AI Code Understanding

AI Code Understanding — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  ISSCO Graphics

  Integrated Software Systems Corporation (ISSCO), doing business as ISSCO Graphics, was an American software developer and publisher based in San Diego, California, and active from 1970 to 1986. They were best known for their enterprise graphics software packages, including Tellagraf, CueChart and Disspla. == History == ISSCO Graphics had considered acquiring Breakthrough Software, whose software focus involved PC DOS, as a means of getting into the PC arena, but backed off when Computer Associates made an offer to acquire ISSCO. By early 1987 it was reported that "Issco users breathe sigh of relief" that all was well. The ISSCO User's Group was founded in 1976. ISSCO, which was founded in 1970 by Peter Preuss, was acquired by Computer Associates in 1986. == Notable products == === Tellagraf === ISSCO's Tellagraf is an early software package designed to allow end-users to "turn out full color, professional quality charts" with initial results displayed on a screen, modified as needed, and then "a final 'hard-copy' can be made .. or made into 35mm color transparencies for projection onto a screen." Users of Tellagraf often had access to CueChart and Disspla software. Often computer sites having one had all three. Terminals with varying degrees of graphics, such as the DEC's VT100 and Tektronix's Tektronix 4xxx family of text and graphics terminals. were supported, and the software ran on popular computing platforms. Four years are important to Tellagraf's early history: 1978: ease of use 1980: graphic-artist quality 1982: introduction of CueChart, and recognition by IEEE. 1983: "quality graphics enters the mainstream of data processing with ..." Tellegraf was eventually acquired by Computer Associates and renamed CA-Tellegraf. SAS users found it helpful. Universities, research institutes and financial services firms were among early users. === Disspla === Disspla is a package of data plotting subroutines that can be used from high level languages. It was also acquired by Computer Associates. === Tellaplan === In 1983 ISSCO introduced Tellaplan, "a project planning, report and schedule charting system for Tell-A- Graf users in IBM MVS or CMS or Digital Equipment Corp. VAX computers" atop which they built "two visual project management software packages" three years later.

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology-based data integration

  Ontology-based data integration involves the use of one or more ontologies to effectively combine data or information from multiple heterogeneous sources. It is one of the multiple data integration approaches and may be classified as Global-As-View (GAV). The effectiveness of ontology‑based data integration is closely tied to the consistency and expressivity of the ontology used in the integration process. == Background == Data from multiple sources are characterized by multiple types of heterogeneity. The following hierarchy is often used: Syntactic heterogeneity: is a result of differences in representation format of data Schematic or structural heterogeneity: the native model or structure to store data differ in data sources leading to structural heterogeneity. Schematic heterogeneity that particularly appears in structured databases is also an aspect of structural heterogeneity. Semantic heterogeneity: differences in interpretation of the 'meaning' of data are source of semantic heterogeneity System heterogeneity: use of different operating system, hardware platforms lead to system heterogeneity Ontologies, as formal models of representation with explicitly defined concepts and named relationships linking them, are used to address the issue of semantic heterogeneity in data sources. In domains like bioinformatics and biomedicine, the rapid development, adoption and public availability of ontologies [1] Archived 2007-06-16 at the Wayback Machine has made it possible for the data integration community to leverage them for semantic integration of data and information. == The role of ontologies == Ontologies enable the unambiguous identification of entities in heterogeneous information systems and assertion of applicable named relationships that connect these entities together. Specifically, ontologies play the following roles: Content Explication The ontology enables accurate interpretation of data from multiple sources through the explicit definition of terms and relationships in the ontology. Query Model In some systems like SIMS, the query is formulated using the ontology as a global query schema. Verification The ontology verifies the mappings used to integrate data from multiple sources. These mappings may either be user specified or generated by a system. == Approaches using ontologies for data integration == There are three main architectures that are implemented in ontology‑based data integration applications, namely, Single ontology approach A single ontology is used as a global reference model in the system. This is the simplest approach as it can be simulated by other approaches. SIMS is a prominent example of this approach. The Structured Knowledge Source Integration component of Research Cyc is another prominent example of this approach. (Title = Harnessing Cyc to Answer Clinical Researchers' Ad Hoc Queries). The Gellish Taxonomic Dictionary-Ontology follows this approach as well. Multiple ontologies Multiple ontologies, each modeling an individual data source, are used in combination for integration. Though, this approach is more flexible than the single ontology approach, it requires creation of mappings between the multiple ontologies. Ontology mapping is a challenging issue and is focus of large number of research efforts in computer science [2]. The OBSERVER system is an example of this approach. Hybrid approaches The hybrid approach involves the use of multiple ontologies that subscribe to a common, top-level vocabulary. The top-level vocabulary defines the basic terms of the domain. Thus, the hybrid approach makes it easier to use multiple ontologies for integration in presence of the common vocabulary.

  Read more →
• 

  AI: When a Robot Writes a Play

  AI: When a Robot Writes a Play (in Czech: AI: Když robot píše hru) is a 2021 experimental theatre play, where 90% of its script was automatically generated by artificial intelligence (the GPT-2 language model). The play is in Czech language, but an English version of the script also exists. == Creation == The play is the first result of the THEaiTRE research project, aiming to commemorate the centenary of the R.U.R. play by Karel Čapek by investigating to what extent artificial intelligence could be used to create theatre play scripts. The script of the play was created using the THEaiTRobot tool, based on the GPT-2 language model. First, the play dramaturge, David Košťák, described the initial setting of each scene in a few sentences, and wrote the first line for each character. Next, THEaiTRobot suggested a continuation of the script, which the dramaturge could use, reject, or use part of it and let the tool generate a new continuation. Another option was to manually insert another line or a scenic remark. The script was generated in English and was automatically translated to Czech by the state-of-the-art CUBBITT machine translation tool. The resulting script was then further post-edited by the dramaturge. The resulting script was made freely available for non-commercial use both in English and in Czech, with marked manually inserted texts and manual edits. The analysis shows that 90% of the English script is automatically generated, with 10% manually written or manually post-edited. In the Czech script, a larger amount of edits were made, but the analysis claims that these additional edits are corrections of errors of the automated translation and stylistic corrections which do not change the meaning of the lines as represented by the English script, but rather bring the Czech script closer to the English one. == Characters == The play contains 9 characters. The Robot appears in all the scenes, while each of the other characters appears in only one scene. Robot – The lead character, a male humanoid robot. Master – An old man, the creator of the Robot. Boy – A schoolboy. Masseuse – A sex worker in a brothel. Stranger – An engineer. Man. Psychologist. Administrator – A female clerk at an employment agency. Actress – A film actress and a model in a robot-like costume. == Plot == The play is composed of 8 scenes. It tells the story of a humanoid robot, who encounters 8 other characters and engages into various typically human situations and activities, related to death, love, sex, violence, etc. The individual scenes are not tightly linked, but there are some linking points, such as the central character of the robot or some repeated and developing themes, such as the robot's search for love. The scenes often contain some absurd turns and it is often hard to find sense in them. It is therefore a very complicated piece interpretationally, requiring the director and the actors to invest a lot of effort and creativity in finding a meaningful interpretation which would not deviate from the script. In the interpretation by Švanda theatre, who premiered the play and who also participated on the creation of the script, the scenes typically contain non-verbally expressed content which can add a lot to the meaning of the scene compared to what is contained in the actual script (as the script only contains the lines said by the characters). === Scene 1: Death === The play opens by the Robot parting with his dying Master. The Master gives the Robot several last lessons and talks with him about death, soul, and love. === Scene 2: Sense of Humour === In the second scene, the Robot meets a sad and angry Boy, who complains that he wants to go to school, that his girlfriend is crazy, that he wants to buy a car, etc. The Robot tries to help the Boy by giving him advice, but the Boy's reactions are quite negative and irritated. The Boy then repeatedly asks the Robot to tell him a joke; the Robot keeps refusing, but ultimately tells the following joke: When you are dead. When your children are dead. When your grandchildren are dead, I will be still alive. === Scene 3: Nightclub === The Robot wants to feel pleasure, so he goes to a "night club" (a brothel), where he meets a "Masseuse" (a prostitute). The Robot is initially "a bit cold", but eventually manages to enjoy the experience and falls in love with the Masseuse. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Robot and the Masseuse seem to have a sort of virtual sex without touching each other, reminiscent of the sex scene in Demolition Man. === Scene 4: Fear of the Dark === It is the night. The Robot is standing under a lamp, unable to move away from the light as he finds that he is afraid of the dark. He meets a Stranger, an engineer who tells him that robots don't have feelings and that people cannot be trusted, and keeps hurting him. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Man repeatedly zaps the Robot with some kind of electric pulse. === Scene 5: Killer Robot === A Man approaches the Robot and repeatedly asks him to kill him. Instead, the Robot sticks a finger into the Man's anus, which leads to an argument between the Man and the Robot. === Scene 6: Burn Out === The Robot meets a Psychologist, who keeps asking him lots of questions regarding his life, burnout feeling, love, relationships, and emotions. They also talk about the Robot using a device called emotion machine which helps him to get rid of stress. === Scene 7: Search for Job === The Robot comes to an employment agency. He meets an Administrator and asks her to help him find a job. He expresses the wish to become an actor, and talks about his experience as a clown. He reveals his name to be Troy McClure, which is a character from The Simpsons who is an actor. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Administrator starts to seduce the Robot once his name is revealed, which he keeps ignoring; the Administrator then becomes irritated. === Scene 8: Love at First Sight === The Robot meets a human Actress in a robotic costume and falls in love with her immediately. The Actress is first reluctant, but the Robot manages to seduce her and she also falls in love with him. The Robot tells her about a binary world, in which he lives and where he will also take her. Ultimately, the Actress agrees, and the whole play concludes by the Robot and the Actress promising each to other to always be together. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Robot does not have a physical body in this scene, we can only hear his voice and see a pulsating light (based on the line in the script where the Robot says: "I have no body. So I don't need to wear clothes. You can't see me, you only hear me."), and the Actress eventually also agrees to lose her physical body so that she can be with the Robot forever. == Theatrical performances == The play premiered on 26 February 2021 in Švanda Theatre in Prague, Czech Republic, directed by Daniel Hrbek. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the play was not played in front of a live audience, but it was broadcast online, in Czech language with English subtitles. The play was followed by a panel discussion by the project members and experts on artificial intelligence. The premiere was viewed by 13,498 spectators worldwide. A short trailer of the premiere is available on YouTube. In 2021, after the opening of the theatres in the Czech Republic to spectators, the play can be viewed at Švanda Theatre. The performance takes approximately 60 minutes, and is followed by a discussion of the creators with the audience. The derniere is planned for 4 February 2023. == Reception == The play received a number of reviews, both in its country of origin as well as internationally. It is praised as first of its kind, although some reviewers note the similarity to previous works, such as the musical Beyond the Fence, the play Lifestyle of the Richard and Family, or the short movie Sunspring; however, these works used less advanced technology, and either were very short (Sunspring) or necessitated a larger amount of human interventions. The reviewers note that the script is far from perfect, with many inconsistencies and nonsensical parts, and conclude that the technology is definitely not yet ready to replace human authors; however, some find some parts of the script frighteningly human-like. The amount of human intervention is a somewhat controversial topic, with some reviewers finding the human influence too large (especially in interpreting the script and putting the play on scene), while others feel that a greater amount of human intervention would have been favorable as this could greatly improve the quality of the play. The reviews also frequently comment on the amount of sex, violence and strong language in the play; this can be attributed to the method used for creating the script, where the GPT-2 language model reflects topics and language common in the human-written articles on the internet that were used to train the model. Furthermore, some r

  Read more →
• 

  Kullback–Leibler Upper Confidence Bound

  In multi-armed bandit problems, KL-UCB (for Kullback–Leibler Upper Confidence Bound) is a UCB-type algorithm that is asymptotically optimal, in the sense that its regret matches the problem-dependent Lai-Robbins lower bound. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {D}},\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} δ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}} is a well-chosen sequence of positive numbers, often equal to ln ⁡ t + c ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \ln t+c\ln \ln t} with c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} . Then we choose the arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} with the highest index: a t := arg ⁡ max a U a ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{t}:=\arg \max _{a}U_{a}(t)} We note that the algorithm does not require knowledge of T {\displaystyle T} . === Example === In the special case of Gaussian distribution with fixed variance σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} , we have: U a ( t ) = μ ^ a ( t ) + 2 σ 2 δ t N a ( t ) {\displaystyle U_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)+{\sqrt {\frac {2\sigma ^{2}\delta _{t}}{N_{a}(t)}}}} with μ ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)} being the empirical mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} . === Pseudocode === The player gets the set D for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; d ← ln(K) for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution for t from K+1 to T do: for each arm i do: index[i] ← compute_index(n[i], nu[i], D, d) select arm a with highest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution d ← ln(t+1) == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the Lai–Robbins asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm KL-UCB matches this lower bound for one-dimensional exponential families with δ t := ln ⁡ t + 3 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+3\ln \ln t} and for distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} with δ t := ln ⁡ t + ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+\ln \ln t} . === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ D K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + o T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+o_{T\to +\infty }(\ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it. === Regret bound for KL-UCB === The algorithm matches the Lai–Robbins lower bound for one-dimensional exponential-family distributions and for distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . ==== One-dimensional exponential family ==== For D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} being the set of one-dimensional exponential families, with δ t := ln ⁡ t + 3 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+3\ln \ln t} we have the following upper bound on the regret of KL-UCB: R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + O T ( ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+O_{T}({\sqrt {\ln T}}).} ==== Bounded distributions in [0,1] ==== For D = P ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}={\mathcal {P}}([0,1])} (the set of distributions supported on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ), and for δ t := ln ⁡ t + ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+\ln \ln t} , we have the following upper bound on the regret of KL-UCB: R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + O T ( ( ln ⁡ T ) 4 / 5 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+O_{T}{\big (}(\ln T)^{4/5}\ln \ln T{\big )}.} === Runtime === For D = P ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}={\mathcal {P}}([0,1])} , the runtime needed per step and for an arm k {\displaystyle k} with n {\displaystyle n} observations is O ( n ( ln ⁡ n ) 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}{\big (}n(\ln n)^{2}{\big )}} . This is higher than that of other optimal algorithms, such as NPTS with O ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)} . MED with O ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n\ln n)} . and IMED with O ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n\ln n)} . The high runtime of KL-UCB is due to a two-level optimisation: for each arm and candidate mean μ {\displaystyle \mu } , the algorithm evaluates K inf ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ , D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),\mu ,{\mathcal {D}})} and then maximises μ {\displaystyle \mu } subject to N a ( t ) K inf ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ , D ) ≤ δ t {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)\,{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),\mu ,{\mathcal {D}})\leq \delta _{t}} . For distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} the inner problem has no closed form and must be solved numerically, which increases the per-step cost.

  Read more →
• 

  Embodied cognitive science

  Embodied cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field of research, the aim of which is to explain the mechanisms underlying intelligent behavior. It comprises three main methodologies: the modeling of psychological and biological systems in a holistic manner that considers the mind and body as a single entity; the formation of a common set of general principles of intelligent behavior; and the experimental use of robotic agents in controlled environments. == Contributors == Embodied cognitive science borrows heavily from embodied philosophy and the related research fields of cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Contributors to the field include: From the perspective of neuroscience, Gerald Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute at La Jolla, Francisco Varela of CNRS in France, and J. A. Scott Kelso of Florida Atlantic University From the perspective of psychology, Lawrence Barsalou, Michael Turvey, Vittorio Guidano and Eleanor Rosch From the perspective of linguistics, Gilles Fauconnier, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, Leonard Talmy and Mark Turner From the perspective of language acquisition, Eric Lenneberg and Philip Rubin at Haskins Laboratories From the perspective of anthropology, Edwin Hutchins, Bradd Shore, James Wertsch and Merlin Donald. From the perspective of autonomous agent design, early work is sometimes attributed to Rodney Brooks or Valentino Braitenberg From the perspective of artificial intelligence, Understanding Intelligence by Rolf Pfeifer and Christian Scheier or How the Body Shapes the Way We Think, by Rolf Pfeifer and Josh C. Bongard From the perspective of philosophy, Andy Clark, Dan Zahavi, Shaun Gallagher, and Evan Thompson In 1950, Alan Turing proposed that a machine may need a human-like body to think and speak: It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to understand and speak English. That process could follow the normal teaching of a child. Things would be pointed out and named, etc. Again, I do not know what the right answer is, but I think both approaches should be tried. == Traditional cognitive theory == Embodied cognitive science is an alternative theory to cognition in which it minimizes appeals to computational theory of mind in favor of greater emphasis on how an organism's body determines how and what it thinks. Traditional cognitive theory is based mainly around symbol manipulation, in which certain inputs are fed into a processing unit that produces an output. These inputs follow certain rules of syntax, from which the processing unit finds semantic meaning. Thus, an appropriate output is produced. For example, a human's sensory organs are its input devices, and the stimuli obtained from the external environment are fed into the nervous system which serves as the processing unit. From here, the nervous system is able to read the sensory information because it follows a syntactic structure, thus an output is created. This output then creates bodily motions and brings forth behavior and cognition. Of particular note is that cognition is sealed away in the brain, meaning that mental cognition is cut off from the external world and is only possible by the input of sensory information. == The embodied cognitive approach == Embodied cognitive science differs from the traditionalist approach in that it denies the input-output system. This is chiefly due to the problems presented by the Homunculus argument, which concluded that semantic meaning could not be derived from symbols without some kind of inner interpretation. If some little man in a person's head interpreted incoming symbols, then who would interpret the little man's inputs? Because of the specter of an infinite regress, the traditionalist model began to seem less plausible. Thus, embodied cognitive science aims to avoid this problem by defining cognition in three ways. === Physical attributes of the body === The first aspect of embodied cognition examines the role of the physical body, particularly how its properties affect its ability to think. This part attempts to overcome the symbol manipulation component that is a feature of the traditionalist model. Depth perception, for instance, can be better explained under the embodied approach due to the sheer complexity of the action. Depth perception requires that the brain detect the disparate retinal images obtained by the distance of the two eyes. In addition, body and head cues complicate this further. When the head is turned in a given direction, objects in the foreground will appear to move against objects in the background. From this, it is said that some kind of visual processing is occurring without the need of any kind of symbol manipulation. This is because the objects appearing to move the foreground are simply appearing to move. This observation concludes then that depth can be perceived with no intermediate symbol manipulation necessary. A more poignant example exists through examining auditory perception. Generally speaking the greater the distance between the ears, the greater the possible auditory acuity. Also relevant is the amount of density in between the ears, for the strength of the frequency wave alters as it passes through a given medium. The brain's auditory system takes these factors into account as it process information, but again without any need for a symbolic manipulation system. This is because the distance between the ears for example does not need symbols to represent it. The distance itself creates the necessary opportunity for greater auditory acuity. The amount of density between the ears is similar, in that it is the actual amount itself that simply forms the opportunity for frequency alteration. Thus under consideration of the physical properties of the body, a symbolic system is unnecessary and an unhelpful metaphor. === The body's role in the cognitive process === The second aspect draws heavily from George Lakoff's and Mark Johnson's work on concepts. They argued that humans use metaphors whenever possible to better explain their external world. Humans also have a basic stock of concepts in which other concepts can be derived from. These basic concepts include spatial orientations such as up, down, front, and back. Humans can understand what these concepts mean because they can directly experience them from their own bodies. For example, because human movement revolves around standing erect and moving the body in an up-down motion, humans innately have these concepts of up and down. Lakoff and Johnson contend this is similar with other spatial orientations such as front and back too. As mentioned earlier, these basic stocks of spatial concepts are the basis in which other concepts are constructed. Happy and sad for instance are seen now as being up or down respectively. When someone says they are feeling down, what they are really saying is that they feel sad for example. Thus the point here is that true understanding of these concepts is contingent on whether one can have an understanding of the human body. So the argument goes that if one lacked a human body, they could not possibly know what up or down could mean, or how it could relate to emotional states. [I]magine a spherical being living outside of any gravitational field, with no knowledge or imagination of any other kind of experience. What could UP possibly mean to such a being? While this does not mean that such beings would be incapable of expressing emotions in other words, it does mean that they would express emotions differently from humans. Human concepts of happiness and sadness would be different because human would have different bodies. So then an organism's body directly affects how it can think, because it uses metaphors related to its body as the basis of concepts. === Interaction of local environment === A third component of the embodied approach looks at how agents use their immediate environment in cognitive processing. Meaning, the local environment is seen as an actual extension of the body's cognitive process. The example of a personal digital assistant (PDA) is used to better imagine this. Echoing functionalism (philosophy of mind), this point claims that mental states are individuated by their role in a much larger system. So under this premise, the information on a PDA is similar to the information stored in the brain. So then if one thinks information in the brain constitutes mental states, then it must follow that information in the PDA is a cognitive state too. Consider also the role of pen and paper in a complex multiplication problem. The pen and paper are so involved in the cognitive process of solving the problem that it seems ridiculous to say they are somehow different from the process, in very much the same way the PDA is used for information like the brain. Another example examines how humans control and manipulate their environment

  Read more →
• 

  Token-based replay

  Token-based replay technique is a conformance checking algorithm that checks how well a process conforms with its model by replaying each trace on the model (in Petri net notation ). Using the four counters produced tokens, consumed tokens, missing tokens, and remaining tokens, it records the situations where a transition is forced to fire and the remaining tokens after the replay ends. Based on the count at each counter, we can compute the fitness value between the trace and the model. == The algorithm == Source: The token-replay technique uses four counters to keep track of a trace during the replaying: p: Produced tokens c: Consumed tokens m: Missing tokens (consumed while not there) r: Remaining tokens (produced but not consumed) Invariants: At any time: p + m ≥ c ≥ m {\displaystyle p+m\geq c\geq m} At the end: r = p + m − c {\displaystyle r=p+m-c} At the beginning, a token is produced for the source place (p = 1) and at the end, a token is consumed from the sink place (c' = c + 1). When the replay ends, the fitness value can be computed as follows: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})} == Example == Suppose there is a process model in Petri net notation as follows: === Example 1: Replay the trace (a, b, c, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} and c = 2 + 1 = 3 {\displaystyle c=2+1=3} ). Step 5: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } consumes 2 tokens and produces 1 token ( p = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle p=5+1=6} , c = 3 + 2 = 5 {\displaystyle c=3+2=5} ). Step 6: The token at the end place is consumed ( c = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle c=5+1=6} ). The trace is complete. The fitness of the trace ( a , b , c , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,c,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) = 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})=1} === Example 2: Replay the trace (a, b, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } needs to be fired but there are not enough tokens. One artificial token was produced and the missing token counter is increased by one ( m = 1 {\displaystyle m=1} ). The artificial token and the token at place [ b , d ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {b,d} ]} are consumed ( c = 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle c=2+2=4} ) and one token is produced at place end ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} ). Step 5: The token in the end place is consumed ( c = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle c=4+1=5} ). The trace is complete. There is one remaining token at place [ a , c ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {a,c} ]} ( r = 1 {\displaystyle r=1} ). The fitness of the trace ( a , b , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) = 0.8 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})=0.8}

  Read more →
• 

  Library history

  Library history is a subdiscipline within library science and library and information science focusing on the history of libraries and their role in societies and cultures. Some see the field as a subset of information history. Library history is an academic discipline and should not be confused with its object of study (history of libraries): the discipline is much younger than the libraries it studies. Library history begins in ancient societies through contemporary issues facing libraries today. Topics include recording mediums, cataloguing systems, scholars, scribes, library supporters and librarians. == Earliest libraries == The earliest records of a library institution as it is presently understood can be dated back to around 5,000 years ago in the Southwest Asian regions of the world. One of the oldest libraries found is that of the ancient library at Ebla (circa 2500 BCE) in present-day Syria. In the 1970s, the excavation at Ebla's library unearthed over 20,000 clay tablets written in cuneiform script. === Library in Mesopotamia === The Assyrian King Assurbanipal created one of the greatest libraries in Nineveh in the seventh century BCE. The collection consisted of over 30,000 tablets written in a variety of languages. The collection was cataloged both by the shape of the tablet and by the subject of the content. The library had separate rooms for the different topics: government, history, law, astronomy, geography, and so on. The tablets also contained myths, hymns, and even jokes. Assurbanipal would send scribes to visit every corner of his kingdom to copy the content of other libraries. His library contained many of the most important literary works of the day, including the epic of Gilgamesh. Assurbanipal's Royal Library also had one of the first library catalogs. Unfortunately, Nineveh was eventually destroyed, and the library was lost in a fire. === Libraries in Ancient Greece === The Greek government was the first to sponsor public libraries. By 500 BCE both Athens and Samos had begun creating libraries for the public, though as most of the population was illiterate these spaces were serving a small, educated portion of the community. Athens developed a city archive at the Metroon in 405 BCE, where documents were stored in sealed jars. These would have saved the documents, but they would have been difficult to consult regularly. In Paros, around the same time, contracts were placed in the temple for safe keeping, and a book curse was placed for extra protection. === Library of Alexandria === The Library at Alexandria, Egypt, was renowned in the third century BCE while kings Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus reigned. The library included a museum, garden, meeting areas and of course reading rooms. The Great Library, as it is known, was one of many in Alexandria. From its inception around the second century BCE, Alexandria was a well-known center for learning. It earned renown as the intellectual capital of the Western world up through the third century CE. The librarians at Alexandria collected, copied, and organized scrolls from across the known world. According to a primary source, every ship that came to Alexandria was required to hand over their books to be copied, and the copies would be returned to the owner, the library keeping the original. The Library of Alexandria was damaged by various disasters over time, including fire, invasion, and earthquake. Scholars believe the collection slowly diminished over time due to theft and efforts to remove it ahead of invading armies. While there are popular stories about how the library was ultimately destroyed, most of these are more myth than fact. === Libraries in Rome === Julius Caesar and his successor Augustus were the first to establish public libraries in ancient Rome, including the library of Apollo on the Palatine Hill. Several emperors followed suit over the next four centuries, including Hadrian, Tiberius, and Vespasian. Roman aristocrats also had personal libraries, which usually contained works in both Greek and Latin. A valuable example of this has been found at Herculaneum near Pompeii. Papyrus manuscripts in Herculaneum's Villa of the Papyri were encased in ash after the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE. Modern archaeology is now able to scan these artifacts and discern their contents, including many writings from Philodemus. The average Roman would not have been familiar with books beyond what they might hear read aloud in the forum. Public figures would pay for particular passages to be read aloud to the public from the steps of a public library. === Libraries in the Middle Ages === In the European Middle Ages, libraries began to become more prevalent, despite a widespread reduction in new writing beyond religious themes. Most libraries were initially connected to monasteries or religious institutions. Scriptoriums copied Christian religious texts to share with other religious centers or to be read aloud to their own parishioners. The Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (r. 786-814) had a large impact on the advancement of written culture in the Medieval Christian world, acquiring as many written works as he could, and employing many scribes to copy and recirculate vernacular versions of religious works. Most of the text held in small personal libraries was still religious in nature. == Early modern libraries == === Libraries of the Renaissance === During the Renaissance era the merchant middle class grew, and more people found benefits in education. They relied on libraries as a place to study and gain knowledge. Libraries provided a valuable resource, enriching the culture of those who were educated. Universities that had been started in the Middle Ages, founded their own libraries. Books in these libraries could not be borrowed from these libraries and were generally chained to the shelves to prevent theft. As more of the population became literate, new ideas like Humanism and Natural Law spawned an increase personal libraries, although they remained small. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1456 opened the door to the modern era for libraries. == Oldest working libraries == According to the German librarian Michael Knoche, it is not possible to determine which library is the “oldest”: "Precise year dates are a construct, especially in the case of very old libraries. When a collection of books deserves to be called a library depends very much on the point of view of the observer." Various libraries are referred to as the “oldest”: The library founded in the 6th century of the Saint Catherine's Monastery in Sinai is "reputedly the oldest continuously run library in existence today", according to the Library of Congress. Its collection of religious and secular manuscripts is ranging from Bibles, liturgies and prayer books to legal documents such as deeds, court cases and fatwahs (legal opinions). The Al Qarawiyyin Library was founded in 859 by Fatima al-Fihri and is often regarded as the oldest working library in the world. It is in Fez, Morocco and is part of the oldest continually operating university in the world, the University of al-Qarawiyyin. The library houses approximately 4,000 ancient Islamic manuscripts. These manuscripts include 9th century Qurans and the oldest known accounts of the Islamic prophet Muhammed. The Malatestiana Library (Italian: Biblioteca Malatestiana) is a public library in the city of Cesena in northern Italy. Opened in 1454 it is significant for being the first civic library in Europe open to the general public. == Library history reports and writings of the early 19th and 20th century == In the early 19th and 20th century, representative titles were created reporting library history in the United States and the United Kingdom. American titles include Public Libraries in the United States of America, Their History, Condition, and Management (1876), Memorial History of Boston (1881) by Justin Winsor, Public Libraries in America (1894) by William I. Fletcher, and History of the New York Public Library (1923) by Henry M. Lydenberg. British titles include Old English Libraries (1911) by Earnest A. Savage and The Chained Library: A Survey of Four Centuries in the Evolution of the English Library by Burnett Hillman Streeter. In the beginning of the 20th century, library historians began applying scientific research methodologies to examine the library as a social agency. Two works that demonstrate this argument are Geschichte der Bibliotheken (1925) by Alfred Hessel and the Library Quarterly article from 1931, “The Sociological Beginnings of the Library Movement in America” by Arnold Borden. With the establishment of library schools, master's theses and doctoral dissertations represented the shift in serious research regarding libraries and library history. Two published doctoral dissertations that mark this trend are Foundations of the Public Library: The Origins of the American Public Library Movement in Ne

  Read more →
• 

  Source criticism

  Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex

  Read more →
• 

  Read Along

  Read Along, formerly known as Bolo, is an Android language-learning app for children developed by Google for the Android operating system. The application was released on the Play Store on March 7, 2019. It features a character named Diya helping children learn to read through illustrated stories. It has the facility to learn English and Indian major languages i.e. Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi and Urdu, as well as Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic. == Technology == The app uses text-to-speech technology, through which the character named Dia reads the story, as well as speech-to-text technology, which mechanically identifies the matches between the text and the reading of the user. The story of Chhota Bheem and Katha Kids was added in September 2019. In April 2020, a new version of the application was released. In September 2020, it added Arabic language to its language option. A web version was launched in August 2022.

  Read more →
• 

  Information history

  Information history may refer to the history of each of the categories listed below (or to combinations of them). It should be recognized that the understanding of, for example, libraries as information systems only goes back to about 1950. The application of the term information for earlier systems or societies is a retronym. == Academic discipline == Information history is an emerging discipline related to, but broader than, library history. An important introduction and review was made by Alistair Black (2006). A prolific scholar in this field is also Toni Weller, for example, Weller (2007, 2008, 2010a and 2010b). As part of her work Toni Weller has argued that there are important links between the modern information age and its historical precedents. A description from Russia is Volodin (2000). Alistair Black (2006, p. 445) wrote: "This chapter explores issues of discipline definition and legitimacy by segmenting information history into its various components: The history of print and written culture, including relatively long-established areas such as the histories of libraries and librarianship, book history, publishing history, and the history of reading. The history of more recent information disciplines and practice, that is to say, the history of information management, information systems, and information science. The history of contiguous areas, such as the history of the information society and information infrastructure, necessarily enveloping communication history (including telecommunications history) and the history of information policy. The history of information as social history, with emphasis on the importance of informal information networks." "Bodies influential in the field include the American Library Association’s Round Table on Library History, the Library History Section of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and, in the U.K., the Library and Information History Group of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). Each of these bodies has been busy in recent years, running conferences and seminars, and initiating scholarly projects. Active library history groups function in many other countries, including Germany (The Wolfenbuttel Round Table on Library History, the History of the Book and the History of Media, located at the Herzog August Bibliothek), Denmark (The Danish Society for Library History, located at the Royal School of Library and Information Science), Finland (The Library History Research Group, University of Tamepere), and Norway (The Norwegian Society for Book and Library History). Sweden has no official group dedicated to the subject, but interest is generated by the existence of a museum of librarianship in Bods, established by the Library Museum Society and directed by Magnus Torstensson. Activity in Argentina, where, as in Europe and the U.S., a "new library history" has developed, is described by Parada (2004)." (Black (2006, p. 447). === Journals === Information & Culture (previously Libraries & the Cultural Record, Libraries & Culture) Library & Information History (until 2008: Library History; until 1967: Library Association. Library History Group. Newsletter) == Information technology (IT) == The term IT is ambiguous although mostly synonym with computer technology. Haigh (2011, pp. 432-433) wrote "In fact, the great majority of references to information technology have always been concerned with computers, although the exact meaning has shifted over time (Kline, 2006). The phrase received its first prominent usage in a Harvard Business Review article (Haigh, 2001b; Leavitt & Whisler, 1958) intended to promote a technocratic vision for the future of business management. Its initial definition was at the conjunction of computers, operations research methods, and simulation techniques. Having failed initially to gain much traction (unlike related terms of a similar vintage such as information systems, information processing, and information science) it was revived in policy and economic circles in the 1970s with a new meaning. Information technology now described the expected convergence of the computing, media, and telecommunications industries (and their technologies), understood within the broader context of a wave of enthusiasm for the computer revolution, post-industrial society, information society (Webster, 1995), and other fashionable expressions of the belief that new electronic technologies were bringing a profound rupture with the past. As it spread broadly during the 1980s, IT increasingly lost its association with communications (and, alas, any vestigial connection to the idea of anybody actually being informed of anything) to become a new and more pretentious way of saying "computer". The final step in this process is the recent surge in references to "information and communication technologies" or ICTs, a coinage that makes sense only if one assumes that a technology can inform without communicating". Some people use the term information technology about technologies used before the development of the computer. This is however to use the term as a retronym. =

  Read more →
• 

  UI data binding

  UI data binding is a software design pattern to simplify development of GUI applications. UI data binding binds UI elements to an application domain model. Most frameworks employ the Observer pattern as the underlying binding mechanism. To work efficiently, UI data binding has to address input validation and data type mapping. A bound control is a widget whose value is tied or bound to a field in a recordset (e.g., a column in a row of a table). Changes made to data within the control are automatically saved to the database when the control's exit event triggers. == Example == == Data binding frameworks and tools == === Delphi === DSharp third-party data binding tool OpenWire Visual Live Binding - third-party visual data binding tool === Java === JFace Data Binding JavaFX Property === .NET === Windows Forms data binding overview WPF data binding overview Avalonia Unity 3D data binding framework (available in modifications for NGUI, iGUI and EZGUI libraries) === JavaScript === Angular AngularJS Backbone.js Ember.js Datum.js knockout.js Meteor, via its Blaze live update engine OpenUI5 React Vue.js

  Read more →
• 

  Single source of truth

  In information science and information technology, single source of truth (SSOT) architecture, or single point of truth (SPOT) architecture, for information systems is the practice of structuring information models and associated data schemas such that every data element is mastered (or edited) in only one place, providing data normalization to a canonical form (for example, in database normalization or content transclusion). There are several scenarios with respect to copies and updates: The master data is never copied and instead only references to it are made; this means that all reads and updates go directly to the SSOT. The master data is copied but the copies are only read and only the master data is updated; if requests to read data are only made on copies, this is an instance of CQRS. The master data is copied and the copies are updated; this needs a reconciliation mechanism when there are concurrent updates. Updates on copies can be thrown out whenever a concurrent update is made on the master, so they are not considered fully committed until propagated to the master. (many blockchains work that way.) Concurrent updates are merged. (if an automatic merge fails, it could fall back on another strategy, which could be the previous strategy or something else like manual intervention, which most source version control systems do.) The advantages of SSOT architectures include easier prevention of mistaken inconsistencies (such as a duplicate value/copy somewhere being forgotten), and greatly simplified version control. Without a SSOT, dealing with inconsistencies implies either complex and error-prone consensus algorithms, or using a simpler architecture that's liable to lose data in the face of inconsistency (the latter may seem unacceptable but it is sometimes a very good choice; it is how most blockchains operate: a transaction is actually final only if it was included in the next block that is mined). Ideally, SSOT systems provide data that are authentic (and authenticatable), relevant, and referable. Deployment of an SSOT architecture is becoming increasingly important in enterprise settings where incorrectly linked duplicate or de-normalized data elements (a direct consequence of intentional or unintentional denormalization of any explicit data model) pose a risk for retrieval of outdated, and therefore incorrect, information. Common examples (i.e., example classes of implementation) are as follows: In electronic health records (EHRs), it is imperative to accurately validate patient identity against a single referential repository, which serves as the SSOT. Duplicate representations of data within the enterprise would be implemented by the use of pointers rather than duplicate database tables, rows, or cells. This ensures that data updates to elements in the authoritative location are comprehensively distributed to all federated database constituencies in the larger overall enterprise architecture. EHRs are an excellent class for exemplifying how SSOT architecture is both poignantly necessary and challenging to achieve: it is challenging because inter-organization health information exchange is inherently a cybersecurity competence hurdle, and nonetheless it is necessary, to prevent medical errors, to prevent the wasted costs of inefficiency (such as duplicated work or rework), and to make the primary care and medical home concepts feasible (to achieve competent care transitions). Single-source publishing as a general principle or ideal in content management relies on having SSOTs, via transclusion or (otherwise, at least) substitution. Substitution happens via libraries of objects that can be propagated as static copies which are later refreshed when necessary (that is, when refreshing of the copy-paste or import is triggered by a larger updating event). Component content management systems are a class of content management systems that aim to provide competence on this level. == Implementation == === Ontologic interactions === An acknowledged prerequisite (of the notion that any given single source of truth can exist) is that it depends on the ontologic condition that no more than a single truth (about any particular fact or idea) exists, an assertion that is ontologic in both the IT sense and the general sense of that word. In many instances, this presents no problem (for example, within particular namespaces, or even across them, as long as naming collisions or broader name conflicts are adequately handled). The broadest contexts (and thus thorniest, regarding ontologic discrepancies) require adequate epistemic regime comparison and reconciliation (or at least negotiation or transactional exchanges). An archetypal example of this class of reconciliation is that two theological seminary libraries, from two different religions (X and Y), could exchange information with an SSOT architecture, but the unification of truth would reside on the level of the statement that "religion X asserts that God is purple whereas religion Y asserts that God is green", rather than on the level of "God is purple" or "God is green". === Architectures or architectural features === An ideal implementation of SSOT is rarely possible in most enterprises. This is because many organisations have multiple information systems, each of which needs access to data relating to the same entities (e.g., customer). Often these systems are purchased as commercial off-the-shelf products from vendors and cannot be modified in trivial ways. Each of these various systems therefore needs to store its own version of common data or entities, and therefore each system must retain its own copy of a record (hence immediately violating the SSOT approach defined above). For example, an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system (such as SAP or Oracle e-Business Suite) may store a customer record; the customer relationship management (CRM) system also needs a copy of the customer record (or part of it) and the warehouse dispatch system might also need a copy of some or all of the customer data (e.g., shipping address). In cases where vendors do not support such modifications, it is not always possible to replace these records with pointers to the SSOT. For organisations (with more than one information system) wishing to implement a Single Source of Truth (without modifying all but one master system to store pointers to other systems for all entities), some supporting architectures are: Master data management (MDM) Event store and event sourcing (ES) ==== Master data management (MDM) ==== A master data management system typically serves as the source of truth for an organization's metadata, helping to ensure accuracy and consistency throughout that organizations multiple data sources. Typically the MDM acts as a hub for multiple systems, many of which could allow (be the source of truth for) updates to different aspects of information on a given entity. For example, the CRM system may be the "source of truth" for most aspects of the customer, and is updated by a call centre operator. However, a customer may (for example) also update their address via a customer service web site, with a different back-end database from the CRM system. The MDM application receives updates from multiple sources, acts as a broker to determine which updates are to be regarded as authoritative (the golden record) and then syndicates this updated data to all subscribing systems. The MDM application normally requires an ESB to syndicate its data to multiple subscribing systems. ==== Event store and event sourcing (ES) ==== In event oriented architectures, it has become increasingly common to find an implementation of the Event Sourcing pattern which stores the system state as an ordered sequence of state changes. To do this, you need an Event Store, a particular type of database designed to hold all the events that change the state of the system. The event store in an Event Sourcing + Command Query Responsibility Separation + Domain Driven Design + Messaging architecture is in fact a "single source of truth", with the additional advantage that it can also act as an Enterprise Service Bus as it can listen directly to the event store for status changes as everything passes by. In addition, by saving all the events, it also plays the role of Data Warehouse. One last advantage is that through this system the Shared Database pattern can be implemented, another technique not mentioned to obtain a single source of truth. ==== Data warehouse (DW) ==== While the primary purpose of a data warehouse is to support reporting and analysis of data that has been combined from multiple sources, the fact that such data has been combined (according to business logic embedded in the data transformation and integration processes) means that the data warehouse is often used as a de facto SSOT. Generally, however, the data available from the data warehouse are not used to update other systems; rather the DW becomes

  Read more →
• 

  KidDesk

  KidDesk is an alternative desktop software application. The early childhood learning company Hatch Early Childhood created KidDesk; it subsequently went to Edmark, which was bought by IBM then sold to Riverdeep (now Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Learning Technology). KidDesk is compatible with Microsoft Windows 95 and newer, as well as Apple System 7 and newer. KidDesk can be set to start when the computer starts up, and can only be exited through password entry. Adults choose what programs are included for the child to use, what icon represented the desk, and customize the software programs available for use. == History == Edmark first started shipping KidDesk in 1992. In 1993, Edmark updated KidDesk with KidDesk Family Edition for Macintosh and DOS, adding more desk accessories and desk styles (Sometimes included as a free exclusive offer with the Early Learning House and Thinkin' Things Series). In 1995, KidDesk Family Edition was enhanced for Windows 95, and released one month after the new operating system shipped. In 1998, Edmark developed KidDesk Internet Safe. The Internet Safe edition was written for Windows 95, Windows 98, and Macintosh (including OS8). In 2008, HMH ported KidDesk Family Edition was to run on Windows Vista and in 2011 version 3.07 of KidDesk Family Edition was released as part of the 'Young Explorer' suite which is fully supported on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. == Features == A picture editor incorporated into the desk. Used both in the Adult settings menu and in the desk itself. KidDesk users can edit their user logo with a pixel grid paint program. A calendar incorporated into the desk. This allows the user to set dates that the user finds important, and allows the date to be marked with a picture or text. A password exit feature. For security reasons, the adult can set a password so that KidDesk can only be exited if it is entered. As an extra security measure, the password exit function could only be accessed if the user pressed the ctrl + alt + A keyboard buttons simultaneously. A skin changer with several themes - farm, princess, sports, ocean, etc. These themes can be changed. The e-mail and voicemail features are customizable depending on the KidDesk installation. The ability to add websites that can be accessed on KidDesk, and the ability to block hyperlinks, JavaScript, data entry, etc., on said sites was an added for the 'Internet Safe' edition released in 1998. KidDesk Internet Safe edition is available in Spanish and Brazilian-Portuguese versions. == Reception == KidDesk was given a platinum award at the 1994 Oppenheim Toy Portfolio Awards. The judges praised the program's security features allowing "configur[ation] so that kids never have access to the possibly destructive DOS prompt", and concluded that "[i]f you and your kids share a computer, you need to install Kiddesk immediately!" === Awards === Since 1992, KidDesk has won 15 major awards.

  Read more →
• 

  Record linkage

  Record linkage (also known as data matching, data linkage, entity resolution, and many other terms) is the task of finding records in a data set that refer to the same entity across different data sources (e.g., data files, books, websites, and databases). Record linkage is necessary when joining different data sets based on entities that may or may not share a common identifier (e.g., database key, URI, National identification number), which may be due to differences in record shape, storage location, or curator style or preference. A data set that has undergone RL-oriented reconciliation may be referred to as being cross-linked. == Naming conventions == "Record linkage" is the term used by statisticians, epidemiologists, and historians, among others, to describe the process of joining records from one data source with another that describe the same entity. However, many other terms are used for this process. Unfortunately, this profusion of terminology has led to few cross-references between these research communities. Computer scientists often refer to it as "data matching" or as the "object identity problem". Commercial mail and database applications refer to it as "merge/purge processing" or "list washing". Other names used to describe the same concept include: "coreference/entity/identity/name/record resolution", "entity disambiguation/linking", "fuzzy matching", "duplicate detection", "deduplication", "record matching", "(reference) reconciliation", "object identification", "data/information integration" and "conflation". While they share similar names, record linkage and linked data are two separate approaches to processing and structuring data. Although both involve identifying matching entities across different data sets, record linkage standardly equates "entities" with human individuals; by contrast, Linked Data is based on the possibility of interlinking any web resource across data sets, using a correspondingly broader concept of identifier, namely a URI. == History == The initial idea of record linkage goes back to Halbert L. Dunn in his 1946 article titled "Record Linkage" published in the American Journal of Public Health. Howard Borden Newcombe then laid the probabilistic foundations of modern record linkage theory in a 1959 article in Science. These were formalized in 1969 by Ivan Fellegi and Alan Sunter, in their pioneering work "A Theory For Record Linkage", where they proved that the probabilistic decision rule they described was optimal when the comparison attributes were conditionally independent. In their work they recognized the growing interest in applying advances in computing and automation to large collections of administrative data, and the Fellegi-Sunter theory remains the mathematical foundation for many record linkage applications. Since the late 1990s, various machine learning techniques have been developed that can, under favorable conditions, be used to estimate the conditional probabilities required by the Fellegi-Sunter theory. Several researchers have reported that the conditional independence assumption of the Fellegi-Sunter algorithm is often violated in practice; however, published efforts to explicitly model the conditional dependencies among the comparison attributes have not resulted in an improvement in record linkage quality. On the other hand, machine learning or neural network algorithms that do not rely on these assumptions often provide far higher accuracy, when sufficient labeled training data is available. Record linkage can be done entirely without the aid of a computer, but the primary reasons computers are often used to complete record linkages are to reduce or eliminate manual review and to make results more easily reproducible. Computer matching has the advantages of allowing central supervision of processing, better quality control, speed, consistency, and better reproducibility of results. == Methods == === Data preprocessing === Record linkage is highly sensitive to the quality of the data being linked, so all data sets under consideration (particularly their key identifier fields) should ideally undergo a data quality assessment before record linkage. Many key identifiers for the same entity can be presented quite differently between (and even within) data sets, which can greatly complicate record linkage unless understood ahead of time. For example, key identifiers for a man named William J. Smith might appear in three different data sets as follows: In this example, the different formatting styles lead to records that look different but in fact all refer to the same entity with the same logical identifier values. Most, if not all, record linkage strategies would result in more accurate linkage if these values were first normalized or standardized into a consistent format (e.g., all names are "Surname, Given name", and all dates are "YYYY/MM/DD"). Standardization can be accomplished through simple rule-based data transformations or more complex procedures such as lexicon-based tokenization and probabilistic hidden Markov models. Several of the packages listed in the Software Implementations section provide some of these features to simplify the process of data standardization. === Entity resolution === Entity resolution is an operational intelligence process, typically powered by an entity resolution engine or middleware, whereby organizations can connect disparate data sources with a view to understand possible entity matches and non-obvious relationships across multiple data silos. It analyzes all of the information relating to individuals and/or entities from multiple sources of data, and then applies likelihood and probability scoring to determine which identities are a match and what, if any, non-obvious relationships exist between those identities. Entity resolution engines are typically used to uncover risk, fraud, and conflicts of interest, but are also useful tools for use within customer data integration (CDI) and master data management (MDM) requirements. Typical uses for entity resolution engines include terrorist screening, insurance fraud detection, USA Patriot Act compliance, organized retail crime ring detection and applicant screening. For example, across different data silos – employee records, vendor data, watch lists, etc. – an organization may have several variations of an entity named ABC, which may or may not be the same individual. These entries may, in fact, appear as ABC1, ABC2, or ABC3 within those data sources. By comparing similarities between underlying attributes such as address, date of birth, or social security number, the user can eliminate some possible matches and confirm others as very likely matches. Entity resolution engines then apply rules, based on common sense logic, to identify hidden relationships across the data. In the example above, perhaps ABC1 and ABC2 are not the same individual, but rather two distinct people who share common attributes such as address or phone number. ==== Data matching ==== While entity resolution solutions include data matching technology, many data matching offerings do not fit the definition of entity resolution. Here are four factors that distinguish entity resolution from data matching, according to John Talburt, director of the UALR Center for Advanced Research in Entity Resolution and Information Quality: Works with both structured and unstructured records, and it entails the process of extracting references when the sources are unstructured or semi-structured Uses elaborate business rules and concept models to deal with missing, conflicting, and corrupted information Utilizes non-matching, asserted linking (associate) information in addition to direct matching Uncovers non-obvious relationships and association networks (i.e. who's associated with whom) In contrast to data quality products, more powerful identity resolution engines also include a rules engine and workflow process, which apply business intelligence to the resolved identities and their relationships. These advanced technologies make automated decisions and impact business processes in real time, limiting the need for human intervention. === Deterministic record linkage === The simplest kind of record linkage, called deterministic or rules-based record linkage, generates links based on the number of individual identifiers that match among the available data sets. Two records are said to match via a deterministic record linkage procedure if all or some identifiers (above a certain threshold) are identical. Deterministic record linkage is a good option when the entities in the data sets are identified by a common identifier, or when there are several representative identifiers (e.g., name, date of birth, and sex when identifying a person) whose quality of data is relatively high. As an example, consider two standardized data sets, Set A and Set B, that contain different bits of information about patients in a hospital system. T

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge organization system

  Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system, or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization (KO) for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations. Despite their differences in type, coverage, and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. KOS vary in complexity from simple sorted lists to complex relational networks. They represent both structural and functional features, and serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish relationships, and present properties. From their origins in library and information science (LIS), KOS have been applied to other domains and disciplines within science and industry, although scholarly research and debate remain primarily within the KO field. Challenges of KOS include ambiguity of terminology, repercussions of biased systems, and potential obsolescence. KOS can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web. One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry. == Types == While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance. Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen. The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice. === Term lists === Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings. Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists, however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models". Examples include the Union List of Artist Names name authority file and the GeoNames gazetteer. === Categorization and classification === KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema & systems. Despite inconsistent use of the terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature, categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes. Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification). === Relationship models === The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri, semantic networks, and ontologies. One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet. === Others === Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies, topic maps, web directory structures, publication organization systems, and bibliometric maps. Some KOS organize other KOS themselves—for instance, PeriodO is a gazetteer of periodization categories. == Applications == Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers. With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible, and more complex structures were developed. Prominent examples of KOS outside of LIS include organism taxonomy in biology, the periodic table of elements in chemistry, SIC and NAICS classification systems for industry & business, and AGROVOC agricultural controlled vocabulary. == Challenges == The study and design of KOS is an ongoing topic of discussion among KO scholars. === Terminology === [There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary. Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue. For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably. === Bias === As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes. For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have been raised, contributing to ongoing revisions. Ethical and intentional design approaches have been proposed for multi-perspective KOS in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices. === Obsolescence === The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science. Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services, as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.

  Read more →