AI Chatbot Soulmate

AI Chatbot Soulmate — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Rake (software)

  Rake is a software task management and a build automation tool created by Jim Weirich. It allows the user to specify tasks and to describe dependencies as well as to group tasks into namespaces. It is similar to SCons and Make. Rake was written in Ruby and has been part of the standard library of Ruby since version 1.9. == Examples == The tasks that should be executed need to be defined in a configuration file called Rakefile. A Rakefile has no special syntax and contains executable Ruby code. === Tasks === The basic unit in Rake is the task. A task has a name and an action block, that defines its functionality. The following code defines a task called greet that will output the text "Hello, Rake!" to the console. When defining a task, you can optionally add dependencies, that is one task can depend on the successful completion of another task. Calling the "seed" task from the following example will first execute the "migrate" task and only then proceed with the execution of the "seed" task.Tasks can also be made more versatile by accepting arguments. For example, the "generate_report" task will take a date as argument. If no argument is supplied the current date is used.A special type of task is the file task, which can be used to specify file creation tasks. The following task, for example, is given two object files, i.e. "a.o" and "b.o", to create an executable program.Another useful tool is the directory convenience method, that can be used to create directories upon demand. === Rules === When a file is named as a prerequisite but it does not have a file task defined for it, Rake will attempt to synthesize a task by looking at a list of rules supplied in the Rakefile. For example, suppose we were trying to invoke task "mycode.o" with no tasks defined for it. If the Rakefile has a rule that looks like this: This rule will synthesize any task that ends in ".o". It has as a prerequisite that a source file with an extension of ".c" must exist. If Rake is able to find a file named "mycode.c", it will automatically create a task that builds "mycode.o" from "mycode.c". If the file "mycode.c" does not exist, Rake will attempt to recursively synthesize a rule for it. When a task is synthesized from a rule, the source attribute of the task is set to the matching source file. This allows users to write rules with actions that reference the source file. === Advanced rules === Any regular expression may be used as the rule pattern. Additionally, a proc may be used to calculate the name of the source file. This allows for complex patterns and sources. The following rule is equivalent to the example above: NOTE: Because of a quirk in Ruby syntax, parentheses are required around a rule when the first argument is a regular expression. The following rule might be used for Java files: === Namespaces === To better organize big Rakefiles, tasks can be grouped into namespaces. Below is an example of a simple Rake recipe:

  Read more →
• 

  Data (word)

  The word data is most often used as a singular collective mass noun in educated everyday usage. However, due to the history and etymology of the word, considerable controversy has existed on whether it should be considered a mass noun used with verbs conjugated in the singular, or should be treated as the plural of the now-rarely-used datum. == Usage in English == In one sense, data is the plural form of datum. Datum actually can also be a count noun with the plural datums (see usage in datum article) that can be used with cardinal numbers (e.g., "80 datums"); data (originally a Latin plural) is not used like a normal count noun with cardinal numbers and can be plural with plural determiners such as these and many, or it can be used as a mass noun with a verb in the singular form. Even when a very small quantity of data is referenced (one number, for example), the phrase piece of data is often used, as opposed to datum. The debate over appropriate usage continues, but "data" as a singular form is far more common. In English, the word datum is still used in the general sense of "an item given". In cartography, geography, nuclear magnetic resonance and technical drawing, it is often used to refer to a single specific reference datum from which distances to all other data are measured. Any measurement or result is a datum, though data point is now far more common. Data is indeed most often used as a singular mass noun in educated everyday usage. Some major newspapers, such as The New York Times, use it either in the singular or plural. In The New York Times, the phrases "the survey data are still being analyzed" and "the first year for which data is available" have appeared within one day. The Wall Street Journal explicitly allows this usage in its style guide. The Associated Press style guide classifies data as a collective noun that takes the singular when treated as a unit but the plural when referring to individual items (e.g., "The data is sound" and "The data have been carefully collected"). In scientific writing, data is often treated as a plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions, but the word is also used as a singular mass entity like information (e.g., in computing and related disciplines). British usage now widely accepts treating data as singular in standard English, including everyday newspaper usage at least in non-scientific use. UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural. Some UK university style guides recommend using data for both singular and plural use, and others recommend treating it only as a singular in connection with computers. The IEEE Computer Society allows usage of data as either a mass noun or plural based on author preference, while IEEE in the editorial style manual indicates to always use the plural form. Some professional organizations and style guides require that authors treat data as a plural noun. For example, the Air Force Flight Test Center once stated that the word data is always plural, never singular.

  Read more →
• 

  NewSQL

  NewSQL is a class of relational database management systems that seek to provide the scalability of NoSQL systems for online transaction processing (OLTP) workloads while maintaining the ACID guarantees of a traditional database system. Many enterprise systems that handle high-profile data (e.g., financial and order processing systems) are too large for conventional relational databases, but have transactional and consistency requirements that are not practical for NoSQL systems. The only options previously available for these organizations were to either purchase more powerful computers or to develop custom middleware that distributes requests over conventional DBMS. Both approaches feature high infrastructure costs and/or development costs. NewSQL systems attempt to reconcile the conflicts. == History == The term was first used by 451 Group analyst Matthew Aslett in a 2011 research paper discussing the rise of a new generation of database management systems. One of the first NewSQL systems was the H-Store parallel database system. == Applications == Typical applications are characterized by heavy OLTP transaction volumes. OLTP transactions; are short-lived (i.e., no user stalls) touch small amounts of data per transaction use indexed lookups (no table scans) have a small number of forms (a small number of queries with different arguments). However, some support hybrid transactional/analytical processing (HTAP) applications. Such systems improve performance and scalability by omitting heavyweight recovery or concurrency control. == List of NewSQL-databases == Apache Trafodion Clustrix CockroachDB Couchbase CrateDB Google Spanner MySQL Cluster NuoDB OceanBase Pivotal GemFire XD SequoiaDB SingleStore was formerly known as MemSQL. TIBCO Active Spaces TiDB TokuDB TransLattice Elastic Database VoltDB YDB YugabyteDB == Features == The two common distinguishing features of NewSQL database solutions are that they support online scalability of NoSQL databases and the relational data model (including ACID consistency) using SQL as their primary interface. NewSQL systems can be loosely grouped into three categories: === New architectures === NewSQL systems adopt various internal architectures. Some systems employ a cluster of shared-nothing nodes, in which each node manages a subset of the data. They include components such as distributed concurrency control, flow control, and distributed query processing. === SQL engines === The second category are optimized storage engines for SQL. These systems provide the same programming interface as SQL, but scale better than built-in engines. === Transparent sharding === These systems automatically split databases across multiple nodes using Raft or Paxos consensus algorithm.

  Read more →
• 

  Query rewriting

  Query rewriting is a typically automatic transformation that takes a set of database tables, views, and/or queries, usually indices, often gathered data and query statistics, and other metadata, and yields a set of different queries, which produce the same results but execute with better performance (for example, faster, or with lower memory use). Query rewriting can be based on relational algebra or an extension thereof (e.g. multiset relational algebra with sorting, aggregation and three-valued predicates i.e. NULLs as in the case of SQL). The equivalence rules of relational algebra are exploited, in other words, different query structures and orderings can be mathematically proven to yield the same result. For example, filtering on fields A and B, or cross joining R and S can be done in any order, but there can be a performance difference. Multiple operations may be combined, and operation orders may be altered. The result of query rewriting may not be at the same abstraction level or application programming interface (API) as the original set of queries (though often is). For example, the input queries may be in relational algebra or SQL, and the rewritten queries may be closer to the physical representation of the data, e.g. array operations. Query rewriting can also involve materialization of views and other subqueries; operations that may or may not be available to the API user. The query rewriting transformation can be aided by creating indices from which the optimizer can choose (some database systems create their own indexes if deemed useful), mandating the use of specific indices, creating materialized and/or denormalized views, or helping a database system gather statistics on the data and query use, as the optimality depends on patterns in data and typical query usage. Query rewriting may be rule based or optimizer based. Some sources discuss query rewriting as a distinct step prior to optimization, operating at the level of the user accessible algebra API (e.g. SQL). There are other, largely unrelated concepts also named similarly, for example, query rewriting by search engines.

  Read more →
• 

  Intelligent agent

  In artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent is an entity that perceives its environment, takes actions autonomously to achieve goals, and may improve its performance through machine learning or by acquiring knowledge. AI textbooks define artificial intelligence as the "study and design of intelligent agents," emphasizing that goal-directed behavior is central to intelligence. A specialized subset of intelligent agents, agentic AI (also known as an AI agent or simply agent), expands this concept by proactively pursuing goals, making decisions, and taking actions over extended periods. Intelligent agents can range from simple to highly complex. A basic thermostat or control system is considered an intelligent agent, as is a human being, or any other system that meets the same criteria—such as a firm, a state, or a biome. Intelligent agents operate based on an objective function, which encapsulates their goals. They are designed to create and execute plans that maximize the expected value of this function upon completion. For example, a reinforcement learning agent has a reward function, which allows programmers to shape its desired behavior. Similarly, an evolutionary algorithm's behavior is guided by a fitness function. Intelligent agents in artificial intelligence are closely related to agents in economics, and versions of the intelligent agent paradigm are studied in cognitive science, ethics, and the philosophy of practical reason, as well as in many interdisciplinary socio-cognitive modeling and computer social simulations. Intelligent agents are often described schematically as abstract functional systems similar to computer programs . To distinguish theoretical models from real-world implementations, abstract descriptions of intelligent agents are called abstract intelligent agents. Intelligent agents are also closely related to software agents—autonomous computer programs that carry out tasks on behalf of users. They are also referred to using a term borrowed from economics: a "rational agent". == Intelligent agents as the foundation of AI == The concept of intelligent agents provides a foundational lens through which to define and understand artificial intelligence. For instance, the influential textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Russell & Norvig) describes: Agent: Anything that perceives its environment (using sensors) and acts upon it (using actuators). E.g., a robot with cameras and wheels, or a software program that reads data and makes recommendations. Rational Agent: An agent that strives to achieve the best possible outcome based on its knowledge and past experiences. "Best" is defined by a performance measure – a way of evaluating how well the agent is doing. Artificial Intelligence (as a field): The study and creation of these rational agents. Other researchers and definitions build upon this foundation. Padgham & Winikoff emphasize that intelligent agents should react to changes in their environment in a timely way, proactively pursue goals, and be flexible and robust (able to handle unexpected situations). Some also suggest that ideal agents should be "rational" in the economic sense (making optimal choices) and capable of complex reasoning, like having beliefs, desires, and intentions (BDI model). Kaplan and Haenlein offer a similar definition, focusing on a system's ability to understand external data, learn from that data, and use what is learned to achieve goals through flexible adaptation. Defining AI in terms of intelligent agents offers several key advantages: Avoids Philosophical Debates: It sidesteps arguments about whether AI is "truly" intelligent or conscious, like those raised by the Turing test or Searle's Chinese Room. It focuses on behavior and goal achievement, not on replicating human thought. Objective Testing: It provides a clear, scientific way to evaluate AI systems. Researchers can compare different approaches by measuring how well they maximize a specific "goal function" (or objective function). This allows for direct comparison and combination of techniques. Interdisciplinary Communication: It creates a common language for AI researchers to collaborate with other fields like mathematical optimization and economics, which also use concepts like "goals" and "rational agents." == Objective function == An objective function (or goal function) specifies the goals of an intelligent agent. An agent is deemed more intelligent if it consistently selects actions that yield outcomes better aligned with its objective function. In effect, the objective function serves as a measure of success. The objective function may be: Simple: For example, in a game of Go, the objective function might assign a value of 1 for a win and 0 for a loss. Complex: It might require the agent to evaluate and learn from past actions, adapting its behavior based on patterns that have proven effective. The objective function encapsulates all of the goals the agent is designed to achieve. For rational agents, it also incorporates the trade-offs between potentially conflicting goals. For instance, a self-driving car's objective function might balance factors such as safety, speed, and passenger comfort. Different terms are used to describe this concept, depending on the context. These include: Utility function: Often used in economics and decision theory, representing the desirability of a state. Objective function: A general term used in optimization. Loss function: Typically used in machine learning, where the goal is to minimize the loss (error). Reward Function: Used in reinforcement learning. Fitness Function: Used in evolutionary systems. Goals, and therefore the objective function, can be: Explicitly defined: Programmed directly into the agent. Induced: Learned or evolved over time. In reinforcement learning, a "reward function" provides feedback, encouraging desired behaviors and discouraging undesirable ones. The agent learns to maximize its cumulative reward. In evolutionary systems, a "fitness function" determines which agents are more likely to reproduce. This is analogous to natural selection, where organisms evolve to maximize their chances of survival and reproduction. Some AI systems, such as nearest-neighbor, reason by analogy rather than being explicitly goal-driven. However, even these systems can have goals implicitly defined within their training data. Such systems can still be benchmarked by framing the non-goal system as one whose "goal" is to accomplish its narrow classification task. Systems not traditionally considered agents, like knowledge-representation systems, are sometimes included in the paradigm by framing them as agents with a goal of, for example, answering questions accurately. Here, the concept of an "action" is extended to encompass the "act" of providing an answer. As a further extension, mimicry-driven systems can be framed as agents optimizing a "goal function" based on how closely the agent mimics the desired behavior. In generative adversarial networks (GANs) of the 2010s, an "encoder"/"generator" component attempts to mimic and improvise human text composition. The generator tries to maximize a function representing how well it can fool an antagonistic "predictor"/"discriminator" component. While symbolic AI systems often use an explicit goal function, the paradigm also applies to neural networks and evolutionary computing. Reinforcement learning can generate intelligent agents that appear to act in ways intended to maximize a "reward function". Sometimes, instead of setting the reward function directly equal to the desired benchmark evaluation function, machine learning programmers use reward shaping to initially give the machine rewards for incremental progress. Yann LeCun stated in 2018, "Most of the learning algorithms that people have come up with essentially consist of minimizing some objective function." AlphaZero chess had a simple objective function: +1 point for each win, and -1 point for each loss. A self-driving car's objective function would be more complex. Evolutionary computing can evolve intelligent agents that appear to act in ways intended to maximize a "fitness function" influencing how many descendants each agent is allowed to leave. The mathematical formalism of AIXI was proposed as a maximally intelligent agent in this paradigm. However, AIXI is uncomputable. In the real world, an intelligent agent is constrained by finite time and hardware resources, and scientists compete to produce algorithms that achieve progressively higher scores on benchmark tests with existing hardware. == Agent function == An intelligent agent's behavior can be described mathematically by an agent function. This function determines what the agent does based on what it has seen. A percept refers to the agent's sensory inputs at a single point in time. For example, a self-driving car's percepts might include camera images, lidar data, GPS coordinates, and speed r

  Read more →
• 

  Microsoft SQL Server Master Data Services

  Microsoft SQL Server Master Data Services (MDS) is a Master Data Management (MDM) product from Microsoft that ships as a part of the Microsoft SQL Server relational database management system. Master data management (MDM) allows an organization to discover and define non-transactional lists of data, and compile maintainable, reliable master lists. Master Data Services first shipped with Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2. Microsoft SQL Server 2016 introduced enhancements to Master Data Services, such as improved performance and security, and the ability to clear transaction logs, create custom indexes, share entity data between different models, and support for many-to-many relationships. == Overview == In Master Data Services, the model is the highest level container in the structure of your master data. You create a model to manage groups of similar data. A model contains one or more entities, and entities contain members that are the data records. An entity is similar to a table. Like other MDM products, Master Data Services aims to create a centralized data source and keep it synchronized, and thus reduce redundancies, across the applications which process the data. Sharing the architectural core with Stratature +EDM, Master Data Services uses a Microsoft SQL Server database as the physical data store. It is a part of the Master Data Hub, which uses the database to store and manage data entities. It is a database with the software to validate and manage the data, and keep it synchronized with the systems that use the data. The master data hub has to extract the data from the source system, validate, sanitize and shape the data, remove duplicates, and update the hub repositories, as well as synchronize the external sources. The entity schemas, attributes, data hierarchies, validation rules and access control information are specified as metadata to the Master Data Services runtime. Master Data Services does not impose any limitation on the data model. Master Data Services also allows custom Business rules, used for validating and sanitizing the data entering the data hub, to be defined, which is then run against the data matching the specified criteria. All changes made to the data are validated against the rules, and a log of the transaction is stored persistently. Violations are logged separately, and optionally the owner is notified, automatically. All the data entities can be versioned. Master Data Services allows the master data to be categorized by hierarchical relationships, such as employee data are a subtype of organization data. Hierarchies are generated by relating data attributes. Data can be automatically categorized using rules, and the categories are introspected programmatically. Master Data Services can also expose the data as Microsoft SQL Server views, which can be pulled by any SQL-compatible client. It uses a role-based access control system to restrict access to the data. The views are generated dynamically, so they contain the latest data entities in the master hub. It can also push out the data by writing to some external journals. Master Data Services also includes a web-based UI for viewing and managing the data. It uses ASP.NET in the back-end. The Silverlight front-end was replaced with HTML5 in SQL Server 2019. Master Data Services provides a Web service interface to expose the data, as well as an API, which internally uses the exposed web services, exposing the feature set, programmatically, to access and manipulate the data. It also integrates with Active Directory for authentication purposes. Unlike +EDM, Master Data Services supports Unicode characters, as well as support multilingual user interfaces. SQL Server 2016 introduced a significant performance increase in Master Data Services over previous versions. == Terminology == Model is the highest level of an MDS instance. It is the primary container for specific groupings of master data. In many ways it is very similar to the idea of a database. Entities are containers created within a model. Entities provide a home for members, and are in many ways analogous to database tables. (e.g. Customer) Members are analogous to the records in a database table (Entity) e.g. Will Smith. Members are contained within entities. Each member is made up of two or more attributes. Attributes are analogous to the columns within a database table (Entity) e.g. Surname. Attributes exist within entities and help describe members (the records within the table). Name and Code attributes are created by default for each entity and serve to describe and uniquely identify leaf members. Attributes can be related to other attributes from other entities which are called 'domain-based' attributes. This is similar to the concept of a foreign key. Other attributes however, will be of type 'free-form' (most common) or 'file'. Attribute Groups are explicitly defined collections of particular attributes. Say you have an entity "customer" that has 50 attributes — too much information for many of your users. Attribute groups enable the creation of custom sets of hand-picked attributes that are relevant for specific audiences. (e.g. "customer - delivery details" that would include just their name and last known delivery address). This is very similar to a database view. Hierarchies organize members into either Derived or Explicit hierarchical structures. Derived hierarchies, as the name suggests, are derived by the MDS engine based on the relationships that exist between attributes. Explicit hierarchies are created by hand using both leaf and consolidated members. Business Rules can be created and applied against model data to ensure that custom business logic is adhered to. In order to be committed into the system data must pass all business rule validations applied to them. e.g. Within the Customer Entity you may want to create a business rule that ensures all members of the 'Country' Attribute contain either the text "USA" or "Canada". The Business Rule once created and ran will then verify all the data is correct before it accepts it into the approved model. Versions provide system owners / administrators with the ability to Open, Lock or Commit a particular version of a model and the data contained within it at a particular point in time. As the content within a model varies, grows or shrinks over time versions provide a way of managing metadata so that subscribing systems can access to the correct content.

  Read more →
• 

  ARMA International

  ARMA International (formerly the Association of Records Managers and Administrators) is an American not-for-profit professional association for information professionals – primarily information management (including records management) and information governance, and related industry practitioners and vendors. The association provides educational opportunities and publications covering aspects of information management broadly. == History == The Association was founded in 1955. In 1975, the Association of Records Executives and Administrators (AREA) and the American Records Management Association merged to form ARMA International. The headquarters for ARMA International is located in Overland Park, Kansas. == Operations == ARMA International services professionals in the United States, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Its members include records managers, attorneys, information technology professionals, consultants, and archivists involved in various aspects of managing records and information assets. ARMA hosts an annual conference with the goal of bringing together record and information management professionals from around the world – In 2023, ARMA hosted conferences in both the United States and Canada. Topics addressed in the 120+ educational sessions include advanced technology, creating information structure, ediscovery and information law, information management fundamentals, information project management, and reducing organizational information risk. The expo features exhibitors displaying records and information technologies, products, and services.

  Read more →
• 

  FAIR data

  FAIR data is data which meets the 2016 FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). The FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in the volume, complexity, and rate of production of data. The abbreviation FAIR/O data is sometimes used to indicate that the dataset or database in question complies with the FAIR principles and also carries an explicit data‑capable open license. == FAIR principles published by GO FAIR == Findable The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the FAIRification process. F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below) F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe F4. (Meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource Accessible Once the user finds the required data, they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation. A1. (Meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardised communications protocol A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable A1.2 The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure, where necessary A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Interoperable The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing. I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data Reusable The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. R1. (Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. For instance, principle F4 defines that both metadata and data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource (the infrastructure component). === Acceptance and implementation === Before FAIR, a 2007 OECD report was the most influential paper discussing similar ideas related to data accessibility. In January 2014, the Lorentz Centre at Leiden University hosted a workshop entitled "Jointly designing a data FAIRPORT" where the participants first formulated the FAIR principles. After further discussions, they were published in the March 2016 issue of Scientific Data. At the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, the G20 leaders issued a statement endorsing the application of FAIR principles to research. Also in 2016, a group of Australian organisations developed a Statement on FAIR Access to Australia's Research Outputs, which aimed to extend the principles to research outputs more generally. In 2017, Germany, Netherlands and France agreed to establish an international office to support the FAIR initiative, the GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office. Other international organisations active in the research data ecosystem, such as CODATA or Research Data Alliance (RDA) also support FAIR implementations by their communities. FAIR principles implementation assessment is being explored by FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group of RDA, CODATA's strategic Decadal Programme "Data for Planet: Making data work for cross-domain challenges" mentions FAIR data principles as a fundamental enabler of data driven science. The Association of European Research Libraries recommends the use of FAIR principles. A 2017 paper by advocates of FAIR data reported that awareness of the FAIR concept was increasing among various researchers and institutes, but also, understanding of the concept was becoming confused as different people apply their own differing perspectives to it. Guides on implementing FAIR data practices state that the cost of a data management plan in compliance with FAIR data practices should be 5% of the total research budget. In 2019 the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a complementary guide. The CARE principles extend principles outlined in FAIR data to include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics to ensure data guidelines address historical contexts and power differentials. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were drafted at the International Data Week and Research Data Alliance Plenary co-hosted event, "Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles for the Governance of Indigenous Data Workshop", held 8 November 2018, in Gaborone, Botswana. The lack of information on how to implement the guidelines have led to inconsistent interpretations of them. In January 2020, representatives of nine groups of universities around the world produced the Sorbonne declaration on research data rights, which included a commitment to FAIR data, and called on governments to provide support to enable it. In 2021, researchers identified the FAIR principles as a conceptual component of data catalog software tools, with the other components being metadata management, business context and data responsibility roles. In April 2022, Matthias Scheffler and colleagues argued in Nature that FAIR principles are "a must" so that data mining and artificial intelligence can extract useful scientific information from the data. There have been moves in the geosciences to establish FAIR data by use of decimal georeferencing However, making data (and research outcomes) FAIR is a challenging task, and it is challenging to assess the FAIRness. In 2020, the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group published a set of guidelines for assessing "FAIRness".

  Read more →
• 

  WS-SecurityPolicy

  WS-Security Policy is a web services specification, created by IBM and 12 co-authors, that has become an OASIS standard as of version 1.2. It extends the fundamental security protocols specified by the WS-Security, WS-Trust and WS-Secure Conversation by offering mechanisms to represent the capabilities and requirements of web services as policies. Security policy assertions are based on the WS-Policy framework. Policy assertions can be used to require more generic security attributes like transport layer security , message level security or timestamps, and specific attributes like token types. Most policy assertion can be found in following categories: Protection assertions identify the elements of a message that are required to be signed, encrypted or existent. Token assertions specify allowed token formats (SAML, X509, Username etc.). Security binding assertions control basic security safeguards like transport and message level security, cryptographic algorithm suite and required timestamps. Supporting token assertions add functions like user sign-on using a username token. Policies can be used to drive development tools to generate code with certain capabilities, or may be used at runtime to negotiate the security aspects of web service communication. Policies may be attached to WSDL elements such as service, port, operation and message, as defined in WS Policy Attachment. == Sample Policies == Namespaces used by the following XML-snippets: ... Include a timestamp: Use either transport layer security (https) or message level security (XML Dsig/XML Enc): ... ... To define a SAML assertion as security token: ...#SAMLV2.0 Issued token assertion of providers with reference to the STS and required token format: http://sampleorg.com/sts http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-saml-token-profile-1.0#SAMLAssertionID ... ... Specify that message header and body need to be signed, and attachments are left unsigned: ? ... specify that message open source license need to be signed, and hydra security are left unsigned: ? ... == Other WS policy languages == The term Web Services Security Policy Language is used for two different XML-based languages: As described above, based on the WS-Policy framework, as defined in, published as version 1.3 in Feb. 2009 WSPL, based on XACML profile for Web-services, but that was not finalized.

  Read more →
• 

  Bisection (software engineering)

  Bisection is a method used in software development to identify change sets that result in a specific behavior change. It is mostly employed for finding the patch that introduced a bug. Another application area is finding the patch that indirectly fixed a bug. == Overview == The process of locating the changeset that introduced a specific regression was described as "source change isolation" in 1997 by Brian Ness and Viet Ngo of Cray Research. Regression testing was performed on Cray's compilers in editions comprising one or more changesets. Editions with known regressions could not be validated until developers addressed the problem. Source change isolation narrowed the cause to a single changeset that could then be excluded from editions, unblocking them with respect to this problem, while the author of the change worked on a fix. Ness and Ngo outlined linear search and binary search methods of performing this isolation. Code bisection has the goal of minimizing the effort to find a specific change set. It employs a divide and conquer algorithm that depends on having access to the code history which is usually preserved by revision control in a code repository. == Bisection method == === Code bisection algorithm === Code history has the structure of a directed acyclic graph which can be topologically sorted. This makes it possible to use a divide and conquer search algorithm which: splits up the search space of candidate revisions tests for the behavior in question reduces the search space depending on the test result re-iterates the steps above until a range with at most one bisectable patch candidate remains === Algorithmic complexity === Bisection is in LSPACE having an algorithmic complexity of O ( log ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O(\log N)} with N {\displaystyle N} denoting the number of revisions in the search space, and is similar to a binary search. === Desirable repository properties === For code bisection it is desirable that each revision in the search space can be built and tested independently. === Monotonicity === For the bisection algorithm to identify a single changeset which caused the behavior being tested to change, the behavior must change monotonically across the search space. For a Boolean function such as a pass/fail test, this means that it only changes once across all changesets between the start and end of the search space. If there are multiple changesets across the search space where the behavior being tested changes between false and true, then the bisection algorithm will find one of them, but it will not necessarily be the root cause of the change in behavior between the start and the end of the search space. The root cause could be a different changeset, or a combination of two or more changesets across the search space. To help deal with this problem, automated tools allow specific changesets to be ignored during a bisection search. == Automation support == Although the bisection method can be completed manually, one of its main advantages is that it can be easily automated. It can thus fit into existing test automation processes: failures in exhaustive automated regression tests can trigger automated bisection to localize faults. Ness and Ngo focused on its potential in Cray's continuous delivery-style environment in which the automatically isolated bad changeset could be automatically excluded from builds. The revision control systems Fossil, Git and Mercurial have built-in functionality for code bisection. The user can start a bisection session with a specified range of revisions from which the revision control system proposes a revision to test, the user tells the system whether the revision tested as "good" or "bad", and the process repeats until the specific "bad" revision has been identified. Other revision control systems, such as Bazaar or Subversion, support bisection through plugins or external scripts. Phoronix Test Suite can do bisection automatically to find performance regressions.

  Read more →
• 

  Known-item search

  Known-item search is a specialization of information exploration which represents the activities carried out by searchers who have a particular item in mind. In the context of library catalogs, known‐item search means a search for an item for which the author or title is known. Although the concept of known-item search originated in library science, it is now applied in the context of web search and other online search activities. Known-item search is distinguished from exploratory search, in which a searcher is unfamiliar with the domain of their search goal, unsure about the ways to achieve their goal, and/or unsure about what their goal is.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence in Brazilian industry

  In 2022, 16.9% (1,620) of the 9,586 Brazilian industrial companies with 100 or more employees used artificial intelligence in their operations Among the companies that used AI, the areas of administration (73.8%), product project development (65.9%), processes, services and marketing (65.1%) were those that used it the most, followed by the areas of production (56.4%) and logistics (48.4%). == Current scenario == === Adoption in Brazilian industrial sectors === In senior management, the majority (56%) of executives have a long-term vision for its use. The study also shows that IT, Innovation, and Marketing are the areas where AI use is most widespread, and that 43% of companies are developing or adapting the algorithms they use. The majority of large institutions that reported some type of AI use purchased these solutions from other companies (76%). Some factors for the adoption of artificial intelligence in companies include the establishment of an autonomous strategy by the company (87.0%), and the influence of suppliers and/or customers (63.0%) and the main difficulties in using technologies were high costs (80.8%), lack of qualified personnel in the company (54.6%) and excessive economic risks (49.5%). Three variables are considered the most relevant to explain the option to use AI: the implementation of a digital security policy, the size of companies with 250 or more employees and the characteristics of the company related to information and communication. When analyzing AI use by company size in Brazil, large companies have the highest proportion of AI use, mainly due to their investment capacity and technology experimentation. However, when comparing Brazil and Europe, indicators show an acceleration in AI use among large European companies, while in Brazil the situation remains stable. In 2023, 30% of large companies in the European bloc used some type of AI, a figure that rose to 41% in 2024, while in Brazil these proportions were 41% in 2023 and 38% in 2024. === Workforce === The challenge of upskilling begins with employees who are capable of understanding recent technological changes. Similarly, companies must create the environment and conditions for workforce development conducive to innovation, and universities must be prepared to provide knowledge aligned with the transition process, which in turn must be supported by public policies. The concern with training a specialized workforce in AI can be seen in the low number of graduates and PhDs in computer science and computer engineering in Brazil, compared to the number shown in other countries. As recorded in the document Recommendations for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in Brazil, 2019 data from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) indicate that "the number of PhDs graduated annually in computing remained below 400 in 2016, and is not expected to have increased during the Covid-19 pandemic" (ABC, 2023). In the United States, by contrast, the number of PhDs graduated in these two areas has remained around 1,800 for the past 11 years, and during this period, the number of PhDs specializing in AI jumped from 10% to 19%. Based on data from the CNPq Lattes Platform (October 2019), it is possible to observe that the number of professionals in the AI field in Brazil is 4,429 specialists. This is still a small number compared to the 415,166 IT jobs in the country's business sector alone. === R&D, scientific production and integration with industry === China and the United States lead in the number of publications. These two countries are followed by the G7 members: India, Austria, South Korea, and Spain. Brazil appears in the next group, alongside the Netherlands, Russia, Indonesia, and Ireland. Regarding the promotion of research and technologies related to AI, public entities such as the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) stood out as the main funders. Currently, different countries and territories have been promoting the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In the Brazilian case, one of the main initiatives is the creation of Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (CPE/CPA) in AI by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), in collaboration with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), the Ministry of Communications (MC) and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br). In terms of the number of patents filed and the volume of investments, the leading nations in AI are the United States, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, India, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, Israel, and Italy. Brazil appears among the top twenty countries in some rankings, mainly due to its good number of publications (approximately 10% of the number of articles published by the United States). The US is home to approximately 60% of the world's top AI researchers, followed by China (11%), Europe (10%), and Canada (6%). To change this scenario, in August 2024, the Brazilian government announced an investment of R$23 billion until 2028 in artificial intelligence, seeking to “transform the country into a global reference in innovation”. == Future challenges == The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2020) report highlighted three factors that hinder the digital transformation journey and application of AI in Brazil: insufficient infrastructure, high costs due to the tax system, and financial limitations, such as limited access to financing. The costs of adopting technology, its incompatibility with the business, and the lack of training also represent obstacles that Brazilian industry must overcome. There are also inherent obstacles for companies. A McKinsey review emphasizes that once a company chooses one or more sectors to focus on, it must select specific applications. Buyers aren't interested in artificial intelligence simply because it's a breakthrough technology; they want AI to generate a good return on investment, whether by solving specific problems, saving money, or increasing sales. If an AI vendor tried to offer a horizontal solution, the value proposition might not be as compelling. Part of the solution to Brazil's technological backwardness involves building an ecosystem fueled by private institutions, universities, and governments.

  Read more →
• 

  Elowan

  Elowan is a plant-robot cyborg. Using its own internal bioelectrical signals, The plant has a robotic extension that makes it move towards light sources. Electrodes are inserted into the leaves, stem, and ground to detect the faint bioelectrical signals the plant produces. Then they are amplified so the robot can read them. So when the plant "wants" to go to light, the cyborg automatically goes to the nearest light source. Future extensions of the robot could provide: Protection, growth frameworks, and nutrients. Other factors that could make the cyborg move are temperature, soil, and gravity conditions Elowan is one in a series of plant-electronic hybrid experiments.

  Read more →
• 

  Evidence-based library and information practice

  Evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) or evidence-based librarianship (EBL) is the use of evidence-based practices (EBP) in the field of library and information science (LIS). This means that all practical decisions made within LIS should 1) be based on research studies and 2) that these research studies are selected and interpreted according to some specific norms characteristic for EBP. Typically such norms disregard theoretical studies and qualitative studies and consider quantitative studies according to a narrow set of criteria of what counts as evidence. If such a narrow set of methodological criteria are not applied, it is better instead to speak of research based library and information practice. == Characteristics == Evidence-based practice in general has been characterised as a positivist approach; EBLIP is therefore also a positivist approach to LIS. As such, EBLIP is an approach in contrast to other approaches to LIS. The use of statistical approaches known as meta-analysis to conclude what evidence has been reported in the literature is one among other methods which is typical for the evidence-based approach. In 2002, Booth noted the three schools of EBILP had some commonalities, including the context of day-to-day decision-making, an emphasis on improving the quality of professional practice, a pragmatic focus on the 'best available evidence', incorporation of the user perspective, the acceptance of a broad range of quantitative and qualitative research designs, and access, either first-hand or second-hand, to the (process of) evidence-based practice and its products. He added one more, that EBILP is concerned with getting the best value for money. == The role of library and information science in EBP == Evidence-based practice in general is based on a very thorough search of the scientific literature and a very thorough selection and analysis of the retrieved literature. A close familiarity with database searching is needed, and library and information professionals have important roles to play in this respect. Therefore LIS professionals should be well suited to help professionals in other disciplines doing EBP. EBLIP is the application of this approach on LIS itself. It should be mentioned, however, that EBP started in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) from which it spread to other fields. Only slowly and to a limited extent has EBP moved on to LIS. The EBLIP process can be applied to a variety of scenarios in LIS, including customer service, collection development, library management and information literacy instruction. In general, quantitative methods are used in LIS research. A 2010 study revealed five categories that capture the different ways library and information professionals experience evidence-based practice: Evidence-based practice is experienced as irrelevant; Evidence-based practice is experienced as learning from published research; Evidence-based practice is experienced as service improvement; Evidence-based practice is experienced as a way of being; Evidence-based practice is experienced as a weapon.

  Read more →
• 

  Single customer view

  A single customer view is an aggregated, consistent and holistic representation of the data held by an organisation about its customers that can be viewed in one place, such as a single page. The advantage to an organisation of attaining this unified view comes from the ability it gives to analyse past behaviour in order to better target and personalise future customer interactions. A single customer view is also considered especially relevant where organisations engage with customers through multichannel marketing, since customers expect those interactions to reflect a consistent understanding of their history and preferences. However, some commentators have challenged the idea that a single view of customers across an entire organisation is either natural or meaningful, proposing that the priority should instead be consistency between the multiple views that arise in different contexts. Where representations of a customer are held in more than one data set, achieving a single customer view can be difficult: firstly because customer identity must be traceable between the records held in those systems, and secondly because anomalies or discrepancies in the customer data must be data cleansed for data quality. As such, the acquisition by an organisation of a single customer view is one potential outcome of successful master data management. Since 31 December, 2010, maintaining a single customer view, and submitting it within 72 hours, has become mandatory for financial institutions in the United Kingdom due to new rules introduced by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

  Read more →