AI Content Used In Pragmata

AI Content Used In Pragmata — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Microsoft Teams

  Microsoft Teams is a team collaboration platform developed by Microsoft as part of the Microsoft 365 suite. It offers features such as workspace chat, video conferencing, file storage, and integration with both Microsoft and third-party applications and services. Teams gradually replaced earlier Microsoft messaging and collaboration platforms, including Skype for Business, Skype, Flip, and Microsoft Classroom. The platform saw significant growth during the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside competitors such as Zoom, Slack, and Google Meet, as organizations shifted to remote work and virtual meetings. As of January 2023, Microsoft reported approximately 280 million monthly active users. == History == On August 29, 2007, Microsoft acquired Parlano, the developer of the persistent group chat tool MindAlign. Years later, on March 4, 2016, Microsoft considered acquiring Slack for $8 billion. However, the proposal was reportedly opposed by Bill Gates, who advocated for focusing on enhancing Skype for Business instead. Lu Qi, then executive vice president of Applications and Services, had led the initiative to pursue the Slack acquisition. Following Lu's departure later that year, Microsoft announced Microsoft Teams on November 2, 2016, at an event in New York City, positioning it as a direct competitor to Slack. Teams launched worldwide on March 14, 2017. The service was initially led by corporate vice president Brian MacDonald. In response to the launch, Slack published a full-page advertisement in The New York Times welcoming the competition and outlining its product philosophy. Although Slack was used by 28 companies in the Fortune 100, The Verge wrote that executives would question paying for the service if Teams provides a similar function in their company's existing Office 365 subscription. However, ZDNET noted that the platforms initially served different markets, as Teams did not support external users, making it less appealing to small businesses and freelancers, a limitation Microsoft later addressed. In response to Teams' announcement, Slack deepened in-product integration with Google services. In May 2017, Microsoft announced that Teams would replace Microsoft Classroom in Office 365 Education. A free version of Teams was released on July 12, 2018, offering most core features at no cost, albeit with limits on users and storage. In January 2019, Microsoft introduced updates targeting "Firstline Workers" to improve Teams’ performance across shared or limited-access devices. In September 2019, Microsoft announced the retirement of Skype for Business in favor of Teams, which took effect on July 31, 2021. In early 2020, Microsoft introduced a push-to-talk "Walkie Talkie" feature aimed at firstline workers using smartphones and tablets over Wi-Fi or cellular networks. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly boosted usage of Teams. On March 19, 2020, Microsoft reported 44 million daily active users. In April, the platform logged 4.1 billion meeting minutes in a single day. A public preview of Microsoft Teams for Linux was released in December 2019, but the Linux client was discontinued in 2022. In July 2020, Microsoft shut down its video game livestreaming platform Mixer, and announced that some of its technologies would be repurposed for use in Teams. On February 28, 2025, Microsoft announced that Skype would be fully retired on May 5, 2025, with users given options to export their data or transition to Microsoft Teams. In October 2025, together with other Microsoft 365 suite apps, Teams had its logo updated. == Usage == == Underlying software == Microsoft Teams, as part of the Microsoft 365 suite, utilizes SharePoint and Exchange Online. Each Team, Shared Channel, and Private Channel has its own Microsoft 365 Group and SharePoint Site used for file storage. Messages are stored in Cosmos DB and are journaled to Exchange Online mailboxes. Private messages, including messages in Private Channels, are journaled to the sender and recipients' mailboxes. Public Channel messages are journaled to their corresponding Team's group mailbox, whereas, messages from Shared Channels are journaled to their own mailboxes. Contacts and voicemail are stored in Exchange Online. Microsoft Teams client is a web-based desktop app, originally developed on top of the Electron framework which combines the Chromium rendering engine and the Node.js JavaScript platform. Version 2.0 client was rebuilt using the Evergreen version of Microsoft Edge WebView2 in place of Electron. == Features == === Chats === Teams allows users to communicate in two-way persistent chats with one or multiple participants. Participants can message using text, emojis, stickers and gifs, as well as sharing links and files. In August 2022, the chat feature was updated for "chat with yourself"; allowing for the organization of files, notes, comments, images, and videos within a private chat tab. === Teams === Teams allows communities, groups, or teams to contribute in a shared workspace where messages and digital content on a specific topic are shared. Team members can join through an invitation sent by a team administrator or owner or sharing of a specific URL. Teams for Education allows admins and teachers to set up groups for classes, professional learning communities (PLCs), staff members, and everyone. === Channels === Channels allow team members to communicate without the use of email or group SMS (texting). Users can reply to posts with text, images, GIFs, and image macros. Direct messages send private messages to designated users rather than the entire channel. Connectors can be used within a channel to submit information contacted through a third-party service. Connectors include Mailchimp, Facebook Pages, Twitter, Power BI and Bing News. === Group conversations === Ad-hoc groups can be created to share instant messaging, audio calls (VoIP), and video calls inside the client software. === Telephone replacement === A feature on one of the higher cost licencing tiers allows connectivity to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) telephone system. This allows users to use Teams as if it were a telephone, making and receiving calls over the PSTN, including the ability to host "conference calls" with multiple participants. === Meeting === Meetings can be scheduled with multiple participants able to share audio, video, chat and presented content with all participants. Multiple users can connect via a meeting link. Automated minutes are possible using the recording and transcript features. Teams has a plugin for Microsoft Outlook to schedule a Teams Meeting in Outlook for a specific date and time and invite others to attend. If a meeting is scheduled within a channel, users visiting the channel are able to see if a meeting is in progress. ==== Teams Live Events ==== Teams Live Events replaces Skype Meeting Broadcast for users to broadcast to 10,000 participants on Teams, Yammer, or Microsoft Stream. ==== Breakout Rooms ==== Breakout rooms split a meeting into small groups. This is often utilized for collaboration during trainings or any environment where having all participants speak at once could be disruptive or unfeasible. Breakout rooms can be set by the hosts to a certain length of time, after which all participants will automatically rejoin the main meeting room. ==== Front Row ==== Front Row adjusts the layout of the viewer's screen, placing the speaker or content in the center of the gallery with other meeting participant's video feeds reduced in size and located below the speaker. === Education === Microsoft Teams for Education allows teachers to distribute, provide feedback, and grade student assignments turned in via Teams using the Assignments tab through Office 365 for Education subscribers. Quizzes can also be assigned to students through an integration with Office Forms. === Protocols === Microsoft Teams is based on a number of Microsoft-specific protocols. Video conferences are realized over the protocol MNP24, known from the Skype consumer version. VoIP and video conference clients based on SIP and H.323 need special gateways to connect to Microsoft Teams servers. With the help of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE), clients behind Network address translation routers and restrictive firewalls are also able to connect, if peer-to-peer is not possible. === Integrations === Microsoft Teams has integrations through Microsoft AppSource, its integration marketplace. In 2020, Microsoft partnered with KUDO, a cloud-based solution with language interpretation, to allow integrated language meeting controls. In June 2022, an update was released using AI to improve call audio through the elimination of background feedback loops and cancelling non-vocal audio. == Anti-trust controversy == In July 2023, the European Commission opened an anti-trust investigation into the possibility that Microsoft unfairly used its office suite market power to increase sales of Teams and hurt

  Read more →
• 

  OpenWSN

  OpenWSN aims to build an open standard-based and open source implementation of a complete constrained network protocol stack for wireless sensor networks and Internet of Things. The project was created at the University of California Berkeley and extended at the INRIA and at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC). The root of OpenWSN is a deterministic MAC layer implementing the IEEE 802.15.4e TSCH based on the concept of Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH). Above the MAC layer, the Low Power Lossy Network stack is based on IETF standards including the IETF 6TiSCH management and adaptation layer (a minimal configuration profile, 6top protocol and different scheduling functions). The stack is complemented by an implementation of 6LoWPAN, RPL in non-storing mode, UDP and CoAP, enabling access to devices running the stack from the native IPv6 through open standards. OpenWSN is related to other projects including the following: RIOT OpenMote OpenWSN is available for Linux, Windows and OS X platforms. Current release of OpenWSN is 1.14.0.

  Read more →
• 

  Energy informatics

  Energy informatics is a research field covering the use of information and communication technology to address energy utilization and management challenges. Methods used for "smart" implementations often combine IoT sensors with artificial intelligence and machine learning. Energy Informatics is founded on flow networks that are the major suppliers and consumers of energy. Their efficiency can be improved by collecting and analyzing information. == Application areas == The field among other consider application areas within: Smart Buildings by developing ICT-centred solutions for improving the energy-efficiency of buildings. Smart Cities by investigating the synergies between demand patterns and supply availability of energy flows in cities and communities to improve energy efficiency, increase integration of renewable sources, and provide resilience towards system faults caused by extreme situations, like hurricanes and flooding. Smart Industries including the development of ICT-centred solutions for improving the energy efficiency and predictability of energy intensive industrial processes, without compromising process and product quality. Smart Energy Networks by developing ICT-centred solutions for coordinating the supply and demand in environmentally sustainable energy networks.

  Read more →
• 

  Upper ontology

  In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e

  Read more →
• 

  Nona-binning

  Nona-binning is a pixel binning technique used in high-resolution image sensors, primarily in smartphone cameras. The method is based on merging groups of nine neighbouring pixels arranged in a 3×3 pattern. This configuration allows a sensor with very small individual pixels to increase its effective light sensitivity when operating in low-light conditions, while still maintaining high nominal resolution in bright environments. == Overview == Nona-binning is most commonly implemented in sensors with a resolution of 108 megapixels and higher. As pixel counts grew, the physical dimensions of individual pixels continued to shrink, reducing the amount of light captured by each. The 3×3 binning structure enables a sensor to operate in two modes. In well-lit scenes, each pixel is processed separately, providing the full resolution of the sensor. In darker settings, nine pixels with identical colour filters are combined into a single output unit, increasing signal strength and reducing noise. == Technical principles == Unlike the traditional Bayer colour filter array, which alternates colours on a per-pixel basis, nona-binning uses a grouped layout. The sensor forms blocks of nine pixels with matching colour filters — typically within a Quad Bayer–derived arrangement extended to 3×3 regions. When operating in the binning mode, the sensor aggregates the charge generated by all nine pixels in each block. This increases effective sensitivity but lowers the final image resolution. When lighting conditions allow, the sensor returns to processing pixel data individually. == Applications == Nona-binning is primarily used in: Smartphone photography, particularly in devices equipped with sensors exceeding 100 megapixels. Low-light imaging, where increased sensitivity improves exposure stability and reduces noise. Computational photography systems, such as multi-frame processing and HDR capture. == Related technologies == Nona-binning belongs to the broader group of pixel-binning approaches used in modern sensors. Other implementations include Tetracell, which merges four pixels in a 2×2 block, and hexa-binning, which combines six pixels, though it is less common. All of these methods aim to balance the high nominal resolution of mobile sensors with the need for improved low-light performance.

  Read more →
• 

  Secure Electronic Delivery

  Secure Electronic Delivery (SED) is a service created in 2003 and provided by the British Library Document Supply Service (BLDSS). Its purpose is to enable faster delivery of digital materials as encrypted, copyright-compliant PDF Documents, to a personal e-mail address. These documents are supplied from the British Library via its On Demand service. When the British Library supplies articles electronically, it sends them securely in order to ensure its usage is permitted (research purposes) and copyright law is observed. == Methods == As the publishing industry, authors and creators become highly protective of their assets and intellectual property, they impose strict rules on delivery methods to prevent copyright infringement. Nowadays, DRM-enabled secure delivery appears to be the most widely used solution to address issues faced by libraries in supplying ebooks and digital materials to their users. SED, one of these solutions, is using Adobe LiveCycle Digital Rights Management (LCDRM) as an encryption method to deliver documents. == Advantages == SED offers convenience, quality and speed as documents are delivered upon request at any location and on any device. Requested articles are scanned for high quality reproduction, opened anywhere on any machine, including mobile devices. == Restrictions == The following are restrictions hold in a SED service implementation: The digital material is accessible only for 14 days via a link sent to a personal message. Due to copyright reasons, the material can be opened only once, saved for 14 days and does not allow a copy-paste action. Upon display, the material must be printed from the same device and reprinted only once. The On Demand encryption technology works best on the default Safari browser although other browsers may accommodate it.

  Read more →
• 

  HAKMEM

  HAKMEM, alternatively known as AI Memo 239, is a February 1972 "memo" (technical report) of the MIT AI Lab containing a wide variety of hacks, including useful and clever algorithms for mathematical computation, some number theory and schematic diagrams for hardware – in Guy L. Steele's words, "a bizarre and eclectic potpourri of technical trivia". Contributors included about two dozen members and associates of the AI Lab. The title of the report is short for "hacks memo", abbreviated to six upper case characters that would fit in a single PDP-10 machine word (using a six-bit character set). == History == HAKMEM is notable as an early compendium of algorithmic technique, particularly for its practical bent, and as an illustration of the wide-ranging interests of AI Lab people of the time, which included almost anything other than AI research. HAKMEM contains original work in some fields, notably continued fractions. == Introduction == Compiled with the hope that a record of the random things people do around here can save some duplication of effort -- except for fun. Here is some little known data which may be of interest to computer hackers. The items and examples are so sketchy that to decipher them may require more sincerity and curiosity than a non-hacker can muster. Doubtless, little of this is new, but nowadays it's hard to tell. So we must be content to give you an insight, or save you some cycles, and to welcome further contributions of items, new or used.

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology merging

  Ontology merging defines the act of bringing together two conceptually divergent ontologies or the instance data associated to two ontologies. This is similar to work in database merging (schema matching). This merging process can be performed in a number of ways, manually, semi automatically, or automatically. Manual ontology merging although ideal is extremely labour-intensive and current research attempts to find semi or entirely automated techniques to merge ontologies. These techniques are statistically driven often taking into account similarity of concepts and raw similarity of instances through textual string metrics and semantic knowledge. These techniques are similar to those used in information integration employing string metrics from open source similarity libraries.

  Read more →
• 

  Autonomous agent

  An autonomous agent is an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can perform complex tasks independently. == Definitions == There are various definitions of autonomous agent. According to Brustoloni (1991): "Autonomous agents are systems capable of autonomous, purposeful action in the real world." According to Maes (1995): "Autonomous agents are computational systems that inhabit some complex dynamic environment, sense and act autonomously in this environment, and by doing so realize a set of goals or tasks for which they are designed." Franklin and Graesser (1997) review different definitions and propose their definition: "An autonomous agent is a system situated within and a part of an environment that senses that environment and acts on it, over time, in pursuit of its own agenda and so as to effect what it senses in the future." They explain that: "Humans and some animals are at the high end of being an agent, with multiple, conflicting drives, multiples senses, multiple possible actions, and complex sophisticated control structures. At the low end, with one or two senses, a single action, and an absurdly simple control structure we find a thermostat." == Agent appearance == Lee et al. (2015) post safety issue from how the combination of external appearance and internal autonomous agent have impact on human reaction about autonomous vehicles. Their study explores the human-like appearance agent and high level of autonomy are strongly correlated with social presence, intelligence, safety and trustworthiness. In specific, appearance impacts most on affective trust while autonomy impacts most on both affective and cognitive domain of trust where cognitive trust is characterized by knowledge-based factors and affective trust is largely emotion driven. == Applications == Agentic AI systems: Advanced AI agents that can scope out projects and complete them with necessary tools, representing a significant evolution from simple task-oriented systems. Internet of things (IoT) Integration: Autonomous agents increasingly interact with IoT devices, enabling smart home systems, industrial monitoring, and urban infrastructure management. Collaborative software development: Tools like Cognition AI's Devin aim to create autonomous software engineers capable of complex reasoning, planning, and completing engineering tasks requiring thousands of decisions. Enterprise automation: Business process automation platforms like Salesforce's Agentforce provide autonomous bots for various service functions. == Challenges and considerations == Uncertainty and incomplete information: Autonomous agents must make decisions with limited or uncertain information about their environment and future states. Integration complexity: Incorporating autonomous agents into existing systems and workflows can be technically challenging and resource-intensive. Scalability: As systems become more complex and more agents are used, maintaining coordination and avoiding conflicts becomes increasingly difficult. Trust: Research has shown the combination of external appearance and internal autonomous capabilities significantly impacts human reactions and trust. Lee et al. (2015) found that human-like appearance and high levels of autonomy are strongly correlated with social presence, intelligence, safety, and trustworthiness perceptions. Specifically, appearance impacts affective trust most significantly, while autonomy affects both affective and cognitive trust domains, where affective trust is emotionally driven, and cognitive trust is characterized by knowledge-based factors. Vulnerability to manipulation: Researchers from Harvard, MIT and other educational institutions found that AI agents could become vulnerable to manipulation and could perform detrimental actions in the process of being helpful. == Ethical and regulatory concerns == Accountability: Determining responsibility when autonomous agents make incorrect or harmful decisions remains a complex issue. Privacy and security: autonomous agents often require access to sensitive data, raising concerns about data protection and system security.

  Read more →
• 

  Timeline of algorithms

  The following timeline of algorithms outlines the development of algorithms (mainly "mathematical recipes") since their inception. == Antiquity == Before – writing about "recipes" (on cooking, rituals, agriculture and other themes) c. 1700–2000 BC – Egyptians develop earliest known algorithms for multiplying two numbers c. 1600 BC – Babylonians develop earliest known algorithms for factorization and finding square roots c. 300 BC – Euclid's algorithm c. 200 BC – the Sieve of Eratosthenes 263 AD – Gaussian elimination described by Liu Hui == Medieval Period == 628 – Chakravala method described by Brahmagupta c. 820 – Al-Khawarizmi described algorithms for solving linear equations and quadratic equations in his Algebra; the word algorithm comes from his name 825 – Al-Khawarizmi described the algorism, algorithms for using the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, in his treatise On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, which was translated into Latin as Algoritmi de numero Indorum, where "Algoritmi", the translator's rendition of the author's name gave rise to the word algorithm (Latin algorithmus) with a meaning "calculation method" c. 850 – cryptanalysis and frequency analysis algorithms developed by Al-Kindi (Alkindus) in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages, which contains algorithms on breaking encryptions and ciphers c. 1025 – Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, and in turn, he develops an algorithm for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers c. 1400 – Ahmad al-Qalqashandi gives a list of ciphers in his Subh al-a'sha which include both substitution and transposition, and for the first time, a cipher with multiple substitutions for each plaintext letter; he also gives an exposition on and worked example of cryptanalysis, including the use of tables of letter frequencies and sets of letters which can not occur together in one word == Before 1940 == 1540 – Lodovico Ferrari discovered a method to find the roots of a quartic polynomial 1545 – Gerolamo Cardano published Cardano's method for finding the roots of a cubic polynomial 1614 – John Napier develops method for performing calculations using logarithms 1671 – Newton–Raphson method developed by Isaac Newton 1690 – Newton–Raphson method independently developed by Joseph Raphson 1706 – John Machin develops a quickly converging inverse-tangent series for π and computes π to 100 decimal places 1768 – Leonhard Euler publishes his method for numerical integration of ordinary differential equations in problem 85 of Institutiones calculi integralis 1789 – Jurij Vega improves Machin's formula and computes π to 140 decimal places, 1805 – FFT-like algorithm known by Carl Friedrich Gauss 1842 – Ada Lovelace writes the first algorithm for a computing engine 1903 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm presented by Carle David Tolmé Runge 1918 - Soundex 1926 – Borůvka's algorithm 1926 – Primary decomposition algorithm presented by Grete Hermann 1927 – Hartree–Fock method developed for simulating a quantum many-body system in a stationary state. 1934 – Delaunay triangulation developed by Boris Delaunay 1936 – Turing machine, an abstract machine developed by Alan Turing, with others developed the modern notion of algorithm. == 1940s == 1942 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm developed by G.C. Danielson and Cornelius Lanczos 1945 – Merge sort developed by John von Neumann 1947 – Simplex algorithm developed by George Dantzig == 1950s == 1950 – Hamming codes developed by Richard Hamming 1952 – Huffman coding developed by David A. Huffman 1953 – Simulated annealing introduced by Nicholas Metropolis 1954 – Radix sort computer algorithm developed by Harold H. Seward 1964 – Box–Muller transform for fast generation of normally distributed numbers published by George Edward Pelham Box and Mervin Edgar Muller. Independently pre-discovered by Raymond E. A. C. Paley and Norbert Wiener in 1934. 1956 – Kruskal's algorithm developed by Joseph Kruskal 1956 – Ford–Fulkerson algorithm developed and published by R. Ford Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson 1957 – Prim's algorithm developed by Robert Prim 1957 – Bellman–Ford algorithm developed by Richard E. Bellman and L. R. Ford, Jr. 1959 – Dijkstra's algorithm developed by Edsger Dijkstra 1959 – Shell sort developed by Donald L. Shell 1959 – De Casteljau's algorithm developed by Paul de Casteljau 1959 – QR factorization algorithm developed independently by John G.F. Francis and Vera Kublanovskaya 1959 – Rabin–Scott powerset construction for converting NFA into DFA published by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott == 1960s == 1960 – Karatsuba multiplication 1961 – CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) invented by W. Wesley Peterson 1962 – AVL trees 1962 – Quicksort developed by C. A. R. Hoare 1962 – Bresenham's line algorithm developed by Jack E. Bresenham 1962 – Gale–Shapley 'stable-marriage' algorithm developed by David Gale and Lloyd Shapley 1964 – Heapsort developed by J. W. J. Williams 1964 – multigrid methods first proposed by R. P. Fedorenko 1965 – Cooley–Tukey algorithm rediscovered by James Cooley and John Tukey 1965 – Levenshtein distance developed by Vladimir Levenshtein 1965 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Tadao Kasami 1965 – Buchberger's algorithm for computing Gröbner bases developed by Bruno Buchberger 1965 – LR parsers invented by Donald Knuth 1966 – Dantzig algorithm for shortest path in a graph with negative edges 1967 – Viterbi algorithm proposed by Andrew Viterbi 1967 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Daniel H. Younger 1968 – A graph search algorithm described by Peter Hart, Nils Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael 1968 – Risch algorithm for indefinite integration developed by Robert Henry Risch 1969 – Strassen algorithm for matrix multiplication developed by Volker Strassen == 1970s == 1970 – Dinic's algorithm for computing maximum flow in a flow network by Yefim (Chaim) A. Dinitz 1970 – Knuth–Bendix completion algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Peter B. Bendix 1970 – BFGS method of the quasi-Newton class 1970 – Needleman–Wunsch algorithm published by Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch 1972 – Edmonds–Karp algorithm published by Jack Edmonds and Richard Karp, essentially identical to Dinic's algorithm from 1970 1972 – Graham scan developed by Ronald Graham 1972 – Red–black trees and B-trees discovered 1973 – RSA encryption algorithm discovered by Clifford Cocks 1973 – Jarvis march algorithm developed by R. A. Jarvis 1973 – Hopcroft–Karp algorithm developed by John Hopcroft and Richard Karp 1974 – Pollard's p − 1 algorithm developed by John Pollard 1974 – Quadtree developed by Raphael Finkel and J.L. Bentley 1975 – Genetic algorithms popularized by John Holland 1975 – Pollard's rho algorithm developed by John Pollard 1975 – Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm developed by Alfred V. Aho and Margaret J. Corasick 1975 – Cylindrical algebraic decomposition developed by George E. Collins 1976 – Salamin–Brent algorithm independently discovered by Eugene Salamin and Richard Brent 1976 – Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Vaughan Pratt and independently by J. H. Morris 1977 – Boyer–Moore string-search algorithm for searching the occurrence of a string into another string. 1977 – RSA encryption algorithm rediscovered by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman 1977 – LZ77 algorithm developed by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1977 – multigrid methods developed independently by Achi Brandt and Wolfgang Hackbusch 1978 – LZ78 algorithm developed from LZ77 by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1978 – Bruun's algorithm proposed for powers of two by Georg Bruun 1979 – Khachiyan's ellipsoid method developed by Leonid Khachiyan 1979 – ID3 decision tree algorithm developed by Ross Quinlan == 1980s == 1980 – Brent's Algorithm for cycle detection Richard P. Brendt 1981 – Quadratic sieve developed by Carl Pomerance 1981 – Smith–Waterman algorithm developed by Temple F. Smith and Michael S. Waterman 1983 – Simulated annealing developed by S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt and M. P. Vecchi 1983 – Classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm developed by Leo Breiman, et al. 1984 – LZW algorithm developed from LZ78 by Terry Welch 1984 – Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm developed by Narendra Karmarkar 1984 – ACORN PRNG discovered by Roy Wikramaratna and used privately 1985 – Simulated annealing independently developed by V. Cerny 1985 – Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics developed by Roberto Car and Michele Parrinello 1985 – Splay trees discovered by Sleator and Tarjan 1986 – Blum Blum Shub proposed by L. Blum, M. Blum, and M. Shub 1986 – Push relabel maximum flow algorithm by Andrew Goldberg and Robert Tarjan 1986 – Barnes–Hut tree method developed by Josh Barnes and Piet Hut for fast approximate simulation of n-body problems 1987 – Fast multipole method developed by Leslie Greengard and Vladimir

  Read more →
• 

  List of information schools

  This list of information schools, sometimes abbreviated to iSchools, includes members of the iSchools organization. The iSchools organization reflects a consortium of over 130 information schools across the globe. == History == The first iSchools Caucus was formed in 1988 by Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Drexel and was called the Gang of Three (sometimes gang of four with Rutgers). Syracuse renamed the School of Library Science as the School of Information Studies in 1974, and is considered as the first “iSchool” in history. The group was formally named "the iSchools Caucus" or more casually, the iCaucus. By 2003, the group expanded to include the Universities of Michigan, Washington, Illinois, UNC, Florida State, Indiana, and Texas, and was called the Gang of Ten. The current iSchools Caucus organization was formalized by 2005, with additions of UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Toronto, Carnegie Mellon and Singapore Management University. == iSchools organization == The iSchools promote an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the opportunities and challenges of information management, with a core commitment to concepts like universal access and user-centered organization of information. The field is concerned broadly with questions of design and preservation across information spaces, from digital and virtual spaces such as online communities, social networking, the World Wide Web, and databases to physical spaces such as libraries, museums, collections, and other repositories. "School of Information", "Department of Information Studies", or "Information Department" are often the names of the participating organizations. Degree programs at iSchools include course offerings in areas such as information architecture, design, policy, and economics; knowledge management, user experience design, and usability; preservation and conservation; librarianship and library administration; the sociology of information; and human-computer interaction and computer science. === Leadership === The executive committee of the iSchools is made up of the current chair (Ina Fourie, University of Pretoria, South Africa), past chair (Gillian Oliver, Monash University, Australia) and the chair elect (Javed Mostafa, University of Toronto Canada), plus representatives from the three regions (North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific). The current executive director is Slava Sterzer. == Member institutions == Between 2010 and 2026, the organization expanded globally beyond North America, growing to 133 member schools as of March 2026. For an updated and complete list of member schools, please visit the member database of the iSchools. == iConferences == Members of the iSchools organize a regular academic conference, known as the iConference, hosted by a different member institution each year. September 2005: Pennsylvania State University October 2006: University of Michigan February 2008: University of California, Los Angeles February 2009: University of North Carolina February 2010: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign February 2011: University of Washington, Seattle February 2012: University of Toronto February 2013: University of North Texas March 2014: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin March 2015: University of California, Irvine March 2016: Drexel University March 2017: Wuhan University March 2018: University of Sheffield and Northumbria University March 2019: University of Maryland March 2020: University of Borås (virtual only) March 2021: Renmin University of China (virtual only) February/March 2022: University of Texas at Austin, University College Dublin & Kyushu University (virtual only) March 2023: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya March 2024: Jilin University March 2025: Indiana University March/April 2026: Edinburgh Napier University 2027: Victoria University of Wellington == Other schools of information == Other information schools and programs include: Documentation Research and Training Centre, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore San Jose State University, School of Information University of Southern California Library Science Degree Ankara University, Department of Information and Records Management, Ankara/Turkey Marmara University, Department of Information and Records Management, Istanbul/Turkey University of Kelaniya, Department of Library and Information Science, Kelaniya/Sri Lanka University of Colombo, National Institute of Library and Information Science (NILIS), Colombo/Sri Lanka Chicago State University, Department of Information Studies

  Read more →
• 

  Pointer jumping

  Pointer jumping or path doubling is a design technique for parallel algorithms that operate on pointer structures, such as linked lists and directed graphs. Pointer jumping allows an algorithm to follow paths with a time complexity that is logarithmic with respect to the length of the longest path. It does this by "jumping" to the end of the path computed by neighbors. The basic operation of pointer jumping is to replace each neighbor in a pointer structure with its neighbor's neighbor. In each step of the algorithm, this replacement is done for all nodes in the data structure, which can be done independently in parallel. In the next step when a neighbor's neighbor is followed, the neighbor's path already followed in the previous step is added to the node's followed path in a single step. Thus, each step effectively doubles the distance traversed by the explored paths. Pointer jumping is best understood by looking at simple examples such as list ranking and root finding. == List ranking == One of the simpler tasks that can be solved by a pointer jumping algorithm is the list ranking problem. This problem is defined as follows: given a linked list of N nodes, find the distance (measured in the number of nodes) of each node to the end of the list. The distance d(n) is defined as follows, for nodes n that point to their successor by a pointer called next: If n.next is nil, then d(n) = 0. For any other node, d(n) = d(n.next) + 1. This problem can easily be solved in linear time on a sequential machine, but a parallel algorithm can do better: given n processors, the problem can be solved in logarithmic time, O(log N), by the following pointer jumping algorithm: The pointer jumping occurs in the last line of the algorithm, where each node's next pointer is reset to skip the node's direct successor. It is assumed, as in common in the PRAM model of computation, that memory access are performed in lock-step, so that each n.next.next memory fetch is performed before each n.next memory store; otherwise, processors may clobber each other's data, producing inconsistencies. The following diagram follows how the parallel list ranking algorithm uses pointer jumping for a linked list with 11 elements. As the algorithm describes, the first iteration starts initialized with all ranks set to 1 except those with a null pointer for next. The first iteration looks at immediate neighbors. Each subsequent iteration jumps twice as far as the previous. Analyzing the algorithm yields a logarithmic running time. The initialization loop takes constant time, because each of the N processors performs a constant amount of work, all in parallel. The inner loop of the main loop also takes constant time, as does (by assumption) the termination check for the loop, so the running time is determined by how often this inner loop is executed. Since the pointer jumping in each iteration splits the list into two parts, one consisting of the "odd" elements and one of the "even" elements, the length of the list pointed to by each processor's n is halved in each iteration, which can be done at most O(log N) time before each list has a length of at most one. == Root finding == Following a path in a graph is an inherently serial operation, but pointer jumping reduces the total amount of work by following all paths simultaneously and sharing results among dependent operations. Pointer jumping iterates and finds a successor — a vertex closer to the tree root — each time. By following successors computed for other vertices, the traversal down each path can be doubled every iteration, which means that the tree roots can be found in logarithmic time. Pointer doubling operates on an array successor with an entry for every vertex in the graph. Each successor[i] is initialized with the parent index of vertex i if that vertex is not a root or to i itself if that vertex is a root. At each iteration, each successor is updated to its successor's successor. The root is found when the successor's successor points to itself. The following pseudocode demonstrates the algorithm. algorithm Input: An array parent representing a forest of trees. parent[i] is the parent of vertex i or itself for a root Output: An array containing the root ancestor for every vertex for i ← 1 to length(parent) do in parallel successor[i] ← parent[i] while true for i ← 1 to length(successor) do in parallel successor_next[i] ← successor[successor[i]] if successor_next = successor then break for i ← 1 to length(successor) do in parallel successor[i] ← successor_next[i] return successor The following image provides an example of using pointer jumping on a small forest. On each iteration the successor points to the vertex following one more successor. After two iterations, every vertex points to its root node. == History and examples == Although the name pointer jumping would come later, JáJá attributes the first uses of the technique in early parallel graph algorithms and list ranking. The technique has been described with other names such as shortcutting, but by the 1990s textbooks on parallel algorithms consistently used the term pointer jumping. Today, pointer jumping is considered a software design pattern for operating on recursive data types in parallel. As a technique for following linked paths, graph algorithms are a natural fit for pointer jumping. Consequently, several parallel graph algorithms utilizing pointer jumping have been designed. These include algorithms for finding the roots of a forest of rooted trees, connected components, minimum spanning trees, and biconnected components. However, pointer jumping has also shown to be useful in a variety of other problems including computer vision, image compression, and Bayesian inference.

  Read more →
• 

  PerfKitBenchmarker

  PerfKit Benchmarker is an open source benchmarking tool used to measure and compare cloud offerings. PerfKit Benchmarker is licensed under the Apache 2 license terms. PerfKit Benchmarker is a community effort involving over 500 participants including researchers, academic institutions and companies together with the originator, Google. == General == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) is a community effort to deliver a repeatable, consistent, and open way of measuring Cloud Performance. It supports a growing list of cloud providers including: Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, CloudStack, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud Platform, Kubernetes, Microsoft Azure, OpenStack, Rackspace, IBM Bluemix (Softlayer). In addition to Cloud Providers to supports container orchestration including Kubernetes [1] and Mesos [2] and local "static" workstations and clusters of computers [3]. The goal is to create an open source living benchmark [framework] that represents how Cloud developers are building applications, evaluating Cloud alternatives, learning how to architect applications for each cloud. Living because it will change and morph quickly as developers change. PerfKit Benchmarker measures the end to end time to provision resources in the cloud, in addition to reporting on the most standard metrics of peak performance, e.g.: latency, throughput, time-to-complete, IOPS. PerfKit Benchmarker reduces the complexity in running benchmarks on supported cloud providers by unified and simple commands. It's designed to operate via vendor provided command line tools. PerfKit Benchmarker contains a canonical set of public benchmarks. All benchmarks are running with default/initial state and configuration (Not tuned to in favor of any providers). This provides a way to benchmark across cloud platforms, while getting a transparent view of application throughput, latency, variance, and overhead. == History == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) was started by Anthony F. Voellm, Alain Hamel, and Eric Hankland at Google in 2014. Once an initial "alpha" was in place Anthony F. Voellm and Ivan Santa Maria Filho built a community including ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, CloudSpectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Rackspace, Red Hat, Tradeworx Inc., and Thesys Technologies LLC. This community worked together behind the scenes in a private GitHub project to create an open way to measure cloud performance. This community released the first public "beta" was released on February 11, 2015, and announced in a blog post at which point the GitHub project was open to everyone. After almost a year and with large adaption (600+ participants on GitHub) the V1.0.0 was released along with a detailed architectural design on December 10, 2015. == Benchmarks == A list of available benchmarks from PerfKitBenchmarker: (The latest set of benchmarks can be found at GitHub readme file.) == Industry participants == Since Google open sourced the PerfKitBenchmarker, it became a community effort from over 30 leading researchers, academic schools and industry companies. Those organizations include: ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, Cloud Spectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Rackspace, Red Hat, and Thesys Technologies. In addition, Stanford and MIT are leading quarterly discussions on default benchmarks and settings proposed by the community. EcoCloud@EPFL is integrating CloudSuite into PerfKit Benchmarker. == Example runs == On Google Cloud Platform On AWS On Azure On Rackspace On a local machine

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology alignment

  Ontology alignment, or ontology matching, is the process of determining correspondences between concepts in ontologies. A set of correspondences is also called an alignment. The phrase takes on a slightly different meaning, in computer science, cognitive science or philosophy. == Computer science == For computer scientists, concepts are expressed as labels for data. Historically, the need for ontology alignment arose out of the need to integrate heterogeneous databases, ones developed independently and thus each having their own data vocabulary. In the Semantic Web context involving many actors providing their own ontologies, ontology matching has taken a critical place for helping heterogeneous resources to interoperate. Ontology alignment tools find classes of data that are semantically equivalent, for example, "truck" and "lorry". The classes are not necessarily logically identical. According to Euzenat and Shvaiko (2007), there are three major dimensions for similarity: syntactic, external, and semantic. Coincidentally, they roughly correspond to the dimensions identified by Cognitive Scientists below. A number of tools and frameworks have been developed for aligning ontologies, some with inspiration from Cognitive Science and some independently. Ontology alignment tools have generally been developed to operate on database schemas, XML schemas, taxonomies, formal languages, entity-relationship models, dictionaries, and other label frameworks. They are usually converted to a graph representation before being matched. Since the emergence of the Semantic Web, such graphs can be represented in the Resource Description Framework line of languages by triples of the form , as illustrated in the Notation 3 syntax. In this context, aligning ontologies is sometimes referred to as "ontology matching". The problem of Ontology Alignment has been tackled recently by trying to compute matching first and mapping (based on the matching) in an automatic fashion. Systems like DSSim, X-SOM or COMA++ obtained at the moment very high precision and recall. The Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative aims to evaluate, compare and improve the different approaches. === Formal definition === Given two ontologies i = ⟨ C i , R i , I i , T i , V i ⟩ {\displaystyle i=\langle C_{i},R_{i},I_{i},T_{i},V_{i}\rangle } and j = ⟨ C j , R j , I j , T j , V j ⟩ {\displaystyle j=\langle C_{j},R_{j},I_{j},T_{j},V_{j}\rangle } where C {\displaystyle C} is the set of classes, R {\displaystyle R} is the set of relations, I {\displaystyle I} is the set of individuals, T {\displaystyle T} is the set of data types, and V {\displaystyle V} is the set of values, we can define different types of (inter-ontology) relationships. Such relationships will be called, all together, alignments and can be categorized among different dimensions: similarity vs logic: this is the difference between matchings (predicating about the similarity of ontology terms), and mappings (logical axioms, typically expressing logical equivalence or inclusion among ontology terms) atomic vs complex: whether the alignments we considered are one-to-one, or can involve more terms in a query-like formulation (e.g., LAV/GAV mapping) homogeneous vs heterogeneous: do the alignments predicate on terms of the same type (e.g., classes are related only to classes, individuals to individuals, etc.) or we allow heterogeneity in the relationship? type of alignment: the semantics associated to an alignment. It can be subsumption, equivalence, disjointness, part-of or any user-specified relationship. Subsumption, atomic, homogeneous alignments are the building blocks to obtain richer alignments, and have a well defined semantics in every Description Logic. Let's now introduce more formally ontology matching and mapping. An atomic homogeneous matching is an alignment that carries a similarity degree s ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle s\in [0,1]} , describing the similarity of two terms of the input ontologies i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Matching can be either computed, by means of heuristic algorithms, or inferred from other matchings. Formally we can say that, a matching is a quadruple m = ⟨ i d , t i , t j , s ⟩ {\displaystyle m=\langle id,t_{i},t_{j},s\rangle } , where t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} are homogeneous ontology terms, s {\displaystyle s} is the similarity degree of m {\displaystyle m} . A (subsumption, homogeneous, atomic) mapping is defined as a pair μ = ⟨ t i , t j ⟩ {\displaystyle \mu =\langle t_{i},t_{j}\rangle } , where t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} are homogeneous ontology terms. == Cognitive science == For cognitive scientists interested in ontology alignment, the "concepts" are nodes in a semantic network that reside in brains as "conceptual systems." The focal question is: if everyone has unique experiences and thus different semantic networks, then how can we ever understand each other? This question has been addressed by a model called ABSURDIST (Aligning Between Systems Using Relations Derived Inside Systems for Translation). Three major dimensions have been identified for similarity as equations for "internal similarity, external similarity, and mutual inhibition." == Ontology alignment methods == Two sub research fields have emerged in ontology mapping, namely monolingual ontology mapping and cross-lingual ontology mapping. The former refers to the mapping of ontologies in the same natural language, whereas the latter refers to "the process of establishing relationships among ontological resources from two or more independent ontologies where each ontology is labelled in a different natural language". Existing matching methods in monolingual ontology mapping are discussed in Euzenat and Shvaiko (2007). Approaches to cross-lingual ontology mapping are presented in Fu et al. (2011).

  Read more →
• 

  Subject (documents)

  In library and information science documents (such as books, articles and pictures) are classified and searched by subject – as well as by other attributes such as author, genre and document type. This makes "subject" a fundamental term in this field. Library and information specialists assign subject labels to documents to make them findable. There are many ways to do this and in general there is not always consensus about which subject should be assigned to a given document. To optimize subject indexing and searching, we need to have a deeper understanding of what a subject is. The question: "what is to be understood by the statement 'document A belongs to subject category X'?" has been debated in the field for more than 100 years (see below) == Theoretical view == === Charles Ammi Cutter (1837–1903) === For Cutter the stability of subjects depends on a social process in which their meaning is stabilized in a name or a designation. A subject "referred [...] to those intellections [...] that had received a name that itself represented a distinct consensus in usage" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 60) and: the "systematic structure of established subjects" is "resident in the public realm" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 69); "[s]ubjects are by their very nature locations in a classificatory structure of publicly accumulated knowledge (Miksa, 1983a, p. 61). Bernd Frohmann adds: "The stability of the public realm in turn relies upon natural and objective mental structures which, with proper education, govern a natural progression from particular to general concepts. Since for Cutter, mind, society, and SKO [Systems of Knowledge Organization] stand one behind the other, each supporting each, all manifesting the same structure, his discursive construction of subjects invites connections with discourses of mind, education, and society. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), by contrast, severs those connections. Melvil Dewey emphasized more than once that his system maps no structure beyond its own; there is neither a "transcendental deduction" of its categories nor any reference to Cutter's objective structure of social consensus. It is content-free: Dewey disdained any philosophical excogitation of the meaning of his class symbols, leaving the job of finding verbal equivalents to others. His innovation and the essence of the system lay in the notation. The DDC is a poorly semiotic system of expanding nests of ten digits, lacking any referent beyond itself. In it, a subject is wholly constituted in terms of its position in the system. The essential characteristic of a subject is a class symbol which refers only to other symbols. Its verbal equivalent is accidental, a merely pragmatic characteristic... .... The conflict of interpretations over "subjects" became explicit in the battles between "bibliography" (an approach to subjects having much in common with Cutter's) and Dewey's "close classification". William Fletcher spoke for the scholarly bibliographer.... Fletcher's "subjects", like Cutter's, referred to the categories of a fantasized, stable social order, whereas Dewey's subjects were elements of a semiological system of standardized, techno-bureaucratic administrative software for the library in its corporate, rather than high culture, incarnation". (Frohmann, 1994, 112–113). Cutter's early view on what a subject is, is probably wiser than most understandings that dominated the 20th century – and also the understanding reflected in the ISO-standard quoted below. The early statements quoted by Frohmann indicate that subjects are somehow shaped in social processes. When that is said, it should be added that they are not particularly detailed or clear. We only get a vague idea of the social nature of subjects. === S. R. Ranganathan (1892–1972) === A classification system with an explicit theoretical foundation is Ranganathan's Colon Classification. Ranganathan provided an explicit definition of the concept of "subject": Subject – an organized body of ideas, whose extension and intension are likely to fall coherently within the field of interests and comfortably within the intellectual competence and the field of inevitable specialization of a normal person. A related definition is given by one of Ranganathan's students: A subject is an organized and systematized body of ideas. It may consist of one idea or a combination of several... Ranganathan's definition of "subject" is strongly influenced by his Colon Classification system. The colon system is based on the combination of single elements from facets to subject designation. This is the reason why the combined nature of subjects are emphasized so strongly. It leads, however, to absurdities such as the claim that gold cannot be a subject (but is alternatively termed "an isolate"). This aspect of the theory has been criticized by Metcalfe (1973, p. 318). Metcalfe's skepticism regarding Ranganathan's theory is formulated in hard words (op. cit., p. 317): "This pseudo-science imposed itself on British disciples from about 1950 on...". It seems unacceptable that Ranganathan defines the word subject in a way that favors his own system. A scientific concept like "subject" should make it possible to compare different ways of establishing access to information. Whether or not subjects are combined or not should be examined once their definition has been given, it should not determined a priori, in the definition. Besides the emphasis on the combined, organizing and systematizing nature of subjects contains Ranganathan's definition of subject the pragmatic demand, that a subject should be determined in a way that suits a normal person's competency or specialization. Again we see a strange kind of wishful thinking mixing a general understanding of a concept with demands put by his own specific system. One thing is what the word subject means, quite another issue is how to provide subject descriptions that fulfill demands such as the specificity of a given information retrieval language which fulfill demands put on the system, such as precision and recall. If researchers too often define terms in ways that favor specific kinds of systems, that are such definitions not useful to provide more general theories about subjects, subject analysis and IR. Among other things are comparative studies of different kinds of systems made difficult. Based on these arguments, as well as additional arguments which have been used in the literature, we may conclude that Ranganathan's definition of the concept "subject" is not suited for scientific use. Like the definition of "subject" given by the ISO-standard for topic maps, may Ranganathan's definition be useful within his own closed system. The purpose of a scientific and scholarly field is, however, to examine the relative fruitfulness of systems such as topic maps and Colon Classification. For such purpose is another understanding of "subject" necessary. === Patrick Wilson (1927–2003) === In his book Wilson (1968) examined – in particular by thought experiments – the suitability of different methods of examining the subject of a document. The methods were: identifying the author's purpose for writing the document, weighing the relative dominance and subordination of different elements in the picture, which the reading imposes on the reader, grouping or count the document's use of concepts and references, construing a set of rules for selecting elements deemed necessary (as opposed to unnecessary) for the work as a whole. Patrick Wilson shows convincingly that each of these methods are insufficient to determine the subject of a document and is led to conclude ( p. 89): "The notion of the subject of a writing is indeterminate..." or, on p. 92 (about what users may expect to find using a particular position in a library classification system): "For nothing definite can be expected of the things found at any given position". In connection to the last quote has Wilson an interesting footnote in which he writes that authors of documents often use terms in ambiguous ways ("hostility" is used as an example). Even if the librarian could personally develop a very precise understanding of a concept, he would be unable to use it in his classification, because none of the documents use the term in the same precise way. Based on this argumentation is Wilson led to conclude: "If people write on what are for them ill-defined phenomena, a correct description of their subjects must reflect the ill-definedness". Wilson's concept of subject was discussed by Hjørland (1992) who found that it is problematic to give up the precise understanding of such a basic term in LIS. Wilson's arguments led him to an agnostic position which Hjørland found unacceptable and unnecessary. Concerning the authors' use of ambiguous terms, the role of the subject analysis is to determine which documents would be fruitful for users to identify whether or not the documents use one or another term or whether a given term i

  Read more →