AI Data Privacy Concerns

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

• 

  Dyme (company)

  Dyme is a Dutch fintech start-up and subscription management app that allows users to cancel and renegotiate their recurring costs. In 2019, Dyme was the first independent Dutch company to receive a PSD2 licence from the Netherlands' central bank (DNB). == History == Dyme was founded in 2018 by Joran Iedema, David Knap, David Schogt and Wouter Florijn. The four had previously founded Cycleswap, a bicycle rental platform launched in 2015 and sold to the American platform Spinlister in 2016. The company gained notability in the Netherlands in 2020 when it appeared on Dutch television in Dragons Den, where Pieter Schoen made a €750,000 bid in an attempt to acquire 51.01% of the company. Dyme's Joran Iedema rejected the deal. == Recognition == Wired described Dyme as one of the "hottest start-ups in Europe" in 2021. As of 2021, the company reportedly had 350,000 registered users in the Netherlands and Great Britain.

  Read more →
• 

  General Data Protection Regulation

  The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), abbreviated GDPR, is a European Union regulation on information privacy in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The GDPR is an important component of EU privacy law and human rights law, in particular Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It also governs the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA. The GDPR's goals are to enhance individuals' control and rights over their personal information and to simplify the regulations for international business. It supersedes the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and, among other things, simplifies the terminology. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union adopted the GDPR on 14 April 2016, to become effective on 25 May 2018. As an EU regulation (instead of a directive), the GDPR has direct legal effect and does not require transposition into national law. However, it also provides flexibility for individual member states to modify (derogate from) some of its provisions. As an example of the Brussels effect, the regulation became a model for many other laws around the world, including in Brazil, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. After leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom enacted its "UK GDPR", identical to the GDPR. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), adopted on 28 June 2018, has many similarities with the GDPR. == Contents == The GDPR 2016 has eleven chapters, concerning general provisions, principles, rights of the data subject, duties of data controllers or processors, transfers of personal data to third-party countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member states, remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights, provisions related to specific processing situations, and miscellaneous final provisions. The GDPR also contains 173 recitals purposed to clarify scope and rationale for the regulatory provisions, as well as its legislative intents – Recital 4, for instance, begins by saying that the processing of personal data should be "designed to serve mankind". === General provisions === The regulation applies if the data controller, or processor, or the data subject (person) is based in the EU. The regulation also applies to organisations based outside the EU if they collect or process personal data of individuals located inside the EU. The regulation does not apply to the processing of data by private persons provided that the purpose has no connection to a professional or commercial activity." (Recital 18). According to the European Commission, "Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual." The precise definitions of terms such as "personal data", "processing", "data subject", "controller", and "processor" are stated in Article 4. The regulation does not purport to apply to the processing of personal data for national security activities or law enforcement of the EU; however, industry groups concerned about facing a potential conflict of laws have questioned whether Article 48 could be invoked to seek to prevent a data controller subject to a third country's laws from complying with a legal order from that country's law enforcement, judicial, or national security authorities to disclose to such authorities the personal data of an EU person, regardless of whether the data resides in or out of the EU. Article 48 states that any judgement of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may not be recognised or enforceable in any manner unless based on an international agreement, like a mutual legal assistance treaty in force between the requesting third (non-EU) country and the EU or a member state. The data protection reform package also includes a separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector that provides rules on personal data exchanges at State level, Union level, and international levels. A single set of rules applies to all EU member states. Each member state establishes an independent supervisory authority (SA) to hear and investigate complaints, sanction administrative offences, etc. SAs in each member state co-operate with other SAs, providing mutual assistance and organising joint operations. If a business has multiple establishments in the EU, it must have a single SA as its "lead authority", based on the location of its "main establishment" where the main processing activities take place. The lead authority thus acts as a "one-stop shop" to supervise all the processing activities of that business throughout the EU. A European Data Protection Board (EDPB) co-ordinates the SAs. EDPB thus replaces the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. There are exceptions for data processed in an employment context or in national security that still might be subject to individual country regulations. === Principles and lawful purposes === Article 5 sets out six principles relating to the lawfulness of processing personal data. The first of these specifies that data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner. Article 6 develops this principle by specifying that personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis for doing so. The other principles refer to "purpose limitation", "data minimisation", "accuracy", "storage limitation", and "integrity and confidentiality". Article 6 states that the lawful purposes are: (a) If the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data; (b) To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject, or for tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering into a contract; (c) To comply with a data controller's legal obligations; (d) To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another individual; (e) To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority; (f) For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party, unless these interests are overridden by interests of the data subject or her or his rights according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children). If informed consent is used as the lawful basis for processing, consent must have been explicit for data collected and each purpose data is used for. Consent must be a specific, freely given, plainly worded, and unambiguous affirmation given by the data subject; an online form which has consent options structured as an opt-out selected by default is a violation of the GDPR, as the consent is not unambiguously affirmed by the user. In addition, multiple types of processing may not be "bundled" together into a single affirmation prompt, as this is not specific to each use of data, and the individual permissions are not freely given. (Recital 32). Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. A data controller may not refuse service to users who decline consent to processing that is not strictly necessary in order to use the service. Consent for children, defined in the regulation as being less than 16 years old (although with the option for member states to individually make it as low as 13 years old), must be given by the child's parent or custodian, and verifiable. If consent to processing was already provided under the Data Protection Directive, a data controller does not have to re-obtain consent if the processing is documented and obtained in compliance with the GDPR's requirements (Recital 171). === Rights of the data subject === ==== Transparency and modalities ==== Article 12 requires the data controller to provide information to the "data subject in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child." ==== Information and access ==== The right of access (Article 15) is a data subject right. It gives people the right to access their personal data and information about how this personal data is being processed. A data controller must provide, upon request, an overview of the categories of data that are being processed as well as a copy of the actual data; furthermore, the data controller has to inform the data subject on details about the processing, such as the purposes of the processing, with whom the data is shared, and how it acquired the data. A data subject must be able to transfer personal data from one electro

  Read more →
• 

  Strategic Computing Initiative

  The United States government's Strategic Computing Initiative funded research into advanced computer hardware and artificial intelligence from 1983 to 1993. The initiative was designed to support various projects that were required to develop machine intelligence in a prescribed ten-year time frame, from chip design and manufacture, computer architecture to artificial intelligence software. The Department of Defense spent a total of $1 billion on the project. The inspiration for the program was Japan's fifth generation computer project, an enormous initiative that set aside billions for research into computing and artificial intelligence. As with Sputnik in 1957, the American government saw the Japanese project as a challenge to its technological dominance. The British government also funded a program of their own around the same time, known as Alvey, and a consortium of U.S. companies funded another similar project, the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation. The goal of SCI, and other contemporary projects, was nothing less than full machine intelligence. "The machine envisioned by SC", according to Alex Roland and Philip Shiman, "would run ten billion instructions per second to see, hear, speak, and think like a human. The degree of integration required would rival that achieved by the human brain, the most complex instrument known to man." The initiative was conceived as an integrated program, similar to the Apollo moon program, where different subsystems would be created by various companies and academic projects and eventually brought together into a single integrated system. Roland and Shiman wrote that "While most research programs entail tactics or strategy, SC boasted grand strategy, a master plan for an entire campaign." The project was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and directed by the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO). By 1985 it had spent $100 million, and 92 projects were underway at 60 institutions: half in industry, half in universities and government labs. Robert Kahn, who directed IPTO in those years, provided the project with its early leadership and inspiration. Clint Kelly managed the SC Initiative for three years and developed many of the specific application programs for DARPA, such as the Autonomous Land Vehicle. By the late 1980s, it was clear that the project would fall short of realizing the hoped-for levels of machine intelligence. Program insiders pointed to issues with integration, organization, and communication. When Jack Schwarz ascended to the leadership of IPTO in 1987, he cut funding to artificial intelligence research (the software component) "deeply and brutally", "eviscerating" the program (wrote Pamela McCorduck). Schwarz felt that DARPA should focus its funding only on those technologies which showed the most promise. In his words, DARPA should "surf", rather than "dog paddle", and he felt strongly AI was not "the next wave". The project was superseded in the 1990s by the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and then by the Advanced Simulation and Computing Program. These later programs did not include artificial general intelligence as a goal, but instead focused on supercomputing for large scale simulation, such as atomic bomb simulations. The Strategic Computing Initiative of the 1980s is distinct from the 2015 National Strategic Computing Initiative—the two are unrelated. == Results == Although the program failed to meet its goal of high-level machine intelligence, it did meet some of its specific technical objectives, for example those of autonomous land navigation. The Autonomous Land Vehicle program and its sister Navlab project at Carnegie Mellon University, in particular, laid the scientific and technical foundation for many of the driverless vehicle programs that came after it, such as the Demo II and III programs (ALV being Demo I), Perceptor, and the DARPA Grand Challenge. The use of video cameras plus laser scanners and inertial navigation units pioneered by the SCI ALV program form the basis of almost all commercial driverless car developments today. It also helped to advance the state of the art of computer hardware to a considerable degree. On the software side, the initiative funded development of the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool (DART), a program that handled logistics using artificial intelligence techniques. This was a huge success, saving the Department of Defense billions during Desert Storm. Introduced in 1991, DART had by 1995 offset the monetary equivalent of all funds DARPA had channeled into AI research for the previous 30 years combined.

  Read more →
• 

  IRCF360

  Infrared Control Freak 360 (IRCF360) is a 360-degree proximity sensor and a motion sensing devices, developed by ROBOTmaker. The sensor is in BETA developers release as a low cost (software configurable) sensor for use within research, technical and hobby projects. == Overview == The 360-degree sensor was originally designed as a short range micro robot proximity sensor and mainly intended for Swarm robotics, Ant robotics, Swarm intelligence, autonomous Qaudcopter, Drone, UAV, multi-robot simulations e.g. Jasmine Project where 360 proximity sensing is required to avoid collision with other robots and for simple IR inter-robot communications. To overcome certain limitation with Infra-red (IR) proximity sensing (e.g. detection of dark surfaces) the sensing module includes ambient light sensing and basic tactile sensing functionality during forward movement sensing/probing providing photovore and photophobe robot swarm behaviours and characteristics. A project named Sensorium Project was started aimed at broadening the Sensors audience beyond its typical robot sensor usage. To demonstrate the sensor's functionality, opensource Java based Integrated Development Environments (IDE) are used, such as Arduino and Processing (programming language).

  Read more →
• 

  Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm

  The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm (TF algorithm), is an efficient algorithm for generating the background image of a given video sequence. By assuming that the background image is shown in the majority of the video, the algorithm is able to generate a good background image of a video in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time using only a small number of binary operations and Boolean bit operations, which require a small amount of memory and has built-in operators found in many programming languages such as C, C++, and Java. == History == People tracking from videos usually involves some form of background subtraction to segment foreground from background. Once foreground images are extracted, then desired algorithms (such as those for motion tracking, object tracking, and facial recognition) may be executed using these images. However, background subtraction requires that the background image is already available and unfortunately, this is not always the case. Traditionally, the background image is searched for manually or automatically from the video images when there are no objects. More recently, automatic background generation through object detection, medial filtering, medoid filtering, approximated median filtering, linear predictive filter, non-parametric model, Kalman filter, and adaptive smoothening have been suggested; however, most of these methods have high computational complexity and are resource-intensive. The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is also an automatic background generation algorithm. Its advantage, however, is its computational speed of only O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of an image and its accuracy gained within a manageable number of frames. Only at least three frames from a video is needed to produce the background image assuming that for every pixel position, the background occurs in the majority of the videos. Furthermore, it can be performed for both grayscale and colored videos. == Assumptions == The camera is stationary. The light of the environment changes only slowly relative to the motions of the people in the scene. The number of people does not occupy the scene for most of the time at the same place. Generally, however, the algorithm will certainly work whenever the following single important assumption holds: For each pixel position, the majority of the pixel values in the entire video contain the pixel value of the actual background image (at that position).As long as each part of the background is shown in the majority of the video, the entire background image needs not to appear in any of its frames. The algorithm is expected to work accurately. == Background image generation == === Equations === For three frames of image sequence x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , and x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} , the background image B {\displaystyle B} is obtained using B = x 3 ( x 1 ⊕ x 2 ) + x 1 x 2 {\displaystyle B=x_{3}(x_{1}\oplus x_{2})+x_{1}x_{2}} where ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } denotes the exclusive disjunctive bit operator. The Boolean mode function S {\displaystyle S} of the table occurs when the number of 1 entries is larger than half of the number of images such that S = { 1 , if ∑ i = 1 n x i ≥ ⌈ n 2 + 1 ⌉ , and n ≥ 3 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle S={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\geq \left\lceil {\frac {n}{2}}+1\right\rceil ,{\text{ and }}n\geq 3\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} For three images, the background image B {\displaystyle B} can be taken as the value x ¯ 1 x 2 x 3 + x 1 x ¯ 2 x 3 + x 1 x 2 x ¯ 3 + x 1 x 2 x 3 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}{\bar {x}}_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}{\bar {x}}_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}} === Background generation algorithm === At the first level, three frames are selected at random from the image sequence to produce a background image by combining them using the first equation. This yields a better background image at the second level. The procedure is repeated until desired level L {\displaystyle L} . == Theoretical accuracy == At level ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , the probability p ℓ {\displaystyle p_{\ell }} that the modal bit predicted is the actual modal bit is represented by the equation p ℓ = ( p ℓ − 1 ) 3 + 3 ( p ℓ − 1 ) 2 ( 1 − p ℓ − 1 ) {\displaystyle p_{\ell }=(p_{\ell -1})^{3}+3(p_{\ell -1})^{2}(1-p_{\ell -1})} . The table below gives the computed probability values across several levels using some specific initial probabilities. It can be observed that even if the modal bit at the considered position is at a low 60% of the frames, the probability of accurate modal bit determination is already more than 99% at 6 levels. == Space complexity == The space requirement of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is given by the function O ( R F + R 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(RF+R3^{L})} , depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of the image, the number F {\displaystyle F} of frames in the video, and the desired number L {\displaystyle L} of levels. However, the fact that L {\displaystyle L} will probably not exceed 6 reduces the space complexity to O ( R F ) {\displaystyle O(RF)} . == Time complexity == The entire algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, only depending on the resolution of the image. Computing the modal bit for each bit can be done in O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} -time while the computation of the resulting image from the three given images can be done in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time. The number of the images to be processed in L {\displaystyle L} levels is O ( 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(3^{L})} . However, since L ≤ 6 {\displaystyle L\leq 6} , then this is actually O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} , thus the algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} . == Variants == A variant of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm that incorporates the Monte-Carlo method named CRF has been developed. Two different configurations of CRF were implemented: CRF9,2 and CRF81,1. Experiments on some colored video sequences showed that the CRF configurations outperform the TF algorithm in terms of accuracy. However, the TF algorithm remains more efficient in terms of processing time. == Applications == Object detection Face detection Face recognition Pedestrian detection Video surveillance Motion capture Human-computer interaction Content-based video coding Traffic monitoring Real-time gesture recognition

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaFold

  AlphaFold is an artificial intelligence (AI) program developed by DeepMind, a subsidiary of Alphabet, which performs predictions of protein structure. It is designed using deep learning techniques. AlphaFold 1 (2018) placed first in the overall rankings of the 13th Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) in December 2018. It was particularly successful at predicting the most accurate structures for targets rated as most difficult by the competition organizers, where no existing template structures were available from proteins with partially similar sequences. AlphaFold 2 (2020) repeated this placement in the CASP14 competition in November 2020. It achieved a level of accuracy much higher than any other entry. It scored above 90 on CASP's global distance test (GDT) for approximately two-thirds of the proteins, a test measuring the similarity between a computationally predicted structure and the experimentally determined structure, where 100 represents a complete match. The inclusion of metagenomic data has improved the quality of the prediction of multiple sequence alignments. One of the biggest sources of the training data was the custom-built Big Fantastic Database of 65,983,866 protein families, represented as multiple sequence alignments and Hidden Markov models, covering 2,204,359,010 protein sequences from reference databases, metagenomes, and metatranscriptomes. AlphaFold 2's results at CASP14 were described as "astounding" and "transformational". However, some researchers noted that the accuracy was insufficient for a third of its predictions, and that it did not reveal the underlying mechanism or rules of protein folding for the protein folding problem, which remains unsolved. Despite this, the technical achievement was widely recognized. On 15 July 2021, the AlphaFold 2 paper was published in Nature as an advance access publication alongside open source software and a searchable database of species proteomes. As of November 2025, the paper had been cited nearly 43,000 times. AlphaFold 3 was announced on 8 May 2024. It can predict the structure of complexes created by proteins with DNA, RNA, various ligands, and ions. The new prediction method shows a minimum 50% improvement in accuracy for protein interactions with other molecules compared to existing methods. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper shared one half of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, awarded "for protein structure prediction," while the other half went to David Baker "for computational protein design." Hassabis and Jumper had previously won the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences and the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 2023 for their leadership of the AlphaFold project. == Background == Proteins consist of chains of amino acids which spontaneously fold to form the three dimensional (3-D) structures of the proteins. The 3-D structure is crucial to understanding the biological function of the protein. Protein structures can be determined experimentally through techniques such as X-ray crystallography, cryo-electron microscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), which are all expensive and time-consuming. Such efforts, using the experimental methods, have identified the structures of about 170,000 proteins over the last 60 years, while there are over 200 million known proteins across all life forms. Over the years, researchers have applied numerous computational methods to predict the 3D structures of proteins from their amino acid sequences, accuracy of such methods in best possible scenario is close to experimental techniques (NMR) by the use of homology modeling based on molecular evolution. CASP, which was launched in 1994 to challenge the scientific community to produce their best protein structure predictions, found that GDT scores of only about 40 out of 100 can be achieved for the most difficult proteins by 2016. AlphaFold started competing in the 2018 CASP using an artificial intelligence (AI) deep learning technique. == Algorithm == DeepMind is known to have trained the program on over 170,000 protein structures from the Protein Data Bank, a public repository of protein sequences and structures. The program uses a form of attention network, a deep learning technique that focuses on having the AI identify parts of a larger problem, then piece it together to obtain the overall solution. The overall training was conducted on processing power between 100 and 200 GPUs. === AlphaFold 1 (2018) === AlphaFold 1 (2018) was built on work developed by various teams in the 2010s, work that looked at the large databases of related protein sequences now available from many different organisms (most without known 3D structures), to try to find changes at different residues (peptides) that appeared to be correlated, even though the residues were not consecutive in the main chain. Such correlations suggest that the residues may be close to each other physically, even though not close in the sequence, allowing a contact map to be estimated. Building on recent work prior to 2018, AlphaFold 1 extended this by estimating a probability distribution for the distances between residues, effectively transforming the contact map into a distance map. It also used more advanced learning methods than previously to develop the inference. The code was not made publicly available, except to run on sequences of proteins in the 2018 CASP competition. === AlphaFold 2 (2020) === The 2020 version of the program (AlphaFold 2, 2020) is significantly different from the original version that won CASP 13 in 2018, according to the team at DeepMind. AlphaFold 1 used a number of separately trained modules to produce a guide potential, which was then combined with a physics-based energy potential. AlphaFold 2 replaced this with a system of interconnected sub-networks, forming a single, differentiable, end-to-end model based on pattern recognition. This model was trained in an integrated manner. After the neural network's prediction converges, a final refinement step applies local physical constraints using energy minimization based on the AMBER force field. This step only slightly adjusts the predicted structure. A key part of the 2020 system are two modules, believed to be based on a transformer design, which are used to progressively refine a vector of information for each relationship (or "edge" in graph-theory terminology) between an amino acid residue of the protein and another amino acid residue (these relationships are represented by the array shown in green); and between each amino acid position and each different sequences in the input sequence alignment (these relationships are represented by the array shown in red). Internally these refinement transformations contain layers that have the effect of bringing relevant data together and filtering out irrelevant data (the "attention mechanism") for these relationships, in a context-dependent way, learned from training data. These transformations are iterated, the updated information output by one step becoming the input of the next, with the sharpened residue/residue information feeding into the update of the residue/sequence information, and then the improved residue/sequence information feeding into the update of the residue/residue information. As the iteration progresses, according to one report, the "attention algorithm ... mimics the way a person might assemble a jigsaw puzzle: first connecting pieces in small clumps—in this case clusters of amino acids—and then searching for ways to join the clumps in a larger whole." The output of these iterations then informs the final structure prediction module, which also uses transformers, and is itself then iterated. In an example presented by DeepMind, the structure prediction module achieved a correct topology for the target protein on its first iteration, scored as having a GDT_TS of 78, but with a large number (90%) of stereochemical violations – i.e. unphysical bond angles or lengths. With subsequent iterations the number of stereochemical violations fell. By the third iteration the GDT_TS of the prediction was approaching 90, and by the eighth iteration the number of stereochemical violations was approaching zero. The training data was originally restricted to single peptide chains. However, the October 2021 update, named AlphaFold-Multimer, included protein complexes in its training data. DeepMind stated this update succeeded about 70% of the time at accurately predicting protein-protein interactions. === AlphaFold 3 (2024) === Announced on 8 May 2024, AlphaFold 3 was co-developed by Google DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs, both subsidiaries of Alphabet. AlphaFold 3 is not limited to proteins, as it can also predict the structures of protein complexes with DNA, RNA, post-translational modifications and selected ligands and ions. AlphaFold 3 introduces the "Pairformer," a deep learning architecture inspired by the transformer, which is considered similar to, but si

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology components

  Contemporary ontologies share many structural similarities, regardless of the ontology language in which they are expressed. Most ontologies describe individuals (instances), classes (concepts), attributes, and relations. == List == Common components of ontologies include: Individuals instances or objects (the basic or "ground level" objects; the tokens). Classes sets, collections, concepts, types of objects, or kinds of things. Attributes aspects, properties, features, characteristics, or parameters that individuals (and classes and relations) can have. Relations ways in which classes and individuals can be related to one another. Relations can carry attributes that specify the relation further. Function terms complex structures formed from certain relations that can be used in place of an individual term in a statement. Restrictions formally stated descriptions of what must be true in order for some assertion to be accepted as input. Rules statements in the form of an if-then (antecedent-consequent) sentence that describe the logical inferences that can be drawn from an assertion in a particular form. Axioms assertions (including rules) in a logical form that together comprise the overall theory that the ontology describes in its domain of application. This definition differs from that of "axioms" in generative grammar and formal logic. In these disciplines, axioms include only statements asserted as a priori knowledge. As used here, "axioms" also include the theory derived from axiomatic statements. Events the changing of attributes or relations. Actions types of events. Ontologies are commonly encoded using ontology languages. == Individuals == Individuals (instances) are the basic, "ground level" components of an ontology. The individuals in an ontology may include concrete objects such as people, animals, tables, automobiles, molecules, and planets, as well as abstract individuals such as numbers and words (although there are differences of opinion as to whether numbers and words are classes or individuals). Strictly speaking, an ontology need not include any individuals, but one of the general purposes of an ontology is to provide a means of classifying individuals, even if those individuals are not explicitly part of the ontology. In formal extensional ontologies, only the utterances of words and numbers are considered individuals – the numbers and names themselves are classes. In a 4D ontology, an individual is identified by its spatio-temporal extent. Examples of formal extensional ontologies are BORO, ISO 15926 and the model in development by the IDEAS Group. == Classes == == Attributes == Objects in an ontology can be described by relating them to other things, typically aspects or parts. These related things are often called attributes, although they may be independent things. Each attribute can be a class or an individual. The kind of object and the kind of attribute determine the kind of relation between them. A relation between an object and an attribute express a fact that is specific to the object to which it is related. For example, the Ford Explorer object has attributes such as: ⟨has as name⟩ Ford Explorer ⟨as by definition as part⟩ 6-speed transmission ⟨as by definition as part⟩ door (with as minimum and maximum cardinality: 4) ⟨as by definition as part one of⟩ {4.0L engine, 4.6L engine} The value of an attribute can be a complex data type; in this example, the related engine can only be one of a list of subtypes of engines, not just a single thing. Ontologies are only true ontologies if concepts are related to other concepts (the concepts do have attributes). If that is not the case, then you would have either a taxonomy (if hyponym relationships exist between concepts) or a controlled vocabulary. These are useful, but are not considered true ontologies. == Relations == Relations (also known as relationships) between objects in an ontology specify how objects are related to other objects. Typically a relation is of a particular type (or class) that specifies in what sense the object is related to the other object in the ontology. For example, in the ontology that contains the concept Ford Explorer and the concept Ford Bronco might be related by a relation of type ⟨is defined as a successor of⟩. The full expression of that fact then becomes: Ford Explorer is defined as a successor of : Ford Bronco This tells us that the Explorer is the model that replaced the Bronco. This example also illustrates that the relation has a direction of expression. The inverse expression expresses the same fact, but with a reverse phrase in natural language. Much of the power of ontologies comes from the ability to describe relations. Together, the set of relations describes the semantics of the domain: that is, its various semantic relations, such as synonymy, hyponymy and hypernymy, coordinate relation, and others. The set of used relation types (classes of relations) and their subsumption hierarchy describe the expression power of the language in which the ontology is expressed. An important type of relation is the subsumption relation (is-a-superclass-of, the converse of is-a, is-a-subtype-of or is-a-subclass-of). This defines which objects are classified by which class. For example, we have already seen that the class Ford Explorer is-a-subclass-of 4-Wheel Drive Car, which in turn is-a-subclass-of Car. The addition of the is-a-subclass-of relationships creates a taxonomy; a tree-like structure (or, more generally, a partially ordered set) that clearly depicts how objects relate to one another. In such a structure, each object is the 'child' of a 'parent class' (Some languages restrict the is-a-subclass-of relationship to one parent for all nodes, but many do not). Another common type of relations is the mereology relation, written as part-of, that represents how objects combine to form composite objects. For example, if we extended our example ontology to include concepts like Steering Wheel, we would say that a "Steering Wheel is-by-definition-a-part-of-a Ford Explorer" since a steering wheel is always one of the components of a Ford Explorer. If we introduce meronymy relationships to our ontology, the hierarchy that emerges is no longer able to be held in a simple tree-like structure since now members can appear under more than one parent or branch. Instead this new structure that emerges is known as a directed acyclic graph. As well as the standard is-a-subclass-of and is-by-definition-a-part-of-a relations, ontologies often include additional types of relations that further refine the semantics they model. Ontologies might distinguish between different categories of relation types. For example: relation types for relations between classes relation types for relations between individuals relation types for relations between an individual and a class relation types for relations between a single object and a collection relation types for relations between collections Relation types are sometimes domain-specific and are then used to store specific kinds of facts or to answer particular types of questions. If the definitions of the relation types are included in an ontology, then the ontology defines its own ontology definition language. An example of an ontology that defines its own relation types and distinguishes between various categories of relation types is the Gellish ontology. For example, in the domain of automobiles, we might need a made-in type relationship which tells us where each car is built. So the Ford Explorer is made-in Louisville. The ontology may also know that Louisville is-located-in Kentucky and Kentucky is-classified-as-a state and is-a-part-of the U.S. Software using this ontology could now answer a question like "which cars are made in the U.S.?"

  Read more →
• 

  Ramification problem

  In philosophy and artificial intelligence (especially, knowledge based systems), the ramification problem is concerned with the indirect consequences of an action. It might also be posed as how to represent what happens implicitly due to an action or how to control the secondary and tertiary effects of an action. It is strongly connected to, and is opposite the qualification side of, the frame problem. Limit theory helps in operational usage. For instance, in KBE derivation of a populated design (geometrical objects, etc., similar concerns apply in shape theory), equivalence assumptions allow convergence where potentially large, and perhaps even computationally indeterminate, solution sets are handled deftly. Yet, in a chain of computation, downstream events may very well find some types of results from earlier resolutions of ramification as problematic for their own algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Ugly duckling theorem

  The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.

  Read more →
• 

  Versata

  Versata is a privately held software company, one of several business units under the ESW Capital umbrella. Versata acquires underperforming or financially struggling enterprise software companies, integrates them into their portfolio, and makes operational changes to improve the viability and performance of the companies. == History == === Early years (1991–2000) === This company was founded in 1991 with the name Image Innovations; Naren Bakshi was co-founder and president, Kevin Fletcher Tweedy was vice president of technology, and they sold a development tool set named Image Application WorkBench that worked with Plexus Software's imaging platform. In 1997, the company name changed to Vision Software. They sold a small suite of software: Vision Builder for accelerated coding; and Vision StoryBoard Pro for creating software documentation. In 1998, their flagship product was a Java development tool named Vision JADE. In January 2000, the company changed names again, this time to Versata, and their e-business automation system, Versata Logic Suite, had three components: Versata Logic Server to host business rules written in Java, Versata Studio for developing the business rules, and Versata Connectors for connecting the logic server to IBM database servers. === Public company (2000–2006) === They went public in March 2000 during the dot-com bubble, raising about $94 million and reaching a market capitalization of over $2.5 billion despite reporting just $13 million in revenue and a $21 million loss in the prior year. In November 2000, Versata expanded into the business workflow area with the acquisition of Verve, Inc. and its workflow management system by the same name. From early 2001 through mid-2003, Versata's revenues were in quarter-over-quarter decline until Alan Baratz took over as CEO. Five consecutive quarters of growth followed until early 2005, when revenues once again took a downward plunge. In mid-2005, the company was notified by NASDAQ that it no longer met NASDAQ's requirements for continued listing, related to maintenance of a minimum amount of shareholder's equity, market value, or net income. In July 2005, Versata was delisted from NASDAQ and publicly traded on the OTC (also known as the Pink Sheets). == Versata, a business unit of ESW Capital == In January 2006, Austin-based Trilogy, Inc. acquired the company and took it private. Trilogy then proceeded to merge portions of Trilogy, specifically, Trilogy Technology Group, into Versata and began acquiring further companies, reorganizing dramatically and offshoring most technical positions to its office in Bangalore, India. From 2006 to 2008, Versata continued to make acquisitions mostly in US. Most of the employees in the acquired companies were laid -off with the majority work being offshored to its India office in Bangalore. In early 2009, Versata made another major overhaul of its business model when it asked all its employees in India to work as contractors through oDesk for a gDev which is an entity incorporated by Trilogy to manage its outsourcing activities. The only employees left in Versata were the ones in US. == Acquisitions == a Corizon was acquired by Metatomix, while Metatomix was part of Versata. b Infopia was acquired by Everest Software, while Everest Software was part of Versata. c Symphony Commerce was acquired by Quantum Retail, while Quantum Retail was part of Versata. == Legal disputes == === Patent infringement and "poison pill" lawsuits with Selectica === The legal disputes with Selectica began in 2004 (before Trilogy acquired Versata in January 2006) and lasted until 2010. While there were many suits and counter-suits, they largely centered around three issues: 2004–2006: Patent infringement in configure, price, and quote (CPQ) software 2005–2007: Patent infringement in contract lifecycle management (CLM) software 2008–2010: The "poison pill" lawsuit In 2004, Selectica and Trilogy had competing CPQ software: Selectica sold Solutions Advisor and Deal Optimization, while Trilogy sold Selling Chain. In April of that year, Trilogy Software sued Selectica for patent infringement. In 2005, before the court ruling, Trilogy made several offers to buy Selectica, but the board rejected them. In January 2006, the court ordered Selectica to pay Trilogy $7.5 million in damages. Four days after the January 2006 judgment in the first lawsuit, Trilogy announced its acquisition of Versata for an undisclosed amount. In 2005, Selectica had acquired the Determine CLM software platform, which included features that overlapped with some offered by Versata. In October 2006, Versata filed a second patent infringement lawsuit. The case was settled in 2007, with Selectica agreeing to pay Trilogy and Versata $10 million, plus up to $7.5 million in additional contingent payments. In 2008, Versata began acquiring Selectica stock. By December, Selectica's board amended its shareholder rights plan to adopt a "poison pill" with an unusually low trigger threshold: if any shareholder acquired more than 4.99% of company stock, their ownership would be diluted. The board explained that the move was meant to protect Selectica's net operating losses (NOLs), which were tax-deductible if the company returned to profitability. Under IRS Section 382, a significant change in stock ownership could cause those NOLs to be disqualified. Versata intentionally triggered the poison pill and also offered to sell back the stocks at a profit (greenmailing them), which prompted a legal dispute over whether Selectica's board had the authority to set such a low threshold and whether defending NOLs justified triggering shareholder dilution. The case ultimately reached the Delaware Supreme Court, which upheld the poison pill in October 2010, ruling in favor of Selectica. === Intellectual property lawsuit over joint development with Sun Microsystems === In 1998, Sun Microsystems hired Trilogy to help Sun's developers in California create a software configurator (later named the WC5 Configurator) that Sun's customers could use to modify products they wanted to buy, customizing products to have the features they wanted. Trilogy worked on the WC5 Configurator for several years, then Sun transferred the work to Oracle to finish. Trilogy believed that they owned the copyright to the work they'd done for Sun, and in 2006 after the merger with Versata they sued Sun for more than $100 million in damages. In April 2009, a jury ruled in favor of Sun and rejected Versata's claims. === Patent lawsuit and ruling on patents of abstract ideas with SAP === SAP developed Pricing Engine, a component in their enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. It competed with an older Trilogy product called Pricer, which was part of Trilogy's Selling Chain platform in the mid-1990s before they merged with Versata. In April 2007—the year after Trilogy acquired Versata—Versata filed a lawsuit against SAP for patent infringement. In August 2009, the jury agreed with Versata and awarded them $139 million. The court granted a new trial on damages and in September 2011, in the retrial, the jury awarded Versata $345 million. This then went to the US Court of Appeals, which in May 2013 affirmed the $345 million damages award, plus interest that had accumulated. In October 2014, Versata and SAP settled their litigation for an undisclosed amount of money. With the dispute between Versata and SAP settled, in June 2013 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviewed the validity of the patent itself, and issued a decision in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, stating that the disputed items were abstract ideas and thus under the US patent law not patentable. In July 2015, the Federal Circuit agreed with PTAB's decision that the challenged items were not patentable. === Trade secrets and damages dispute with Internet Brands === Internet Brands was formerly known as CarsDirect and AutoData Solutions. Like Trilogy, they made software for automakers that helped customers compare vehicles online. In the late 1990s, Trilogy and Internet Brands tried to combine their products but failed to do so, and after a December 1999 lawsuit they made a settlement agreement in May 2001. In 2008, Versata sued Internet Brands claiming they had violated the settlement agreement by making presentations to potential clients stating they had a license from Versata to use and sell Versata technical solutions; and doing so had cost Versata business with Chrysler. Internet Brands' countersuit argued that Versata had misappropriated trade secrets and asked the jury to use Versata's business relationship with Toyota—including revenue from Toyota contracts—as a benchmark to calculate damages. The jury agreed and used that data to determine a $2 million damages award in favor of Internet Brands’ subsidiary, AutoData Solutions. Versata appealed the decision, and in January 2014 the court upheld the $2 million award to Internet Brands. === Patent challenges a

  Read more →
• 

  Catholic Church and artificial intelligence

  The Catholic Church views artificial intelligence as a significant technological development that must be governed by strict ethical principles rooted in human dignity and the common good. In January 2025, the Church issued the doctrinal note Antiqua et nova co-issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education. It addresses the "relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence" and offers reflections on the "anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI". In August 2025, Time magazine included Pope Leo XIV in its 2025 list of the World’s Most Influential People in Artificial Intelligence. In May 2026, Pope Leo XIV approved the creation of a new Vatican commission on artificial intelligence. He released his first papal encyclical, titled Magnifica humanitas, on the topic later in the month.

  Read more →
• 

  Revoscalepy

  revoscalepy is a machine learning package in Python created by Microsoft. It is available as part of Machine Learning Services in Microsoft SQL Server 2017 and Machine Learning Server 9.2.0 and later. The package contains functions for creating linear model, logistic regression, random forest, decision tree and boosted decision tree, in addition to some summary functions for inspecting data. Other machine learning algorithms such as neural network are provided in microsoftml, a separate package that is the Python version of MicrosoftML. revoscalepy also contains functions designed to run machine learning algorithms in different compute contexts, including SQL Server, Apache Spark, and Hadoop. In June 2021, Microsoft announced to open source the revoscalepy and RevoScaleR packages, making them freely available under the MIT License.

  Read more →
• 

  Visual descriptor

  In computer vision, visual descriptors or image descriptors are descriptions of the visual features of the contents in images, videos, or algorithms or applications that produce such descriptions. They describe elementary characteristics such as the shape, the color, the texture or the motion, among others. == Introduction == As a result of the new communication technologies and the massive use of Internet in our society, the amount of audio-visual information available in digital format is increasing considerably. Therefore, it has been necessary to design some systems that allow us to describe the content of several types of multimedia information in order to search and classify them. The audio-visual descriptors are in charge of the contents description. These descriptors have a good knowledge of the objects and events found in a video, image or audio and they allow the quick and efficient searches of the audio-visual content. This system can be compared to the search engines for textual contents. Although it is relatively easy to find text with a computer, it is much more difficult to find concrete audio and video parts. For instance, imagine somebody searching a scene of a happy person. The happiness is a feeling and it is not evident its shape, color and texture description in images. The description of the audio-visual content is not a superficial task and it is essential for the effective use of this type of archives. The standardization system that deals with audio-visual descriptors is the MPEG-7 (Motion Picture Expert Group - 7). == Types == Descriptors are the first step to find out the connection between pixels contained in a digital image and what humans recall after having observed an image or a group of images after some minutes. Visual descriptors are divided in two main groups: General information descriptors: contain low level descriptors which give a description about color, shape, regions, textures and motion. Specific domain information descriptors: give information about objects and events in the scene. A concrete example would be face recognition. === General information descriptors === General information descriptors consist of a set of descriptors that covers different basic and elementary features like: color, texture, shape, motion, location and others. This description is automatically generated by means of signal processing. ==== Color ==== It's the most basic quality of visual content. Five tools are defined to describe color. The three first tools represent the color distribution and the last ones describe the color relation between sequences or group of images: Dominant color descriptor (DCD) Scalable color descriptor (SCD) Color structure descriptor (CSD) Color layout descriptor (CLD) Group of frame (GoF) or group-of-pictures (GoP) ==== Texture ==== It's an important quality in order to describe an image. The texture descriptors characterize image textures or regions. They observe the region homogeneity and the histograms of these region borders. The set of descriptors is formed by: Homogeneous texture descriptor (HTD) Texture browsing descriptor (TBD) Edge histogram descriptor (EHD) ==== Shape ==== It contains important semantic information due to human's ability to recognize objects through their shape. However, this information can only be extracted by means of a segmentation similar to the one that the human visual system implements. Nowadays, such a segmentation system is not available yet, however there exists a serial of algorithms which are considered to be a good approximation. These descriptors describe regions, contours and shapes for 2D images and for 3D volumes. The shape descriptors are the following ones: Region-based shape descriptor (RSD) Contour-based shape descriptor (CSD) 3-D shape descriptor (3-D SD) ==== Motion ==== It's defined by four different descriptors which describe motion in video sequence. Motion is related to the objects motion in the sequence and to the camera motion. This last information is provided by the capture device, whereas the rest is implemented by means of image processing. The descriptor set is the following one: Motion activity descriptor (MAD) Camera motion descriptor (CMD) Motion trajectory descriptor (MTD) Warping and parametric motion descriptor (WMD and PMD) ==== Location ==== Elements location in the image is used to describe elements in the spatial domain. In addition, elements can also be located in the temporal domain: Region locator descriptor (RLD) Spatio temporal locator descriptor (STLD) === Specific domain information descriptors === These descriptors, which give information about objects and events in the scene, are not easily extractable, even more when the extraction is to be automatically done. Nevertheless, they can be manually processed. As mentioned before, face recognition is a concrete example of an application that tries to automatically obtain this information. == Descriptors applications == Among all applications, the most important ones are: Multimedia documents search engines and classifiers. Digital library: visual descriptors allow a very detailed and concrete search of any video or image by means of different search parameters. For instance, the search of films where a known actor appears, the search of videos containing the Everest mountain, etc. Personalized electronic news service. Possibility of an automatic connection to a TV channel broadcasting a soccer match, for example, whenever a player approaches the goal area. Control and filtering of concrete audiovisual content, like violent or pornographic material. Also, authorization for some multimedia content.

  Read more →
• 

  Daisy Intelligence

  Daisy Intelligence is a Canadian artificial intelligence (AI) company that provides data analysis services to help retailers, mainly grocers and supermarkets, to determine optimal pricing and promotional mix. The company also helps insurance companies detect fraudulent claims. The company uses a subset of AI known as reinforcement learning. In October 2019, the company moved from the suburban Vaughan, Ontario, to downtown Toronto, joining other AI and technology startups concentrated in the King Street East area. In 2019, the company was ranked No. 39 on The Globe and Mail's annual list of Canada's "top growing companies by three-year revenue growth."

  Read more →
• 

  RuleML

  RuleML is a global initiative, led by a non-profit organization RuleML Inc., that is devoted to advancing research and industry standards design activities in the technical area of rules that are semantic and highly inter-operable. The standards design takes the form primarily of a markup language, also known as RuleML. The research activities include an annual research conference, the RuleML Symposium, also known as RuleML for short. Founded in fall 2000 by Harold Boley, Benjamin Grosof, and Said Tabet, RuleML was originally devoted purely to standards design, but then quickly branched out into the related activities of coordinating research and organizing an annual research conference starting in 2002. The M in RuleML is sometimes interpreted as standing for Markup and Modeling. The markup language was developed to express both forward (bottom-up) and backward (top-down) rules in XML for deduction, rewriting, and further inferential-transformational tasks. It is defined by the Rule Markup Initiative, an open network of individuals and groups from both industry and academia that was formed to develop a canonical Web language for rules using XML markup and transformations from and to other rule standards/systems. Markup standards and initiatives related to RuleML include: Rule Interchange Format (RIF): The design and overall purpose of W3C's Rule Interchange Format (RIF) industry standard is based primarily on the RuleML industry standards design. Like RuleML, RIF embraces a multiplicity of potentially useful rule dialects that nevertheless share common characteristics. RuleML Technical Committee from Oasis-Open: An industry standards effort devoted to legal automation utilizing RuleML. Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL): An industry standards design, based primarily on an early version of RuleML, whose development was funded in part by the DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) research program. Semantic Web Services Framework, particularly its Semantic Web Services Language: An industry standards design, based primarily on a medium-mature version of RuleML, whose development was funded in part by the DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) research program and the WSMO research effort of the EU. Mathematical Markup Language (MathML): However, MathML's Content Markup is better suited for defining functions rather than relations or general rules Predictive Model Markup Language (PMML): With this XML-based language one can define and share various models for data-mining results, including association rules Attribute Grammars in XML (AG-markup): For AG's semantic rules, there are various possible XML markups that are similar to Horn-rule markup Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT): This is a restricted term-rewriting system of rules, written in XML, for transforming XML documents into other text documents

  Read more →