthermore, Buchanan and Gibb went on to state that the IA also had to meet the following additional objectives: To identify the cost/benefits of information resources To identify the opportunities to use the information resources for strategic competitive advantage To integrate IT investment with strategic business initiatives To identify information flow and processes To develop an integrated information strategy and/or policy To create an awareness of the importance of Information Resource Management (IRM) To monitor/evaluate conformance to information related standards, legislations, policy and guidelines. == Methodology evolution == === Overview === In 1976 Riley first published a definition of IA as a way of analysing IR based on a cost-benefit model. Since Riley, scholars have outlined further developed methodologies. Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked. In 1985 Gillman focused upon identifying the relationships which existed between various components in order to map them to one another. Neither Henderson nor Gillman’s methods offered alternative approaches beyond the existing organisational frameworks. Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock. The differentiator between Quinn and Worlock lay in Worlock’s consideration of solutions outside of the current organisational structure. These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy. Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology. === Burk and Horton === In 1988 Burk and Horton developed InfoMap, the first IA methodology developed for widespread use. It aimed to discover, map and evaluate the IR within an organisation using a 4-stage process: Survey staff using questionnaires/interviews Measure the IR against cost/value Analyse resources Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the IR against the objectives of the organisation. Although the method inventoried all IR (and therefore met standard ISO 1779) this bottom-up approach revealed limited analysis of the organisation holistically and the steps were not explicit enough. === Orna === Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy. Initially the method had just 4-stages, this later revised to a 10-stage process which included pre and post-audit stages as below: Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction Gain support/resource from management Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff) Planning including the project, team, tools and techniques Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state Produce a report to present findings Implement recommendations Monitor effects of change Repeat the IA Orna’s method introduced the need for a cyclical IA to be put in place in order for the IR to be continually tracked and improvements made regularly. Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem === Buchanan and Gibb === In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals. This set of techniques was a notable contribution to IA methodologies and understood the need to be flexible for each organisation. Theirs was a 5-stage process: Promote benefits of the IA through seminars/surveys/CEO letter for cooperation Identify the mission objectives of the organisation, define environment (PEST), map information flow and examine organisation culture. Analyse and formulate action plan for problem areas, flow diagrams and a report of findings and recommendations Account for cost of IR and related services using Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Output Based Specification (OBS). Synthesise the whole process in final audit report and provide an information strategy (strategic direction) in relation to the organisation’s mission statement. This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations. === Henczel === Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process: Planning and submission of business case for approval to proceed Data collection and development of an IR database and population through survey techniques Structured data analysis Data evaluation, interpretation and formulation of recommendations Communication of recommendations through a report Implementing recommendations through a devised programme The IA as a continuum-establishment of a cyclical process Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA. Furthermore, Henczel made examination into the use of the IA as a first-step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy as discussed in the later section. == Case studies == Scholars and information professionals have since tested the above methodologies with varied results. An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period. Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy. In addition the IA report suggested that the process would need to be continual (cyclical as Orna, Henczel and Buchanan and Gibb suggest). Conclusions of this case-study stated that th

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence content detection

  Artificial intelligence detection software aims to determine whether some content (text, image, video, or audio) was generated using artificial intelligence (AI). This software is often unreliable. == Accuracy issues == Many AI detection tools have been shown to be unreliable in detecting AI-generated text. In a 2023 study conducted by Weber-Wulff et al., researchers evaluated 14 detection tools including Turnitin and GPTZero and found that "all scored below 80% of accuracy and only 5 over 70%." They also found that these tools tend to have a bias for classifying texts more as human than as AI, and that accuracy of these tools worsens upon paraphrasing. === False positives === In AI content detection, a false positive is when human-written work is incorrectly flagged as AI-written. Many AI detection platforms claim to have a minimal level of false positives, with Turnitin claiming a less than 1% false positive rate. However, later research by The Washington Post produced much higher rates of 50%, though they used a smaller sample size. False positives in an academic setting frequently lead to accusations of academic misconduct, which can have serious consequences for a student's academic record. Additionally, studies have shown evidence that many AI detection models are prone to give false positives to work written by people whose first language is not English, and also to neurodivergent people. In June 2023, Janelle Shane wrote that portions of her book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You were flagged as AI-generated. === False negatives === A false negative is a failure to identify documents with AI-written text. False negatives often happen as a result of a detection software's sensitivity level or because evasive techniques were used when generating the work to make it sound more human. False negatives are less of a concern academically, since they aren't likely to lead to accusations and ramifications. Notably, Turnitin stated they have a 15% false negative rate. == Text detection == For text, this is usually done to prevent alleged plagiarism, often by detecting repetition of words as telltale signs that a text was AI-generated (including hallucinations). Detection systems may also rely on stylistic and structural regularities associated with LLM output, such as unusually consistent grammar, formulaic transitions, repeated discourse markers, and recurring rhetorical templates. Some tools are designed less to establish authorship provenance than to flag prose that resembles common LLM-generated style patterns. They are often used by teachers marking their students, usually on an ad hoc basis. Following the release of ChatGPT and similar AI text generative software, many educational establishments have issued policies against the use of AI by students. AI text detection software is also used by those assessing job applicants, as well as online search engines, hiring, online moderation and publishing. Current detectors may sometimes be unreliable and have incorrectly marked work by humans as originating from AI while failing to detect AI-generated work in other instances. MIT Technology Review said that the technology "struggled to pick up ChatGPT-generated text that had been slightly rearranged by humans and obfuscated by a paraphrasing tool". AI text detection software has also been shown to discriminate against non-native speakers of English. Two students from the University of California, Davis, were referred to the university's Office of Student Success and Judicial Affairs (OSSJA) after their professors scanned their essays with positive results; the first with an AI detector called GPTZero, and the second with an AI detector integration in Turnitin. However, following media coverage, and a thorough investigation, the students were cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2023, Cambridge University and other members of the Russell Group of universities in the United Kingdom opted out of Turnitin's AI text detection tool, after expressing concerns it was unreliable. The University of Texas at Austin opted out of the system six months later. In May 2023, a professor at Texas A&M University–Commerce used ChatGPT to detect whether his students' content was written by it, which ChatGPT said was the case. As such, he threatened to fail the class despite ChatGPT not being able to detect AI-generated writing. No students were prevented from graduating because of the issue, and all but one student (who admitted to using the software) were exonerated from accusations of having used ChatGPT in their content. In July 2023, a paper titled "GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers" was released, reporting that GPTs discriminate against non-native English authors. The paper compared seven GPT detectors against essays from both non-native English speakers and essays from United States students. The essays from non-native English speakers had an average false positive rate of 61.3%. An article by Thomas Germain, published on Gizmodo in June 2024, reported job losses among freelance writers and journalists due to AI text detection software mistakenly classifying their work as AI-generated. In September 2024, Common Sense Media reported that generative AI detectors had a 20% false positive rate for Black students, compared to 10% of Latino students and 7% of White students. To improve the reliability of AI text detection, researchers have explored digital watermarking techniques. A 2023 paper titled "A Watermark for Large Language Models" presents a method to embed imperceptible watermarks into text generated by large language models (LLMs). This watermarking approach allows content to be flagged as AI-generated with a high level of accuracy, even when text is slightly paraphrased or modified. The technique is designed to be subtle and hard to detect for casual readers, thereby preserving readability, while providing a detectable signal for those employing specialized tools. However, while promising, watermarking faces challenges in remaining robust under adversarial transformations and ensuring compatibility across different LLMs. == Anti text detection == There is software available designed to bypass AI text detection. In practice, evasion may not require specialized bypass tools. Paraphrasing, style editing, and removal of repeated discourse markers can substantially reduce the effectiveness of detectors that rely on recognizable surface patterns. A study published in August 2023 analyzed 20 abstracts from papers published in the Eye Journal, which were then paraphrased using GPT-4.0. The AI-paraphrased abstracts were examined for plagiarism using QueText and for AI-generated content using Originality.AI. The texts were then re-processed through an adversarial software called Undetectable.ai in order to reduce the AI-detection scores. The study found that the AI detection tool, Originality.AI, identified text generated by GPT-4 with a mean accuracy of 91.3%. However, after reprocessing by Undetectable.ai, the detection accuracy of Originality.ai dropped to a mean accuracy of 27.8%. Some experts also believe that techniques like digital watermarking are ineffective because they can be removed or added to trigger false positives. "A Watermark for Large Language Models" paper by Kirchenbauer et al. (2023) also addresses potential vulnerabilities of watermarking techniques. The authors outline a range of adversarial tactics, including text insertion, deletion, and substitution attacks, that could be used to bypass watermark detection. These attacks vary in complexity, from simple paraphrasing to more sophisticated approaches involving tokenization and homoglyph alterations. The study highlights the challenge of maintaining watermark robustness against attackers who may employ automated paraphrasing tools or even specific language model replacements to alter text spans iteratively while retaining semantic similarity. Experimental results show that although such attacks can degrade watermark strength, they also come at the cost of text quality and increased computational resources. == Image, video, and audio detection == Several purported AI image detection software exist, to detect AI-generated images (for example, those originating from Midjourney or DALL-E). They are not completely reliable. Industry analyses have also noted that AI-driven image recognition systems often struggle in real-world environments, where inconsistent lighting, noise and variable visual inputs reduce detection reliability, a challenge highlighted in modern agricultural quality-control research. Others claim to identify video and audio deepfakes, but this technology is also not fully reliable yet either. Despite debate around the efficacy of watermarking, Google DeepMind is actively developing a detection software called SynthID, which works by inserting a digital watermark that is invisible to the human eye into the pixels of an image.

  Read more →
• 

  Data quality

  Data quality refers to the state of qualitative or quantitative pieces of information. There are many definitions of data quality, but data is generally considered high quality if it is "fit for [its] intended uses in operations, decision making and planning". Data is deemed of high quality if it correctly represents the real-world construct to which it refers. Apart from these definitions, as the number of data sources increases, the question of internal data consistency becomes significant, regardless of fitness for use for any particular external purpose. People's views on data quality can often be in disagreement, even when discussing the same set of data used for the same purpose. When this is the case, businesses may adopt recognised international standards for data quality (See #International Standards for Data Quality below). Data governance can also be used to form agreed upon definitions and standards, including international standards, for data quality. In such cases, data cleansing, including standardization, may be required in order to ensure data quality. == Definitions == Defining data quality is difficult due to the many contexts data are used in, as well as the varying perspectives among end users, producers, and custodians of data. From a consumer perspective, data quality is: "data that are fit for use by data consumers" data "meeting or exceeding consumer expectations" data that "satisfies the requirements of its intended use" From a business perspective, data quality is: data that are "'fit for use' in their intended operational, decision-making and other roles" or that exhibits "'conformance to standards' that have been set, so that fitness for use is achieved" data that "are fit for their intended uses in operations, decision making and planning" "the capability of data to satisfy the stated business, system, and technical requirements of an enterprise" From a standards-based perspective, data quality is: the "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (quality dimensions) of an object (data) fulfills requirements" "the usefulness, accuracy, and correctness of data for its application" Arguably, in all these cases, "data quality" is a comparison of the actual state of a particular set of data to a desired state, with the desired state being typically referred to as "fit for use," "to specification," "meeting consumer expectations," "free of defect," or "meeting requirements." These expectations, specifications, and requirements are usually defined by one or more individuals or groups, standards organizations, laws and regulations, business policies, or software development policies. == Dimensions of data quality == Drilling down further, those expectations, specifications, and requirements are stated in terms of characteristics or dimensions of the data, such as: accessibility or availability accuracy or correctness comparability completeness or comprehensiveness consistency, coherence, or clarity credibility, reliability, or reputation flexibility plausibility relevance, pertinence, or usefulness timeliness or latency uniqueness validity or reasonableness A systematic scoping review of the literature suggests that data quality dimensions and methods with real world data are not consistent in the literature, and as a result quality assessments are challenging due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of these data. == International standards for data quality == ISO 8000 is an international standard for data quality. Managed by the International Organization for Standardization, the ISO 8000 standards address and describe general aspects of data quality including principles, vocabulary and measurement data governance data quality management data quality assessment quality of master data, including exchange of characteristic data and identifiers quality of industrial data == History == Before the rise of the inexpensive computer data storage, massive mainframe computers were used to maintain name and address data for delivery services. This was so that mail could be properly routed to its destination. The mainframes used business rules to correct common misspellings and typographical errors in name and address data, as well as to track customers who had moved, died, gone to prison, married, divorced, or experienced other life-changing events. Government agencies began to make postal data available to a few service companies to cross-reference customer data with the National Change of Address registry (NCOA). This technology saved large companies millions of dollars in comparison to manual correction of customer data. Large companies saved on postage, as bills and direct marketing materials made their way to the intended customer more accurately. Initially sold as a service, data quality moved inside the walls of corporations, as low-cost and powerful server technology became available. Companies with an emphasis on marketing often focused their quality efforts on name and address information, but data quality is recognized as an important property of all types of data. Principles of data quality can be applied to supply chain data, transactional data, and nearly every other category of data found. For example, making supply chain data conform to a certain standard has value to an organization by: 1) avoiding overstocking of similar but slightly different stock; 2) avoiding false stock-out; 3) improving the understanding of vendor purchases to negotiate volume discounts; and 4) avoiding logistics costs in stocking and shipping parts across a large organization. For companies with significant research efforts, data quality can include developing protocols for research methods, reducing measurement error, bounds checking of data, cross tabulation, modeling and outlier detection, verifying data integrity, etc. == Overview == There are a number of theoretical frameworks for understanding data quality. A systems-theoretical approach influenced by American pragmatism expands the definition of data quality to include information quality, and emphasizes the inclusiveness of the fundamental dimensions of accuracy and precision on the basis of the theory of science (Ivanov, 1972). One framework, dubbed "Zero Defect Data" (Hansen, 1991) adapts the principles of statistical process control to data quality. Another framework seeks to integrate the product perspective (conformance to specifications) and the service perspective (meeting consumers' expectations) (Kahn et al. 2002). Another framework is based in semiotics to evaluate the quality of the form, meaning and use of the data (Price and Shanks, 2004). One highly theoretical approach analyzes the ontological nature of information systems to define data quality rigorously (Wand and Wang, 1996). A considerable amount of data quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Nearly 200 such terms have been identified and there is little agreement in their nature (are these concepts, goals or criteria?), their definitions or measures (Wang et al., 1993). Software engineers may recognize this as a similar problem to "ilities". MIT has an Information Quality (MITIQ) Program, led by Professor Richard Wang, which produces a large number of publications and hosts a significant international conference in this field (International Conference on Information Quality, ICIQ). This program grew out of the work done by Hansen on the "Zero Defect Data" framework (Hansen, 1991). In practice, data quality is a concern for professionals involved with a wide range of information systems, ranging from data warehousing and business intelligence to customer relationship management and supply chain management. One industry study estimated the total cost to the U.S. economy of data quality problems at over U.S. $600 billion per annum (Eckerson, 2002). Incorrect data – which includes invalid and outdated information – can originate from different data sources – through data entry, or data migration and conversion projects. In 2002, the USPS and PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report stating that 23.6 percent of all U.S. mail sent is incorrectly addressed. One reason contact data becomes stale very quickly in the average database – more than 45 million Americans change their address every year. In fact, the problem is such a concern that companies are beginning to set up a data governance team whose sole role in the corporation is to be responsible for data quality. In some organizations, this data governance function has been established as part of a larger Regulatory Compliance function - a recognition of the importance of Data/Information Quality to organizations. Problems with data quality don't only arise from incorrect data; inconsistent data is a problem as well. Eliminating data shadow systems and centralizing data in a warehouse is one of the initiatives a company can take to ensure data consistency. En

  Read more →
• 

  Data management plan

  A data management plan or DMP is a formal document that outlines how data are to be handled both during a research project, and after the project is completed. The goal of a data management plan is to consider the many aspects of data management, metadata generation, data preservation, and analysis before the project begins; this may lead to data being well-managed in the present, and prepared for preservation in the future. DMPs were originally used in 1966 to manage aeronautical and engineering projects' data collection and analysis, and expanded across engineering and scientific disciplines in the 1970s and 1980s. Up until the early 2000s, DMPs were used "for projects of great technical complexity, and for limited mid-study data collection and processing purposes". In the 2000s and later, E-research and economic policies drove the development and uptake of DMPs. == Importance == Preparing a data management plan before data are collected is claimed to ensure that data are in the correct format, organized well, and better annotated. This could arguably save time in the long term because there is no need to re-organize, re-format, or try to remember details about data. It is also claimed to increase research efficiency since both the data collector and other researchers might be able to understand and use well-annotated data in the future. One component of a data management plan is data archiving and preservation. By deciding on an archive ahead of time, the data collector can format data during collection to make its future submission to a database easier. If data are preserved, they are more relevant since they can be re-used by other researchers. It also allows the data collector to direct requests for data to the database, rather than address requests individually. A frequent argument in favor of preservation is that data that are preserved have the potential to lead to new, unanticipated discoveries, and they prevent duplication of scientific studies that have already been conducted. Data archiving also provides insurance against loss by the data collector. In the 2010s, funding agencies increasingly required data management plans as part of the proposal and evaluation process, despite little or no evidence of their efficacy. == Major components == "There is no general and definitive list of topics that should be covered in a DMP for a research project", and researchers are often left to their own devices as to how to fill out a DMP. === Information about data and data format === A description of data to be produced by the project. This might include (but is not limited to) data that are: Experimental Observational Raw or derived Physical collections Models Simulations Curriculum materials Software Images How will the data be acquired? When and where will they be acquired? After collection, how will the data be processed? Include information about Software used Algorithms Scientific workflows File formats that will be used, justify those formats, and describe the naming conventions used. Quality assurance & quality control measures that will be taken during sample collection, analysis, and processing. If existing data are used, what are their origins? How will the data collected be combined with existing data? What is the relationship between the data collected and existing data? How will the data be managed in the short-term? Consider the following: Version control for files Backing up data and data products Security & protection of data and data products Who will be responsible for management === Metadata content and format === Metadata are the contextual details, including any information important for using data. This may include descriptions of temporal and spatial details, instruments, parameters, units, files, etc. Metadata is commonly referred to as "data about data". Issues to be considered include: How detailed has the metadata to be in order to make the data meaningful? How will the metadata be created and/or captured? Examples include lab notebooks, GPS hand-held units, Auto-saved files on instruments, etc. What format will be used for the metadata? What are the metadata standards commonly used in the respective scientific discipline? There should be justification for the format chosen. === Policies for access, sharing, and re-use === Describe any obligations that exist for sharing data collected. These may include obligations from funding agencies, institutions, other professional organizations, and legal requirements. Include information about how data will be shared, including when the data will be accessible, how long the data will be available, how access can be gained, and any rights that the data collector reserves for using data. Address any ethical or privacy issues with data sharing Address intellectual property & copyright issues. Who owns the copyright? What are the institutional, publisher, and/or funding agency policies associated with intellectual property? Are there embargoes for political, commercial, or patent reasons? Describe the intended future uses/users for the data Indicate how the data should be cited by others. How will the issue of persistent citation be addressed? For example, if the data will be deposited in a public archive, will the dataset have a persistent identifier (e.g., ARK, DOI, Handle, PURL, URN) assigned to it? === Long-term storage and data management === Researchers should identify an appropriate archive for the long-term preservation of their data. By identifying the archive early in the project, the data can be formatted, transformed, and documented appropriately to meet the requirements of the archive. Researchers should consult colleagues and professional societies in their discipline to determine the most appropriate database, and include a backup archive in their data management plan in case their first choice goes out of existence. Early in the project, the primary researcher should identify what data will be preserved in an archive. Usually, preserving the data in its most raw form is desirable, although data derivatives and products can also be preserved. An individual should be identified as the primary contact person for archived data, and ensure contact information is always kept up-to-date in case there are requests for data or information about data. === Budget === Data management and preservation costs may be considerable, depending on the nature of the project. By anticipating costs ahead of time, researchers ensure that the data will be properly managed and archived. Potential expenses that should be considered are Human resources and staff as they handle data preparation, management, documentation, and preservation Hardware and/or software needed for data management, backing up, security, documentation, and preservation Costs associated with submitting the data to an archive The data management plan should include how these costs will be paid. == NSF Data Management Plan == All grant proposals submitted to National Science Foundation (NSF) must include a Data Management Plan that is no more than two pages. This is a supplement (not part of the 15-page proposal) and should describe how the proposal will conform to the Award and Administration Guide policy (see below). It may include the following: The types of data The standards to be used for data and metadata format and content Policies for access and sharing Policies and provisions for re-use Plans for archiving data Policy summarized from the NSF Award and Administration Guide, Section 4 (Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results): Promptly publish with appropriate authorship Share data, samples, physical collections, and supporting materials with others, within a reasonable time frame Share software and inventions Investigators can keep their legal rights over their intellectual property, but they still have to make their results, data, and collections available to others Policies will be implemented via Proposal review Award negotiations and conditions Support/incentives == ESRC Data Management Plan == Since 1995, the UK's Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) have had a research data policy in place. The current ESRC Research Data Policy states that research data created as a result of ESRC-funded research should be openly available to the scientific community to the maximum extent possible, through long-term preservation and high-quality data management. ESRC requires a data management plan for all research award applications where new data are being created. Such plans are designed to promote a structured approach to data management throughout the data lifecycle, resulting in better quality data that is ready to archive for sharing and re-use. The UK Data Service, the ESRC's flagship data service, provides practical guidance on research data management planning suitable for social science researchers in the UK and around the world. ESRC has a longstanding arrangement with the UK Data A

  Read more →
• 

  Physical schema

  A physical data model (or database design) is a representation of a data design as implemented, or intended to be implemented, in a database management system. In the lifecycle of a project it typically derives from a logical data model, though it may be reverse-engineered from a given database implementation. A complete physical data model will include all the database artifacts required to create relationships between tables or to achieve performance goals, such as indexes, constraint definitions, linking tables, partitioned tables or clusters. Analysts can usually use a physical data model to calculate storage estimates; it may include specific storage allocation details for a given database system. As of 2012 seven main databases dominate the commercial marketplace: Informix, Oracle, Postgres, SQL Server, Sybase, IBM Db2 and MySQL. Other RDBMS systems tend either to be legacy databases or used within academia such as universities or further education colleges. Physical data models for each implementation would differ significantly, not least due to underlying operating-system requirements that may sit underneath them. For example: SQL Server runs only on Microsoft Windows operating-systems (Starting with SQL Server 2017, SQL Server runs on Linux. It's the same SQL Server database engine, with many similar features and services regardless of your operating system), while Oracle and MySQL can run on Solaris, Linux and other UNIX-based operating-systems as well as on Windows. This means that the disk requirements, security requirements and many other aspects of a physical data model will be influenced by the RDBMS that a database administrator (or an organization) chooses to use. == Physical schema == Physical schema is a term used in data management to describe how data is to be represented and stored (files, indices, etc.) in secondary storage using a particular database management system (DBMS) (e.g., Oracle RDBMS, Sybase SQL Server, etc.). In the ANSI/SPARC Architecture three schema approach, the internal schema is the view of data that involved data management technology. This is as opposed to an external schema that reflects an individual's view of the data, or the conceptual schema that is the integration of a set of external schemas. The logical schema was the way data were represented to conform to the constraints of a particular approach to database management. At that time the choices were hierarchical and network. Describing the logical schema, however, still did not describe how physically data would be stored on disk drives. That is the domain of the physical schema. Now logical schemas describe data in terms of relational tables and columns, object-oriented classes, and XML tags. A single set of tables, for example, can be implemented in numerous ways, up to and including an architecture where table rows are maintained on computers in different countries.

  Read more →
• 

  Index locking

  In databases an index is a data structure, part of the database, used by a database system to efficiently navigate access to user data. Index data are system data distinct from user data, and consist primarily of pointers. Changes in a database (by insert, delete, or modify operations), may require indexes to be updated to maintain accurate user data accesses. Index locking is a technique used to maintain index integrity. A portion of an index is locked during a database transaction when this portion is being accessed by the transaction as a result of attempt to access related user data. Additionally, special database system transactions (not user-invoked transactions) may be invoked to maintain and modify an index, as part of a system's self-maintenance activities. When a portion of an index is locked by a transaction, other transactions may be blocked from accessing this index portion (blocked from modifying, and even from reading it, depending on lock type and needed operation). Index Locking Protocol guarantees that phantom read phenomenon won't occur. Index locking protocol states: Every relation must have at least one index. A transaction can access tuples only after finding them through one or more indices on the relation A transaction Ti that performs a lookup must lock all the index leaf nodes that it accesses, in S-mode, even if the leaf node does not contain any tuple satisfying the index lookup (e.g. for a range query, no tuple in a leaf is in the range) A transaction Ti that inserts, updates or deletes a tuple ti in a relation r must update all indices to r and it must obtain exclusive locks on all index leaf nodes affected by the insert/update/delete The rules of the two-phase locking protocol must be observed. Specialized concurrency control techniques exist for accessing indexes. These techniques depend on the index type, and take advantage of its structure. They are typically much more effective than applying to indexes common concurrency control methods applied to user data. Notable and widely researched are specialized techniques for B-trees (B-Tree concurrency control) which are regularly used as database indexes. Index locks are used to coordinate threads accessing indexes concurrently, and typically shorter-lived than the common transaction locks on user data. In professional literature, they are often called latches.

  Read more →
• 

  Chinese speech synthesis

  Chinese speech synthesis is the application of speech synthesis to the Chinese language (usually Standard Chinese). It poses additional difficulties due to Chinese characters frequently having different pronunciations in different contexts and the complex prosody, which is essential to convey the meaning of words, and sometimes the difficulty in obtaining agreement among native speakers concerning what the correct pronunciation is of certain phonemes. == Concatenation (Ekho and KeyTip) == Recordings can be concatenated in any desired combination, but the joins sound forced (as is usual for simple concatenation-based speech synthesis) and this can severely affect prosody; these synthesizers are also inflexible in terms of speed and expression. However, because these synthesizers do not rely on a corpus, there is no noticeable degradation in performance when they are given more unusual or awkward phrases. Ekho is an open source TTS which simply concatenates sampled syllables. It currently supports Cantonese, Mandarin, and experimentally Korean. Some of the Mandarin syllables have been pitched-normalised in Praat. A modified version of these is used in Gradint's "synthesis from partials". cjkware.com used to ship a product called KeyTip Putonghua Reader which worked similarly; it contained 120 Megabytes of sound recordings (GSM-compressed to 40 Megabytes in the evaluation version), comprising 10,000 multi-syllable dictionary words plus single-syllable recordings in 6 different prosodies (4 tones, neutral tone, and an extra third-tone recording for use at the end of a phrase). == Lightweight synthesizers (eSpeak and Yuet) == The lightweight open-source speech project eSpeak, which has its own approach to synthesis, has experimented with Mandarin and Cantonese. eSpeak was used by Google Translate from May 2010 until December 2010. The commercial product "Yuet" is also lightweight (it is intended to be suitable for resource-constrained environments like embedded systems); it was written from scratch in ANSI C starting from 2013. Yuet claims a built-in NLP model that does not require a separate dictionary; the speech synthesised by the engine claims clear word boundaries and emphasis on appropriate words. Communication with its author is required to obtain a copy. Both eSpeak and Yuet can synthesis speech for Cantonese and Mandarin from the same input text, and can output the corresponding romanisation (for Cantonese, Yuet uses Yale and eSpeak uses Jyutping; both use Pinyin for Mandarin). eSpeak does not concern itself with word boundaries when these don't change the question of which syllable should be spoken. == Corpus-based == A "corpus-based" approach can sound very natural in most cases but can err in dealing with unusual phrases if they can't be matched with the corpus. The synthesiser engine is typically very large (hundreds or even thousands of megabytes) due to the size of the corpus. === iFlyTek === Anhui USTC iFlyTek Co., Ltd (iFlyTek) published a W3C paper in which they adapted Speech Synthesis Markup Language to produce a mark-up language called Chinese Speech Synthesis Markup Language (CSSML) which can include additional markup to clarify the pronunciation of characters and to add some prosody information. The amount of data involved is not disclosed by iFlyTek but can be seen from the commercial products that iFlyTek have licensed their technology to; for example, Bider's SpeechPlus is a 1.3 Gigabyte download, 1.2 Gigabytes of which is used for the highly compressed data for a single Chinese voice. iFlyTek's synthesiser can also synthesise mixed Chinese and English text with the same voice (e.g. Chinese sentences containing some English words); they claim their English synthesis to be "average". The iFlyTek corpus appears to be heavily dependent on Chinese characters, and it is not possible to synthesize from pinyin alone. It is sometimes possible by means of CSSML to add pinyin to the characters to disambiguate between multiple possible pronunciations, but this does not always work. === NeoSpeech === There is an online interactive demonstration for NeoSpeech speech synthesis, which accepts Chinese characters and also pinyin if it's enclosed in their proprietary "VTML" markup. === Mac OS === Mac OS had Chinese speech synthesizers available up to version 9. This was removed in 10.0 and reinstated in 10.7 (Lion). === Historical corpus-based synthesizers (no longer available) === A corpus-based approach was taken by Tsinghua University in SinoSonic, with the Harbin dialect voice data taking 800 Megabytes. This was planned to be offered as a download but the link was never activated. Nowadays, only references to it can be found on Internet Archive. Bell Labs' approach, which was demonstrated online in 1997 but subsequently removed, was described in a monograph "Multilingual Text-to-Speech Synthesis: The Bell Labs Approach" (Springer, October 31, 1997, ISBN 978-0-7923-8027-6), and the former employee who was responsible for the project, Chilin Shih (who subsequently worked at the University of Illinois) put some notes about her methods on her website.

  Read more →
• 

  Distributed transaction

  A distributed transaction operates within a distributed environment, typically involving multiple nodes across a network depending on the location of the data. A key aspect of distributed transactions is atomicity, which ensures that the transaction is completed in its entirety or not executed at all. It's essential to note that distributed transactions are not limited to databases. The Open Group, a vendor consortium, proposed the X/Open Distributed Transaction Processing Model (X/Open XA), which became a de facto standard for the behavior of transaction model components. Databases are common transactional resources and, often, transactions span a couple of such databases. In this case, a distributed transaction can be seen as a database transaction that must be synchronized (or provide ACID properties) among multiple participating databases which are distributed among different physical locations. The isolation property (the I of ACID) poses a special challenge for multi database transactions, since the (global) serializability property could be violated, even if each database provides it (see also global serializability). In practice most commercial database systems use strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) for concurrency control, which ensures global serializability, if all the participating databases employ it. A common algorithm for ensuring correct completion of a distributed transaction is the two-phase commit (2PC). This algorithm is usually applied for updates able to commit in a short period of time, ranging from couple of milliseconds to couple of minutes. There are also long-lived distributed transactions, for example a transaction to book a trip, which consists of booking a flight, a rental car and a hotel. Since booking the flight might take up to a day to get a confirmation, two-phase commit is not applicable here, it will lock the resources for this long. In this case more sophisticated techniques that involve multiple undo levels are used. The way you can undo the hotel booking by calling a desk and cancelling the reservation, a system can be designed to undo certain operations (unless they are irreversibly finished). In practice, long-lived distributed transactions are implemented in systems based on web services. Usually these transactions utilize principles of compensating transactions, Optimism and Isolation Without Locking. The X/Open standard does not cover long-lived distributed transactions. Several technologies, including Jakarta Enterprise Beans and Microsoft Transaction Server fully support distributed transaction standards. == Synchronization == In event-driven architectures, distributed transactions can be synchronized through using request–response paradigm and it can be implemented in two ways: Creating two separate queues: one for requests and the other for replies. The event producer must wait until it receives the response. Creating one dedicated ephemeral queue for each request.

  Read more →