AI Data Bias

AI Data Bias — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

AIX Toolbox for Linux Applications

The AIX Toolbox for Linux Applications is a collection of GNU tools for IBM AIX. These tools are available for installation using Red Hat's RPM format. == Licensing == Each of these packages includes its own licensing information and while IBM has made the code available to AIX users, the code is provided as is and has not been thoroughly tested. The Toolbox is meant to provide a core set of some of the most common development tools and libraries along with the more popular GNU packages.
Read more →
Algorithmic management

Algorithmic management is a term used to describe certain labor management practices in the contemporary digital economy. In scholarly uses, the term was initially coined in 2015 by Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish to describe the managerial role played by algorithms on the Uber and Lyft platforms, but has since been taken up by other scholars to describe more generally the managerial and organisational characteristics of platform economies. However, digital direction of labor was present in manufacturing already since the 1970s and algorithmic management is becoming increasingly widespread across a wide range of industries. The concept of algorithmic management can be broadly defined as the delegation of managerial functions to algorithmic and automated systems. Algorithmic management has been enabled by "recent advances in digital technologies" which allow for the real-time and "large-scale collection of data" which is then used to "improve learning algorithms that carry out learning and control functions traditionally performed by managers". The term does not refer to a specific underlying technology, and encompasses the design choices, organisational policies, and governance that surround the managerial use of algorithms in workplaces. In the contemporary workplace, firms employ an ecology of accounting devices, such as "rankings, lists, classifications, stars and other symbols' in order to effectively manage their operations and create value without the need for traditional forms of hierarchical control." Many of these devices fall under the label of what is called algorithmic management, and were first developed by companies operating in the sharing economy or gig economy, functioning as effective labor and cost cutting measures. The Data&Society explainer of the term, for example, describes algorithmic management as 'a diverse set of technological tools and techniques that structure the conditions of work and remotely manage workforces. Data&Society also provides a list of five typical features of algorithmic management: Prolific data collection and surveillance of workers through technology; Real-time responsiveness to data that informs management decisions; Automated or semi-automated decision-making; Transfer of performance evaluations to rating systems or other metrics; and The use of "nudges" and penalties to indirectly incentivize worker behaviors. Proponents of algorithmic management claim that it "creates new employment opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labour market that are characterised by inefficiency, opacity and capricious human bosses." On the other hand, critics of algorithmic management claim that the practice leads to several issues, especially as it impacts the employment status of workers managed by its new array of tools and techniques. == History of the term == "Algorithmic management" was first described by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, and Dabbish in 2015 in their study of the Uber and Lyft platforms. In their study, Lee et al. termed "software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice" algorithmic management. Software algorithms, it was said, are increasingly used to "allocate, optimize, and evaluate work" by platforms in managing their vast workforces. In Lee et al.'s paper on Uber and Lyft this included the use of algorithms to assign work to drivers, as mechanisms to optimise pricing for services, and as systems for evaluating driver performance. In 2016, Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark sought to extend on this understanding of algorithmic management "to elucidate on the automated implementation of company policies on the behaviours and practices of Uber drivers." Rosenblat and Stark found in their study that algorithmic management practices contributed to a system beset by power asymmetries, where drivers had little control over "critical aspects of their work", whereas Uber had far greater control over the labor of its drivers. Since this time, studies of algorithmic management have extended the use of the term to describe the management practices of various firms, where, for example, algorithms "are taking over scheduling work in fast food restaurants and grocery stores, using various forms of performance metrics ad even mood... to assign the fastest employees to work in peak times." Algorithmic management is seen to be especially prevalent in gig work on platforms, such as on Upwork and Deliveroo, and in the sharing economy, such as in the case of Airbnb. Furthermore, recent research has defined sub-constructs that fall under the umbrella term of algorithmic management, for example, "algorithmic nudging". A Harvard Business Review article published in 2021 explains: "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way." While the concept builds on nudging theory popularized by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers' behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals' decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective." == Relationships with other labor management practices == Algorithmic management has been compared and contrasted with other forms of management, such as Scientific management approaches, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s. Henri Schildt has called algorithmic management "Scientific management 2.0", where management "is no longer a human practice, but a process embedded in technology." Similarly, Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman suggest that, while "algorithmic control over labor may be relatively new, it replicates many features of older mechanisms of labor control." On the other hand, some commentators have argued that algorithmic management is not simply a new form of Scientific management or digital Taylorism, but represents a distinct approach to labor control in platform economies. David Stark and Ivana Pais, for example, state that, "In contrast to Scientific Management at the turn of the twentieth century, in the algorithmic management of the twenty-first century there are rules but these are not bureaucratic, there are rankings but not ranks, and there is monitoring but it is not disciplinary. Algorithmic management does not automate bureaucratic structures and practices to create some new form of algorithmic bureaucracy. Whereas the devices and practices of Taylorism were part of a system of hierarchical supervision, the devices and practices of algorithmic management take place within a different economy of attention and a new regime of visibility. Triangular rather than vertical, and not as a panopticon, the lines of vision in algorithmic management are not lines of supervision." Similarly, Data&Society's explainer for algorithmic management claims that the practice represents a marked departure from earlier management structures that more strongly rely on human supervisors to direct workers. In analyzing the difference and the similarities to previous management styles, David Stark and Pieter Vanden Broeck expand the applicability of algorithmic management beyond the workplace. They develop a theory of algorithmic management in terms of broader changes in the shape and structure of organization in the 21st century, attentive to the erosion of organization's boundaries whereby heterogeneous actors, assets, and activities, are coopted regardless of their place in organizational space. Stark and Vanden Broeck propose the following means of differentiating algorithmic management from other historical managerial paradigms: == Issues == Algorithmic management can provide an effective and efficient means of workforce control and value creation in the contemporary digital economy. However, commentators have highlighted several issues that algorithmic management poses, especially for the workers it manages. Criticisms of the practice often highlight several key issues pertaining to algorithmic management practices, such as the imperfection and scope of its surveillance and control measures, which also threaten to lock workers out of key decision-making processes; its lack of transparency for users and information asymmetries; its potential for bias and discrimination; its dehumanizing tendencies; and its potential to create conditions which sidestep traditional employer-employee accountability. This last point has been especi
Read more →
Research data archiving

Research data archiving is the long-term storage of scholarly research data, including the natural sciences, social sciences, and life sciences. The various academic journals have differing policies regarding how much of their data and methods researchers are required to store in a public archive, and what is actually archived varies widely between different disciplines. Similarly, the major grant-giving institutions have varying attitudes towards public archiving of data. In general, the tradition of science has been for publications to contain sufficient information to allow fellow researchers to replicate and therefore test the research. In recent years this approach has become increasingly strained as research in some areas depends on large datasets which cannot easily be replicated independently. Data archiving is more important in some fields than others. In a few fields, all of the data necessary to replicate the work is already available in the journal article. In drug development, a great deal of data is generated and must be archived so researchers can verify that the reports the drug companies publish accurately reflect the data. Often used interchangeably, Data preservation and data archiving are both about protecting data for the long term, but they serve different purposes. Data preservation focuses on preventing data from being lost, damaged, or destroyed by creating backups, storing data in secure locations, and ensuring it remains accessible when needed. Data archiving, on the other hand, involves moving data that is no longer actively used to a separate storage location for long-term keeping. Archived data is often combined and compressed, and while it can still be accessed, it is not intended for regular use or frequent updates. The requirement of data archiving is a recent development in the history of science. It was made possible by advances in information technology allowing large amounts of data to be stored and accessed from central locations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted their first policy on data archiving in 1993, about three years after the beginning of the WWW. This policy mandates that datasets cited in AGU papers must be archived by a recognised data center; it permits the creation of "data papers"; and it establishes AGU's role in maintaining data archives. But it makes no requirements on paper authors to archive their data. Prior to organized data archiving, researchers wanting to evaluate or replicate a paper would have to request data and methods information from the author. The academic community expects authors to share supplemental data. This process was recognized as wasteful of time and energy and obtained mixed results. Information could become lost or corrupted over the years. In some cases, authors simply refuse to provide the information. The need for data archiving and due diligence is greatly increased when the research deals with health issues or public policy formation. == Selected policies by journals == === Biotropica === Biotropica requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper and metadata describing them must be archived in an appropriate public archive such as Dryad, Figshare, GenBank, TreeBASE, or NCBI. Authors may elect to make the data publicly available as soon as the article is published or, if the technology of the archive allows, embargo access to the data up to three years after article publication. A statement describing Data Availability will be included in the manuscript as described in the instructions to authors. Exceptions to the required archiving of data may be granted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief for studies that include sensitive information (e.g., the location of endangered species). Our Editorial explaining the motivation for this policy can be found here. A more comprehensive list of data repositories is available here. Promoting a culture of collaboration with researchers who collect and archive data: The data collected by tropical biologists are often long-term, complex, and expensive to collect. The Board of Editors of Biotropica strongly encourages authors who re-use data archives archived data sets to include as fully engaged collaborators the scientists who originally collected them. We feel this will greatly enhance the quality and impact of the resulting research by drawing on the data collector’s profound insights into the natural history of the study system, reducing the risk of errors in novel analyses, and stimulating the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and training for which the ATBC and Biotropica are widely recognized. NB: Biotropica is one of only two journals that pays the fees for authors depositing data at Dryad. === The American Naturalist === The American Naturalist requires authors to deposit the data associated with accepted papers in a public archive. For gene sequence data and phylogenetic trees, deposition in GenBank or TreeBASE, respectively, is required. There are many possible archives that may suit a particular data set, including the Dryad repository for ecological and evolutionary biology data. All accession numbers for GenBank, TreeBASE, and Dryad must be included in accepted manuscripts before they go to Production. If the data is deposited somewhere else, please provide a link. If the data is culled from published literature, please deposit the collated data in Dryad for the convenience of your readers. Any impediments to data sharing should be brought to the attention of the editors at the time of submission so that appropriate arrangements can be worked out. === Journal of Heredity === The primary data underlying the conclusions of an article are critical to the verifiability and transparency of the scientific enterprise, and should be preserved in usable form for decades in the future. For this reason, Journal of Heredity requires that newly reported nucleotide or amino acid sequences, and structural coordinates, be submitted to appropriate public databases (e.g., GenBank; the EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database; DNA Database of Japan; the Protein Data Bank; and Swiss-Prot). Accession numbers must be included in the final version of the manuscript. For other forms of data (e.g., microsatellite genotypes, linkage maps, images), the Journal endorses the principles of the Joint Data Archiving Policy (JDAP) in encouraging all authors to archive primary datasets in an appropriate public archive, such as Dryad, TreeBASE, or the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. Authors are encouraged to make data publicly available at time of publication or, if the technology of the archive allows, opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. The American Genetic Association also recognizes the vast investment of individual researchers in generating and curating large datasets. Consequently, we recommend that this investment be respected in secondary analyses or meta-analyses in a gracious collaborative spirit. === Molecular Ecology === Molecular Ecology expects that data supporting the results in the paper should be archived in an appropriate public archive, such as GenBank, Gene Expression Omnibus, TreeBASE, Dryad, the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity, your own institutional or funder repository, or as Supporting Information on the Molecular Ecology web site. Data are important products of the scientific enterprise, and they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future. Authors may elect to have the data publicly available at time of publication, or, if the technology of the archive allows, may opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor, especially for sensitive information such as human subject data or the location of endangered species. === Nature === Such material must be hosted on an accredited independent site (URL and accession numbers to be provided by the author), or sent to the Nature journal at submission, either uploaded via the journal's online submission service, or if the files are too large or in an unsuitable format for this purpose, on CD/DVD (five copies). Such material cannot solely be hosted on an author's personal or institutional web site. Nature requires the reviewer to determine if all of the supplementary data and methods have been archived. The policy advises reviewers to consider several questions, including: "Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modelling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.) === Science === Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, before publication, large data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, and atomic c
Read more →
Block swap algorithms

In computer algorithms, block swap algorithms swap two regions of elements of an array. It is simple to swap two non-overlapping regions of an array of equal size. However, it is not as simple to swap two contiguous regions of an array of unequal sizes (algorithms that perform such swapping are called rotation algorithms). A few well-known algorithms can accomplish this: Bentley's juggling (also known as the dolphin algorithm), Gries-Mills rotation, triple reversal algorithm, conjoined triple reversal algorithm (also known as the trinity rotation) and Successive rotation. == Triple reversal algorithm == The triple reversal algorithm is the simplest to explain, using rotations. A rotation is an in-place reversal of array elements. This method swaps two elements of an array from outside in within a range. The rotation works for an even or odd number of array elements. The reversal algorithm uses three in-place rotations to accomplish an in-place block swap: Rotate region A Rotate region B Rotate region AB Where A and B are adjacent regions of an array that together form the region AB. Gries-Mills and reversal algorithms perform better than Bentley's juggling, because of their cache-friendly memory access pattern behavior. The triple reversal algorithm parallelizes well, because rotations can be split into sub-regions, which can be rotated independently of others.
Read more →
Cost-sensitive machine learning

Cost-sensitive machine learning is an approach within machine learning that considers varying costs associated with different types of errors. This method diverges from traditional approaches by introducing a cost matrix, explicitly specifying the penalties or benefits for each type of prediction error. The inherent difficulty which cost-sensitive machine learning tackles is that minimizing different kinds of classification errors is a multi-objective optimization problem. == Overview == Cost-sensitive machine learning optimizes models based on the specific consequences of misclassifications, making it a valuable tool in various applications. It is especially useful in problems with a high imbalance in class distribution and a high imbalance in associated costs Cost-sensitive machine learning introduces a scalar cost function in order to find one (of multiple) Pareto optimal points in this multi-objective optimization problem (similar to the Weighted sum model) == Cost Matrix == The cost matrix is a crucial element within cost-sensitive modeling, explicitly defining the costs or benefits associated with different prediction errors in classification tasks. Represented as a table, the matrix aligns true and predicted classes, assigning a cost value to each combination. For instance, in binary classification, it may distinguish costs for false positives and false negatives. The utility of the cost matrix lies in its application to calculate the expected cost or loss. The formula, expressed as a double summation, utilizes joint probabilities: Expected Loss = ∑ i ∑ j P ( Actual i , Predicted j ) ⋅ Cost Actual i , Predicted j {\displaystyle {\text{Expected Loss}}=\sum _{i}\sum _{j}P({\text{Actual}}_{i},{\text{Predicted}}_{j})\cdot {\text{Cost}}_{{\text{Actual}}_{i},{\text{Predicted}}_{j}}} Here, P ( Actual i , Predicted j ) {\displaystyle P({\text{Actual}}_{i},{\text{Predicted}}_{j})} denotes the joint probability of actual class i {\displaystyle i} and predicted class j {\displaystyle j} , providing a nuanced measure that considers both the probabilities and associated costs. This approach allows practitioners to fine-tune models based on the specific consequences of misclassifications, adapting to scenarios where the impact of prediction errors varies across classes. == Applications == === Fraud Detection === In the realm of data science, particularly in finance, cost-sensitive machine learning is applied to fraud detection. By assigning different costs to false positives and false negatives, models can be fine-tuned to minimize the overall financial impact of misclassifications. === Medical Diagnostics === In healthcare, cost-sensitive machine learning plays a role in medical diagnostics. The approach allows for customization of models based on the potential harm associated with misdiagnoses, ensuring a more patient-centric application of machine learning algorithms. == Challenges == A typical challenge in cost-sensitive machine learning is the reliable determination of the cost matrix which may evolve over time. == Literature == Cost-Sensitive Machine Learning. USA, CRC Press, 2011. ISBN 9781439839287 Abhishek, K., Abdelaziz, D. M. (2023). Machine Learning for Imbalanced Data: Tackle Imbalanced Datasets Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques. (n.p.): Packt Publishing. ISBN 9781801070881
Read more →
E-Science librarianship

E-Science librarianship refers to a role for librarians in e-Science. == Early scholars == Early references to e-Science and librarianship involve information studies scholars researching cyberinfrastructure and emerging networked information and knowledge communities. Notably Christine Borgman, Professor and Presidential Chair in Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) was a key player in bringing e-Science, and the idea of networked knowledge communities, to the attention of the library profession. In 2004, as a visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, she conducted research and lectured publicly on e-Science, Digital Libraries, and Knowledge Communities. In 2007 Anna K. Gold, formerly of MIT and Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, authored a series of articles in D-Lib Magazine that opened the door for academic libraries to begin exploring roles, skills, and strategies for engaging in e-Science: Cyberinfrastructure, Data, and Libraries, Part 1: A Cyberinfrastructure Primer for Librarians and Cyberinfrastructure, Data, and Libraries, Part 2: Libraries and the Data Challenge: Roles and Actions for Libraries. == Academic research and health sciences libraries == In 2007, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) e-Science task force issued its report on e-Science and librarianship. The ARL's report encouraged its member libraries to position themselves to engage with researchers involved in e-Science (eScience) by cultivating new research support strategies and developing their digital scholarship infrastructure. E-Science has multiple attributes; Tony and Jessie Hey framed e-Science for the library community by characterizing it as a research methodology: "e-Science is not a new scientific discipline in its own right: e-Science is shorthand for the set of tools and technologies required to support collaborative, networked science". In addition to academic libraries' interests in providing support for their researchers engaging in e-Science, the health sciences library community also emerged as a major proponent for creating librarian positions for supporting the information needs of large-scale, networked, research collaborations on their campuses. Neil Rambo, current director of NYU's Health Sciences Library and former director of University of Washington Health Sciences Library, was the first to use the term in the Journal of the Medical Library Association, in his 2009 editorial e-Science and the Biomedical Library. Rambo's definition of e-Science highlighted the potential e-Science held for creating data as a research product: "E-science is a new research methodology, fueled by networked capabilities and the practical possibility of gathering and storing vast amounts of data." In response to this article the University of Massachusetts Medical School Lamar Soutter Library and National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region encouraged health sciences libraries to cooperate to identify skills and develop a program for training e-Science Librarians. Then, in 2013, Shannon Bohle, an archivist who was employed in the library at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, an NCI-designated basic cancer research facility, used experience gained there and previous papers and presentations about preserving scientific archival materials to expand the traditional definition of e-Science by including the terms, principles, and practices used in archival science. These included in the definition the "long-term storage and accessibility of all materials generated through the scientific process," as well as examples of material types traditionally preserved in archives, like "electronic/digitized laboratory notebooks, raw and fitted data sets, manuscript production and draft versions, pre-prints," as well as library materials ("print and/or electronic publications"). == Roles == Many areas of science are about to be transformed by the availability of vast amounts of new scientific data that can potentially provide insights at a level of detail never before envisaged. However, this new data dominant era brings new challenges for the scientists and they will need the skills and technologies both of computer scientists and of the library community to manage, search and curate these new data resources. Libraries will not be immune from change in this new world of research. Karen Williams identifies roles in the following areas for librarians in the developing world of e-Science. Campus Engagement Content/Collection Development and Management Teaching and Learning Scholarly Communication E-Scholarship and Digital Tools Reference/Help Services Outreach Fund Raising Exhibit and Event Planning Leadership == Challenges for research libraries == E-science tends toward inter- and multidisciplinary approaches that depend on computation and computer science. Research libraries have traditionally been discipline focused and, although increasingly technologically sophisticated, do not have systems of the scale or complexity of the e-science environment. E-science is data intensive, but research libraries have not typically been responsible for scientific data. E-science is frequently conducted in a team context, often distributed across multiple institutions and on a global scale. The primary constituency of libraries generally comprises those affiliated with the local institution. Licenses for electronic content are typically restricted to a particular institutional community, and the infrastructure to move institutional licenses into a multi-institutional environment is not well developed. E-science challenges all these traditional paradigms of research library organization and services. == Skills == Garritano & Carlson were among the first to outline a skill set for librarians seeking to support the data needs of e-Science; they identified five skill categories librarians new to this area should expect to adapt or develop when participating on such projects: Library and information science expertise Subject expertise Partnerships and outreach (both internal and external) Participating in sponsored research Balancing workload An example of librarians reconfiguring traditional librarian skills to meet the needs of researchers engaging in e-Science is Witt & Carlson's adaptation of the traditional reference interview into a "data interview" in order to provide effective data management and e-Science services. This interview consists of ten practical queries necessary for understanding the provenance and expectations for the preservation of datasets typical of e-Science that also help illustrate some of the educational tools and skills needed by a librarian new to e-Science. "What is the story of the data? What form and format are the data in? What is the expected lifespan of the dataset? How could the data be used, reused, and repurposed? How large is the dataset, and what is its rate of growth? Who are the potential audiences for the data? Who owns the data? Does the dataset include any sensitive information? What publications or discoveries have resulted from the data? How should the data be made accessible?" == Resources == In 2009 the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region (NN/LM NER) funded an e-Science program for building the skills highlighted above for librarians. Elaine Russo Martin, Director of Library Services at the Lamar Soutter Library and Director of the NN/LM NER developed this comprehensive e-Science program to build librarians' subject expertise in the sciences, developing their data management skills, and their familiarity with cyberinfrastructure and e-Science. Three major products of this program are the e-Science web portal for librarians, the E-Science Symposium, and the New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum (NECDMC). This portal includes educational resources for specific tools and subject/discipline tutorials and modules to assist librarians new to e-Science. UMMS and NN/LM NER also publish an open access journal called the Journal of eScience Librarianship.
Read more →
Linguistic categories

Linguistic categories include Lexical category, a part of speech such as noun, preposition, etc. Syntactic category, a similar concept which can also include phrasal categories Grammatical category, a grammatical feature such as tense, gender, etc. The definition of linguistic categories is a major concern of linguistic theory, and thus, the definition and naming of categories varies across different theoretical frameworks and grammatical traditions for different languages. The operationalization of linguistic categories in lexicography, computational linguistics, natural language processing, corpus linguistics, and terminology management typically requires resource-, problem- or application-specific definitions of linguistic categories. In Cognitive linguistics it has been argued that linguistic categories have a prototype structure like that of the categories of common words in a language. == Linguistic category inventories == To facilitate the interoperability between lexical resources, linguistic annotations and annotation tools and for the systematic handling of linguistic categories across different theoretical frameworks, a number of inventories of linguistic categories have been developed and are being used, with examples as given below. The practical objective of such inventories is to perform quantitative evaluation (for language-specific inventories), to train NLP tools, or to facilitate cross-linguistic evaluation, querying or annotation of language data. At a theoretical level, the existence of universal categories in human language has been postulated, e.g., in Universal grammar, but also heavily criticized. === Part-of-Speech tagsets === Schools commonly teach that there are 9 parts of speech in English: noun, verb, article, adjective, preposition, pronoun, adverb, conjunction, and interjection. However, there are clearly many more categories and sub-categories. For nouns, the plural, possessive, and singular forms can be distinguished. In many languages words are also marked for their case (role as subject, object, etc.), grammatical gender, and so on; while verbs are marked for tense, aspect, and other things. In some tagging systems, different inflections of the same root word will get different parts of speech, resulting in a large number of tags. For example, NN for singular common nouns, NNS for plural common nouns, NP for singular proper nouns (see the POS tags used in the Brown Corpus). Other tagging systems use a smaller number of tags and ignore fine differences or model them as features somewhat independent from part-of-speech. In part-of-speech tagging by computer, it is typical to distinguish from 50 to 150 separate parts of speech for English. POS tagging work has been done in a variety of languages, and the set of POS tags used varies greatly with language. Tags usually are designed to include overt morphological distinctions, although this leads to inconsistencies such as case-marking for pronouns but not nouns in English, and much larger cross-language differences. The tag sets for heavily inflected languages such as Greek and Latin can be very large; tagging words in agglutinative languages such as Inuit languages may be virtually impossible. Work on stochastic methods for tagging Koine Greek (DeRose 1990) has used over 1,000 parts of speech and found that about as many words were ambiguous in that language as in English. A morphosyntactic descriptor in the case of morphologically rich languages is commonly expressed using very short mnemonics, such as ncmsan for category = noun, type = common, gender = masculine, number = singular, case = accusative, animate = no. The most popular tag set for POS tagging for American English is probably the Penn tag set, developed in the Penn Treebank project. === Multilingual annotation schemes === For Western European languages, cross-linguistically applicable annotation schemes for parts-of-speech, morphosyntax and syntax have been developed with the EAGLES Guidelines. The "Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards" (EAGLES) was an initiative of the European Commission that ran within the DG XIII Linguistic Research and Engineering programme from 1994 to 1998, coordinated by Consorzio Pisa Ricerche, Pisa, Italy. The EAGLES guidelines provide guidance for markup to be used with text corpora, particularly for identifying features relevant in computational linguistics and lexicography. Numerous companies, research centres, universities and professional bodies across the European Union collaborated to produce the EAGLES Guidelines, which set out recommendations for de facto standards and rules of best practice for: Large-scale language resources (such as text corpora, computational lexicons and speech corpora); Means of manipulating such knowledge, via computational linguistic formalisms, mark up languages and various software tools; Means of assessing and evaluating resources, tools and products. The Eagles guidelines have inspired subsequent work on other regions, as well, e.g., Eastern Europe. A generation later, a similar effort was initiated by the research community under the umbrella of Universal Dependencies. Petrov et al. have proposed a "universal", but highly reductionist, tag set, with 12 categories (for example, no subtypes of nouns, verbs, punctuation, etc.; no distinction of "to" as an infinitive marker vs. preposition (hardly a "universal" coincidence), etc.). Subsequently, this was complemented with cross-lingual specifications for dependency syntax (Stanford Dependencies), and morphosyntax (Interset interlingua, partially building on the Multext-East/Eagles tradition) in the context of the Universal Dependencies (UD), an international cooperative project to create treebanks of the world's languages with cross-linguistically applicable ("universal") annotations for parts of speech, dependency syntax, and (optionally) morphosyntactic (morphological) features. Core applications are automated text processing in the field of natural language processing (NLP) and research into natural language syntax and grammar, especially within linguistic typology. The annotation scheme has it roots in three related projects: The UD annotation scheme uses a representation in the form of dependency trees as opposed to a phrase structure trees. At as of February 2019, there are just over 100 treebanks of more than 70 languages available in the UD inventory. The project's primary aim is to achieve cross-linguistic consistency of annotation. However, language-specific extensions are permitted for morphological features (individual languages or resources can introduce additional features). In a more restricted form, dependency relations can be extended with a secondary label that accompanies the UD label, e.g., aux:pass for an auxiliary (UD aux) used to mark passive voice. The Universal Dependencies have inspired similar efforts for the areas of inflectional morphology, frame semantics and coreference. For phrase structure syntax, a comparable effort does not seem to exist, but the specifications of the Penn Treebank have been applied to (and extended for) a broad range of languages, e.g., Icelandic, Old English, Middle English, Middle Low German, Early Modern High German, Yiddish, Portuguese, Japanese, Arabic and Chinese. === Conventions for interlinear glosses === In linguistics, an interlinear gloss is a gloss (series of brief explanations, such as definitions or pronunciations) placed between lines (inter- + linear), such as between a line of original text and its translation into another language. When glossed, each line of the original text acquires one or more lines of transcription known as an interlinear text or interlinear glossed text (IGT)—interlinear for short. Such glosses help the reader follow the relationship between the source text and its translation, and the structure of the original language. There is no standard inventory for glosses, but common labels are collected in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. Wikipedia also provides a List of glossing abbreviations that draws on this and other sources. === General Ontology for Linguistic Description (GOLD) === GOLD ("General Ontology for Linguistic Description") is an ontology for descriptive linguistics. It gives a formalized account of the most basic categories and relations used in the scientific description of human language, e.g., as a formalization of interlinear glosses. GOLD was first introduced by Farrar and Langendoen (2003). Originally, it was envisioned as a solution to the problem of resolving disparate markup schemes for linguistic data, in particular data from endangered languages. However, GOLD is much more general and can be applied to all languages. In this function, GOLD overlaps with the ISO 12620 Data Category Registry (ISOcat); it is, however, more stringently structured. GOLD was maintained by the LINGUIST List and others from 2007 to 2010. The RELISH project created a mirro
Read more →
Emotion-sensitive software

Emotion-sensitive software (ESS) is software specifically designed to target and monitor emotional response in a human being. Some software measures anger by comparing the pitch of a voice to a regular, or calm, pitch. Another approach is the measurement of physical appearance. If a camera or similar recording device picks up a certain amount of red pigmentation in the skin the system can be alerted that this person is angered. The competitive landscape in the Electronic Surveillance Software (ESS) industry is marked by a high level of secrecy regarding the operational details of these software systems. Many producers deliberately withhold information about the inner workings of their ESS products, a strategy that serves dual purposes: firstly, it intensifies competition among companies in the sector, as each strives to maintain a unique edge without revealing trade secrets that could be leveraged by competitors; secondly, this secrecy acts as a deterrent against individuals or entities who might try to circumvent the surveillance mechanisms. One application of ESS was developed by University of Notre Dame Assistant Professor of Psychology Sidney D'Mello, Art Graesser from the University of Memphis and a colleague from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They used the technology to create an electronic tutor that could assess a student's level of boredom and frustration based on facial expression and body language, and react accordingly.
Read more →
Bright Computing

Bright Computing, Inc. was a developer of software for deploying and managing high-performance (HPC) clusters, Kubernetes clusters, and OpenStack private clouds in on-premises data centers as well as in the public cloud. In 2022, it was acquired by Nvidia. == History == Bright Computing was founded by Matthijs van Leeuwen in 2009, who spun the company out of ClusterVision, which he had co-founded with Alex Ninaber and Arijan Sauer. Alex and Matthijs had worked together at UK’s Compusys, which was one of the first companies to commercially build HPC clusters. They left Compusys in 2002 to start ClusterVision in the Netherlands, after determining there was a growing market for building and managing supercomputer clusters using off-the-shelf hardware components and open source software, tied together with their own customized scripts. ClusterVision also provided delivery and installation support services for HPC clusters at universities and government entities. In 2004, Martijn de Vries joined ClusterVision and began development of cluster management software. The software was made available to customers in 2008, under the name ClusterVisionOS v4. In 2009, Bright Computing was spun out of ClusterVision. ClusterVisionOS was renamed Bright Cluster Manager, and van Leeuwen was named Bright Computing’s CEO. In February 2016, Bright appointed Bill Wagner as chief executive officer. Matthijs van Leeuwen became chief strategy officer, and then left the company and board of directors in 2018. In January 2022 Bright was acquired by Nvidia. Nvidia cited using Bright's Amsterdam facility as a development center. The acquisition occurred after several layoffs under Bill Wagner. == Customers == Early customers included Boeing, Sandia National Laboratories, Virginia Tech, Hewlett Packard, NSA, and Drexel University. Many early customers were introduced through resellers, including SICORP, Cray, Dell, and Advanced HPC. As of 2019, the company had more than 700 customers, including more than fifty Fortune 500 Companies. == Products and services == Bright Cluster Manager for HPC lets customers deploy and manage complete clusters. It provides management for the hardware, the operating system, the HPC software, and users. In 2014, the company announced Bright OpenStack, software to deploy, provision, and manage OpenStack-based private cloud infrastructures. In 2016, Bright started bundling several machine learning frameworks and associated tools and libraries with the product, to make it very easy to get machine learning workload up and running on a Bright cluster. In December 2018, version 8.2 was released, which introduced support for the ARM64 architecture, edge capabilities to build clusters spread out over many different geographical locations, improved workload accounting & reporting features, as well as many improvements to Bright's integration with Kubernetes. Bright Cluster Manager software was frequently sold through original equipment manufacturer (OEM) resellers, including Dell and HPE. In version 10, Bright Cluster Manager was merged into the NVIDIA Base Command Manager. Bright Computing was covered by Software Magazine and Yahoo! Finance, among other publications. == Awards == In 2016, Bright Computing was awarded a €1.5M Horizon 2020 SME Instrument grant from the European Commission. Bright Computing was one of only 33 grant recipients from 960 submitted proposals. In its category only 5 out of 260 grants were awarded. 2015 HPCwire Editor’s Choice Award for “Best HPC Cluster Solution or Technology" Main Software 50 “Highest Growth” award winner, 2013 Deloitte Technology Fast50 “Rising Star 2013” award winner Bio-IT World Conference & Expo ‘13, Boston, MA, winner of “IT Hardware & Infrastructure” category of the “Best of Show Award” program Red Herring Top 100 Global Award, 2013
Read more →
Uncertain database

An uncertain database is a kind of database studied in database theory. The goal of uncertain databases is to manage information on which there is some uncertainty. Uncertain databases make it possible to explicitly represent and manage uncertainty on the data, usually in a succinct way. == Formal definition == At the basis of uncertain databases is the notion of possible world. Specifically, a possible world of an uncertain database is a (certain) database which is one of the possible realizations of the uncertain database. A given uncertain database typically has more than one, and potentially infinitely many, possible worlds. A formalism to represent uncertain databases then explains how to succinctly represent a set of possible worlds into one uncertain database. == Types of uncertain databases == Uncertain database models differ in how they represent and quantify these possible worlds: Incomplete databases are a compact representation of the set of possible worlds – the use of NULL in SQL, arguably the most commonplace instantiation of uncertain databases, is an example of incomplete database model. Probabilistic databases are a compact representation of a probability distribution over the set of possible worlds. Fuzzy databases are a compact representation of a fuzzy set of the possible worlds. Though mostly studied in the relational setting, uncertain database models can also be defined in other relational models such as graph databases or XML databases. === Incomplete database === The most common database model is the relational model. Multiple incomplete database models have been defined over the relational model, that form extensions to the relational algebra. These have been called Imieliński–Lipski algebras: Relations with NULL values, also called Codd tables c-tables v-tables === Example === The following table is a relation of an incomplete database, described in the formalism of NULL values: There are infinitely many possible worlds for this incomplete database, obtained by replacing the "NULL" values with concrete values. For instance, the following relation is a possible world:
Read more →
Ontology for Biomedical Investigations

The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI) is an open-access, integrated ontology for the description of biological and clinical investigations. OBI provides a model for the design of an investigation, the protocols and instrumentation used, the materials used, the data generated and the type of analysis performed on it. The project is being developed as part of the OBO Foundry and as such adheres to all the principles therein such as orthogonal coverage (i.e. clear delineation from other foundry member ontologies) and the use of a common formal language. In OBI the common formal language used is the Web Ontology Language (OWL). As of March 2008, a pre-release version of the ontology was made available at the project's SVN repository. == Scope == The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI) addresses the need for controlled vocabularies to support integration and joint ("cross-omics") analysis of experimental data, a need originally identified in the transcriptomics domain by the FGED Society, which developed the MGED Ontology as an annotation resource for microarray data.Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, Bard J, Bug W, Ceusters W, et al. (November 2007). "The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration". Nature Biotechnology. 25 (11): 1251–5. doi:10.1038/nbt1346. PMC 2814061. PMID 17989687. OBI uses the basic formal ontology upper-level ontology as a means of describing general entities that do not belong to a specific problem domain. As such, all OBI classes are a subclass of some BFO class. The ontology has the scope of modeling all biomedical investigations and as such contains ontology terms for aspects such as: biological material – for example blood plasma instrument (and parts of an instrument therein) – for example DNA microarray, centrifuge information content – such as an image or a digital information entity such as an electronic medical record design and execution of an investigation (and individual experiments therein) – for example study design, electrophoresis material separation data transformation (incorporating aspects such as data normalization and data analysis) – for example principal components analysis dimensionality reduction, mean calculation Less 'concrete' aspects such as the role a given entity may play in a particular scenario (for example the role of a chemical compound in an experiment) and the function of an entity (for example the digestive function of the stomach to nutriate the body) are also covered in the ontology. == OBI consortium == The MGED Ontology was originally identified in the transcriptomics domain by the FGED Society and was developed to address the needs of data integration. Following a mutual decision to collaborate, this effort later became a wider collaboration between groups such as FGED, PSI and MSI in response to the needs of areas such as transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics and the FuGO (Functional Genomics Investigation Ontology) was created. This later became the OBI covering the wider scope of all biomedical investigations. As an international, cross-domain initiative, the OBI consortium draws upon a pool of experts from a variety of fields, not limited to biology. The current list of OBI consortium members is available at the OBI consortium website. The consortium is made up of a coordinating committee which is a combination of two subgroups, the Community Representative (those representing a particular biomedical community) and the Core Developers (ontology developers who may or may not be members of any single community). Separate to the coordinating committee is the Developers Working Group which consists of developers within the communities collaborating in the development of OBI at the discretion of current OBI Consortium members. == Papers on OBI ==
Read more →
Recommender system

A recommender system, also called a recommendation algorithm, recommendation engine, or recommendation platform, is a type of information filtering system that suggests items most relevant to a particular user. The value of these systems becomes particularly evident in scenarios where users must select from a large number of options, such as products, media, or content. Major social media platforms and streaming services rely on recommender systems that employ machine learning to analyze user behavior and preferences, thereby enabling personalized content feeds. Typically, the suggestions refer to a variety decision-making processes, including the selection of a product, musical selection, or online news source to read. The implementation of recommender systems is pervasive, with commonly recognised examples including the generation of playlist for video and music services, the provision of product recommendations for e-commerce platforms, and the recommendation of content on social media platforms and the open web. These systems can operate using a single type of input, such as music, or multiple inputs from diverse platforms, including news, books and search queries. Additionally, popular recommender systems have been developed for specific topics, such as restaurants and online dating services. Recommender systems have also been developed to explore research articles and experts, collaborators, and financial services. A content discovery platform is a software recommendation platform that employs recommender system tools. It utilizes user metadata in order to identify and suggest relevant content, whilst reducing ongoing maintenance and development costs. A content discovery platform delivers personalized content to websites, mobile devices, and set-top boxes. A large range of content discovery platforms currently exist for various forms of content ranging from news articles and academic journal articles to television. As operators compete to serve as the gateway to home entertainment, personalized television emerges as a key service differentiator. Academic content discovery has recently become another area of interest, the emergence of numerous companies dedicated to assisting academic researchers in keeping up to date with relevant academic content and facilitating serendipitous discovery of new content. == Overview == Recommender systems usually make use of either or both collaborative filtering and content-based filtering, as well as other systems such as knowledge-based systems. Collaborative filtering approaches build a model from a user's past behavior (e.g., items previously purchased or selected and/or numerical ratings given to those items) as well as similar decisions made by other users. This model is then used to predict items (or ratings for items) that the user may have an interest in. Content-based filtering approaches utilize a series of discrete, pre-tagged characteristics of an item in order to recommend additional items with similar properties. === Example === The differences between collaborative and content-based filtering can be demonstrated by comparing two early music recommender systems, Last.fm and Pandora Radio. We can also look at how these methods are applied in e-commerce, for example, on platforms like Amazon. Last.fm creates a "station" of recommended songs by observing what bands and individual tracks the user has listened to on a regular basis and comparing those against the listening behavior of other users. Last.fm will play tracks that do not appear in the user's library, but are often played by other users with similar interests. As this approach leverages the behavior of users, it is an example of a collaborative filtering technique. Pandora uses the properties of a song or artist (a subset of the 450 attributes provided by the Music Genome Project) to seed a "station" that plays music with similar properties. User feedback is used to refine the station's results, deemphasizing certain attributes when a user "dislikes" a particular song and emphasizing other attributes when a user "likes" a song. This is an example of a content-based approach. In e-commerce, Amazon's well-known "customers who bought X also bought Y" feature is a prime example of collaborative filtering. It also uses content-based filtering when it recommends a book by the same author you've previously read or a pair of shoes in a similar style to ones you've viewed. Each type of system has its strengths and weaknesses. In the above example, Last.fm requires a large amount of information about a user to make accurate recommendations. This is an example of the cold start problem, and is common in collaborative filtering systems. Whereas Pandora needs very little information to start, it is far more limited in scope (for example, it can only make recommendations that are similar to the original seed). === Alternative implementations === Recommender systems are a useful alternative to search algorithms since they help users discover items they might not have found otherwise. Of note, recommender systems are often implemented using search engines indexing non-traditional data. In some cases, like in the Gonzalez v. Google Supreme Court case, may argue that search and recommendation algorithms are different technologies. Recommender systems have been the focus of several granted patents, and there are more than 50 software libraries that support the development of recommender systems including LensKit, RecBole, ReChorus and RecPack. == History == Elaine Rich created the first recommender system in 1979, called Grundy. She looked for a way to recommend users books they might like. Her idea was to create a system that asks users specific questions and classifies them into classes of preferences, or "stereotypes", depending on their answers. Depending on users' stereotype membership, they would then get recommendations for books they might like. Another early recommender system, called a "digital bookshelf", was described in a 1990 technical report by Jussi Karlgren at Columbia University, and implemented at scale and worked through in technical reports and publications from 1994 onwards by Jussi Karlgren, then at SICS, and research groups led by Pattie Maes at MIT, Will Hill at Bellcore, and Paul Resnick, also at MIT, whose work with GroupLens was awarded the 2010 ACM Software Systems Award. Montaner provided the first overview of recommender systems from an intelligent agent perspective. Adomavicius provided a new, alternate overview of recommender systems. Herlocker provides an additional overview of evaluation techniques for recommender systems, and Beel et al. discussed the problems of offline evaluations. Beel et al. have also provided literature surveys on available research paper recommender systems and existing challenges. == Approaches == === Collaborative filtering === One approach to the design of recommender systems that has wide use is collaborative filtering. Collaborative filtering is based on the assumption that people who agreed in the past will agree in the future, and that they will like similar kinds of items as they liked in the past. The system generates recommendations using only information about rating profiles for different users or items. By locating peer users/items with a rating history similar to the current user or item, they generate recommendations using this neighborhood. This approach is a cornerstone for e-commerce sites that analyze the purchasing patterns of thousands of users to suggest what you might like. Collaborative filtering methods are classified as memory-based and model-based. A well-known example of memory-based approaches is the user-based algorithm, while that of model-based approaches is matrix factorization (recommender systems). A key advantage of the collaborative filtering approach is that it does not rely on machine analyzable content and therefore it is capable of accurately recommending complex items such as movies without requiring an "understanding" of the item itself. Many algorithms have been used in measuring user similarity or item similarity in recommender systems. For example, the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) approach and the Pearson Correlation as first implemented by Allen. When building a model from a user's behavior, a distinction is often made between explicit and implicit forms of data collection. Examples of explicit data collection include the following: Asking a user to rate an item on a sliding scale. Asking a user to search. Asking a user to rank a collection of items from favorite to least favorite. Presenting two items to a user and asking him/her to choose the better one of them. Asking a user to create a list of items that he/she likes (see Rocchio classification or other similar techniques). Examples of implicit data collection include the following: Observing the items that a user views in an online store, media library, or other repository of med
Read more →
Chasys Photo

Chasys Photo (previously called Chasys Draw Artist, then Chasys Draw IES) is a suite of applications including a layer-based raster graphics editor with adjustment layers, linked layers, timeline and frame-based animation, icon editing, image stacking and comprehensive plug-in support (Chasys Draw IES Artist), a fast multi-threaded image file converter (Chasys Draw IES Converter) and a fast image viewer (Chasys Draw IES Viewer), with RAW image support in all components. It supports the native file formats of several competitors including Adobe Photoshop, Affinity Photo, Corel Photo-Paint, GIMP, Krita, Paint.NET and PaintShop Pro, and the whole suite is designed to make effective use of multi-core processors, touch-screens and pen-input devices. The software is developed by John Paul Chacha in Nairobi, Kenya. Chasys Draw IES is currently released as freeware, and is available for computers running Microsoft Windows operating systems. It is available in three distributions: the standard distro, a portable version and a Microsoft Store version. The suite is coded in a blend of C, C++ and assembly language. It runs on x86 processors and supports the MMX, SSE, SSE2, S-SSE3, and SSE4.1 instruction sets. == History == Chasys Draw is a project that was started in November 2001 by John Paul Chacha, mostly as a hobby than anything else. The original Chasys Draw was a rather simple bitmap editor done in Visual Basic, a lot like MS Paint save for its ability to do gradients. This application underwent many changes, eventually leading up to Chasys Draw 5. This was the first version to have its own native format, referred to simply as CD5. Major updates to the graphics code in May 2002 resulted in Chasys Draw DTFx (Direct Tool eFfects). The new graphics code being referred to here was actually a miniature bitmap abstraction engine that allowed for fast per-pixel operations and direct image buffer access (much as the DIB engine does for GDI). The engine was named JpDRAW. This version was also done in VB, but was much faster than all the previous versions. The new graphics code allowed for more tools to be implemented than was ever possible before. Later on in 2002, the developer decided to completely abandon VB as a programming platform and moved all the code to C/C++. The move to C/C++ allowed the development of a full-fledged graphics engine which was named JpDRAW2. Chasys was renamed to Chasys Draw Artist, and the CD5 image format was also updated to reflect the new features. By coincidence, the module that implemented the file format was the fifth module to be added, so the format was called Chasys Draw module 5, retaining the .cd5 file extension. First public release In April 2004, Chasys Draw Artist was released to the public via the internet for the first time (version 1.27). The release was done via betanews). In 2005, Chasys Draw underwent major user interface changes as well as internal changes. By December of that year, the project had reached version 1.63. This was the first version to introduce advanced features such as anti-aliasing. It was also the first version with full support for alpha channels. The CD5 image format was also upgraded to version 2, adding advanced compression, full alpha channels, encryption and metadata. Version 1.63 was the first version to win an IEEE (Kenya chapter) award in ICT. The "chazy-glass" interface, from which the all later versions' user interfaces borrowed, was introduced in version 1.80. Chasys Draw Artist adopted photo editing features in version 2.01. Comprehensive tutorials were added and many features were re-designed to make them easier to use. Multi-threading was introduced to accelerate some tasks, such as the improved auto-save engine. Utilities such as a converter and browser were added. Version 2.43 of Chasys Draw Artist was quietly released to the public in late 2007 without any announcements. It featured many fixes to the formal version 2.42, as well as many new features. The quiet release was due to a decision to re-build Chasys Draw Artist from scratch, while still continuing support for the old architecture. An experimental version 2.45 was released only to beta-testers for the purpose of testing new technologies that would be included in the new architecture and was officially withdrawn in May 2008. During the time when the versions 2.43~2.45 were being released, work was underway to create a new layer-based Chasys Draw, which was released as Chasys Draw IES (Image Editing Suite), with the initial version number 2.50. A new multi-layer tag-based image format was created to support layering and blending modes; this was named CD5 v3. The next version introduced animation and multi-resolution support as editing modes, and the next one brought in an unlimited undo engine, new plug-ins and several internal fixes. Further development led to the introduction of super-resolution and image stacking, support for video and video capture, Anti-aliasing, metadata save and restore, a "Pen and Path" tool, physical measurement specification, and a video sequence composer engine. The user interface was enhanced with adaptive scrolling and the auto-save engine was optimized. Some memory management was added for machines with low RAM. By version 2.60, Chasys Draw IES was capable of loading Photoshop's PSD files, as well as load and save JPEG 2000. This version also had shell integration with thumbnails and application-level support for multi-monitor display setups. Metadata was extended to support save, restore and scaling for text formatting and path data. There was also a new palette with exchangeable swatches, loadable from all kinds of palette files. A slicing tool for web and user interface design was also included. A C++ code module output for inline image generation was added, as was a constrained recolor brush. The concept of a "fully anti-aliased work-flow" was introduced in version 2.62, in which all drawing and selection tools were anti-aliased by default. Support for Photoshop plug-ins using Adobe's 8bf format was added in version 2.66, allowing users to utilize thousands of free plug-ins available online. Equivalents for the Pantone palettes (PMS 100 to 814-2x) were added, and the "Just-in-Time" memory compressor significantly reduced the editor's memory requirements. First freeware release Chasys Draw IES went freeware on 6 June 2009. With the coming of the freeware IES, two blending modes (Hue and Chroma) were added. Textures were improved to allow multiple layer-based textures. The TextArt G3 engine was enhanced with LINK metadata, and alpha shift was improved. IES 2.72 added the Luma Wand tool, fixed PNG and TIFF transparency issues, and fixed Smart-Paste transparency. IES 2.74 introduced alpha protection, and 2.75 followed with a new adjustments engine that faced out many effects implemented by the effects engine. The adjustments engine was designed to appeal to experienced image editors. IES 2.76 introduced a new transform engine and the Resizer for IES plug-in supporting multi-core and 18 scaling methods, including customizable windowed Sinc interpolation. IES 2.77 added Greyscale with Tint adjustment, separated the Lock and Click-Thru layer properties, extended the Cloning Brush with three options (this, below and composite) and also extended the Color Picker with multiple point sampling. IES 3.01 brought a new look and many breakthrough tools to the suite. It was geared toward touch and was fully compatible with Windows 7. The toolbox was reorganized, with some tools being grouped and new ones added. Some message boxes were replaced with a new popup system, and the working of the workspace was changed to use a back-blitter, which enabled the addition of new blending modes, Screen and Mask. The printing interface was modified and given accurate proofing. Alpha Function Adjustment was added and a new Anti-Quantization Engine included for all adjustments to remove the need for 16 bits per channel editing. An internal clipboard was created to cater for copying images that are too large for the Windows clipboard, and translucency full-page gradients added. Some new tutorials were added and keyboard shortcuts made configurable. IES 3.05 brought the power of custom full-page gradients to the suite, supporting .ggr, .grd and .gra gradients. New gradient styles were included, as was support for Adobe color tables (.act), palette previewing, point color editing and a highly improved TextArt engine. Digital lightroom IES 3.11 was introduced on 14 December 2009. It was done on a new development base and added a new application, raw-Input. This was a RAW image format processor based on dcraw. This application allowed the use of Chasys Draw IES in processing digital negatives, which are popular with professional photographers. Chasys Draw IES 3.24 was released with a re-designed user interface, powered by a higher performance graphics core and better memory management. A history palette w
Read more →
Schema crosswalk

A schema crosswalk is a table that shows equivalent elements (or "fields") in more than one database schema. It maps the elements in one schema to the equivalent elements in another. Crosswalk tables are often employed within or in parallel to enterprise systems, especially when multiple systems are interfaced or when the system includes legacy system data. In the context of Interfaces, they function as an internal extract, transform, load (ETL) mechanism. For example, this is a metadata crosswalk from MARC standards to Dublin Core: Crosswalks show people where to put the data from one scheme into a different scheme. They are often used by libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural institutions to translate data to or from MARC standards, Dublin Core, Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and other metadata schemes. For example, an archive has a MARC record in its catalog describing a manuscript. Suppose the archive makes a digital copy of that manuscript and wants to display it on the web along with the information from the catalog. In that case, it will have to translate the data from the MARC catalog record into a different format, such as Metadata Object Description Schema, that is viewable on a webpage. Because MARC has various fields than MODS, decisions must be made about where to put the data into MODS. This type of "translating" from one format to another is often called "metadata mapping" or "field mapping," and is related to "data mapping", and "semantic mapping". Crosswalks also have several technical capabilities. They help databases using different metadata schemes to share information. They help metadata harvesters create union catalogs. They enable search engines to search multiple databases simultaneously with a single query. == Challenges for crosswalks == One of the biggest challenges for crosswalks is that no two metadata schemes are 100% equivalent. One scheme may have a field that doesn't exist in another scheme or a field that is split into two different fields in another scheme; this is why data is often lost when mapping from a complex scheme to a simpler one. For example, when mapping from MARC to Simple Dublin Core, the distinction between types of titles is lost: Simple Dublin Core only has one "Title" element, so all of the different types of MARC titles get lumped together without further distinctions. A future attempt to convert the metadata back into MARC would enter the information in the basic MARC 245 Title Statement field, with none of the original distinctions. This is why crosswalks are said to be "lateral" (one-way) mappings from one scheme to another. Separate crosswalks would be required to map from scheme A to scheme B and from scheme B to scheme A. === Difficulties in mapping === Other mapping problems arise when: One scheme has one element that needs to be split up with different parts of it placed in multiple other elements in the second scheme ("one-to-many" mapping) One scheme allows an element to be repeated more than once while another only allows that element to appear once with multiple terms in it Schemes have different data formats (e.g. John Doe or Doe, John) An element in one scheme is indexed, but the equivalent element in the other scheme is not Schemes may use different controlled vocabularies Schemes change their standards over time Some of these problems are not fixable. As Karen Coyle says in "Crosswalking Citation Metadata: The University of California's Experience," "The more metadata experience we have, the more it becomes clear that metadata perfection is not attainable, and anyone who attempts it will be sorely disappointed. When metadata is crosswalked between two or more unrelated sources, there will be data elements that cannot be reconciled in an ideal manner. The key to a successful metadata crosswalk is intelligent flexibility. It is essential to focus on the important goals and be willing to compromise to reach a practical conclusion to projects."
Read more →
How to Solve it by Computer

How to Solve it by Computer is a computer science book by R. G. Dromey, first published by Prentice-Hall in 1982. It is occasionally used as a textbook, especially in India. It is an introduction to the whys of algorithms and data structures. Features of the book: The design factors associated with problems, The creative process behind coming up with innovative solutions for algorithms and data structures, The line of reasoning behind the constraints, factors and the design choices made. The very fundamental algorithms portrayed by this book are mostly presented in pseudocode and/or Pascal notation.
Read more →