AI Generator Canva

AI Generator Canva — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Datasource

A datasource or DataSource is a name given to the connection set up to a database from a server. The name is commonly used when creating a query to the database. The data source name (DSN) need not be the same as the filename for the database. For example, a database file named friends.mdb could be set up with a DSN of school. Then DSN school would be used to refer to the database when performing a query. == Sun's version of DataSource [1] == A factory for connections to the physical data source that this DataSource object represents. An alternative to the DriverManager facility, a DataSource object is the preferred means of getting a connection. An object that implements the DataSource interface will typically be registered with a naming service based on the Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) API. The DataSource interface is implemented by a driver vendor. There are three types of implementations: Basic implementation — produces a standard Connection object Connection pooling implementation — produces a Connection object that will automatically participate in connection pooling. This implementation works with a middle-tier connection pooling manager. Distributed transaction implementation — produces a Connection object that may be used for distributed transactions and almost always participates in connection pooling. This implementation works with a middle-tier transaction manager and almost always with a connection pooling manager. A DataSource object has properties that can be modified when necessary. For example, if the data source is moved to a different server, the property for the server can be changed. The benefit is that because the data source's properties can be changed, any code accessing that data source does not need to be changed. A driver that is accessed via a DataSource object does not register itself with the DriverManager. Rather, a DataSource object is retrieved through a lookup operation and then used to create a Connection object. With a basic implementation, the connection obtained through a DataSource object is identical to a connection obtained through the DriverManager facility. == Sun's DataSource Overview [2] == A DataSource object is the representation of a data source in the Java programming language. In basic terms, a data source is a facility for storing data. It can be as sophisticated as a complex database for a large corporation or as simple as a file with rows and columns. A data source can reside on a remote server, or it can be on a local desktop machine. Applications access a data source using a connection, and a DataSource object can be thought of as a factory for connections to the particular data source that the DataSource instance represents. The DataSource interface provides two methods for establishing a connection with a data source. Using a DataSource object is the preferred alternative to using the DriverManager for establishing a connection to a data source. They are similar to the extent that the DriverManager class and DataSource interface both have methods for creating a connection, methods for getting and setting a timeout limit for making a connection, and methods for getting and setting a stream for logging. Their differences are more significant than their similarities, however. Unlike the DriverManager, a DataSource object has properties that identify and describe the data source it represents. Also, a DataSource object works with a Java Naming and Directory Interface (JNDI) naming service and can be created, deployed, and managed separately from the applications that use it. A driver vendor will provide a class that is a basic implementation of the DataSource interface as part of its Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) 2.0 or 3.0 driver product. What a system administrator does to register a DataSource object with a JNDI naming service and what an application does to get a connection to a data source using a DataSource object registered with a JNDI naming service are described later in this chapter. Being registered with a JNDI naming service gives a DataSource object two major advantages over the DriverManager. First, an application does not need to hardcode driver information, as it does with the DriverManager. A programmer can choose a logical name for the data source and register the logical name with a JNDI naming service. The application uses the logical name, and the JNDI naming service will supply the DataSource object associated with the logical name. The DataSource object can then be used to create a connection to the data source it represents. The second major advantage is that the DataSource facility allows developers to implement a DataSource class to take advantage of features like connection pooling and distributed transactions. Connection pooling can increase performance dramatically by reusing connections rather than creating a new physical connection each time a connection is requested. The ability to use distributed transactions enables an application to do the heavy duty database work of large enterprises. Although an application may use either the DriverManager or a DataSource object to get a connection, using a DataSource object offers significant advantages and is the recommended way to establish a connection. Since 1.4 Since Java EE 6 a JNDI-bound DataSource can alternatively be configured in a declarative way directly from within the application. This alternative is particularly useful for self-sufficient applications or for transparently using an embedded database. == Yahoo's version of DataSource [3] == A DataSource is an abstract representation of a live set of data that presents a common predictable API for other objects to interact with. The nature of your data, its quantity, its complexity, and the logic for returning query results all play a role in determining your type of DataSource. For small amounts of simple textual data, a JavaScript array is a good choice. If your data has a small footprint but requires a simple computational or transformational filter before being displayed, a JavaScript function may be the right approach. For very large datasets—for example, a robust relational database—or to access a third-party webservice you'll certainly need to leverage the power of a Script Node or XHR DataSource.
Read more →
Sedona Canada Principles

The Sedona Canada Principles are a set of authoritative guidelines published by The Sedona Conference to aid members of the Canadian legal community involved in the identification, collection, preservation, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI). The principles were drafted by a small group of lawyers, judges and technologists called the Sedona Working Group 7 or Sedona Canada. Sedona Canada is an offshoot of The Sedona Conference which is an American "non-profit ... research and educational institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights". == Background == Civil procedure in Canada is jurisdictional with each province following its own rules of civil procedure. However, each province must address the fact that due to the advancement of technology the discovery process enshrined in the rules of civil procedure can be potentially derailed due to the sheer volume of electronically stored information (ESI). When dealing with litigation matters that involve electronically stored information (ESI), the discovery process is commonly called e-discovery. The problems associated with e-discovery in Canada led to the creation of the Sedona Canada Principles. Rule 29.1.03(4) of the wikibooks:Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure specifically refers to the Sedona Canada Principles in referencing Principles re Electronic Discovery although it has been reported that this rule has been largely ignored in practice. == Summary == The Sedona Canada Principles largely refer to the processes found in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model. The principles urge proportionality due to the potentially enormous volumes of documents that may be discoverable when dealing with ESI. They also encourage good faith in the document preservation stage and regular meetings between parties to discuss the scope of the litigation. Parties are urged to be aware of the potential costs involved in producing relevant ESI but are advised that only reasonably accessible ESI need be produced. The principles stipulate that parties should not be required to search for or collect deleted material unless there is an agreement or court order related to those terms. The use of electronic tools and processes such as data sampling and web harvesting are acceptable practices. Parties are encouraged to agree early in the litigation process on production format required for the exchange of relevant documents as part of the discovery process (native files, pdf, tiff, metadata requirements etc.). Agreements or direction should be sought, if necessary, with respect to privilege or other confidential information related to production of electronic documents and data. Parties should be aware that legal precedents can be formed as a result of e-discovery practices and sanctions can be considered for a party's failure to meet their discovery obligations unless it can be demonstrated that the failure was not intentional. All parties must bear the “reasonable” costs associated with e-discovery but other arrangements can be agreed upon by the parties or by court order. == Caselaw == In Warman v. National Post Company proportionality was at issue in a case where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for libel. A motion was brought by the defendant to have the plaintiff provide a mirror image of his hard drive in an effort to prove an internet article was indeed authored by the plaintiff. Issues of proportionality and the work of the Sedona Conference and Sedona Canada Principles were factored in to the decision to grant the defendant only limited access to the hard drive. In Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region the plaintiff's legal obligation to produce imaged hard drives is in question. Justice Conrad refers to the advice of Sedona Canada on proportionality and problems associated with time and expense related to the difficulties associated with electronically stored information. In York University v. Michael Markicevic Justice Brown specifically refers to the need for the parties to agree upon a formal e-discovery plan to be drafted in consultation with Sedona Canada Principles. In Friends of Lansdowne v. Ottawa Master MacLeod refers to the need for Sedona Canada principles and states “This is particularly true in the current information age when e-mail is ubiquitous and multiple copies or variants of messages may be held on various kinds of data storage devices including individual hard drives, e-mail and Blackberry servers. Even documents that ultimately exist in paper form normally begin their life on computers and negotiations frequently involve exchanges of electronic drafts. To find every scrap of paper and every electronic trace of relevant information has become a nightmarish task that threatens to render any kind of litigation extravagantly expensive.” == Criticism == Critics of the Sedona Canada Principles believe they should address system integrity and that the true history of any file preserved cannot be identified without proof of the integrity of the electronic record systems management it comes from. Other criticism is more directed to the Sedona Canada working group and complaints that it is insular and irrelevant.
Read more →
Seismological Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience

The U.S. National Science Foundation's Seismological Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience (NSF SAGE) is a distributed, multi-user national facility that provides support for state of-the-art seismic research. It is operated by EarthScope Consortium. Its previous operator was the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), until its merger with UNAVCO to become EarthScope Consortium. NSF SAGE is one of the two premier geophysical facilities in support of geoscience and geoscience education of the National Science Foundation. The other premiere geophysical facility is NSF GAGE, the Geodetic Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience. The services of the facility include support for the Global Seismographic Network (GSN), Data Services, and instrument support via the EarthScope Primary Instrument Center (EPIC), including magnetotelluric (MT) geophysical research. == Global Seismographic Network (GSN) == NSF SAGE manages 40 stations of the 152-station Global Seismographic Network (GSN) for basic global seismicity and Earth structure research. The GSN also enables earthquake hazard mission-related data operations such as: Earthquake location and characterization Tsunami warning Nuclear explosion monitoring == Data Services == SAGE Data Services (DS) is the largest facility for the archiving, curation, and distribution of seismological and other geophysical data in the world. == EarthScope Primary Instrument Center (EPIC) == The EPIC facility maintains the largest open access, shared-use pool of portable seismic sensors in the world. It is located on the campus of New Mexico Tech. == MT == NSF SAGE provides instruments for magnetotelluric (MT) or electromagnetic geophysical research for the recording of our planet's ambient electric and magnetic fields, which allow for the characterization of the conductivity of the area consisting of the shallow crust to upper mantle. This helps with analysis of results obtained from seismic imaging methodologies. The NSF SAGE facility is: Developing open source MT data formatting and processing software. Providing access to proprietary software products.
Read more →
Record linkage

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

In the fields of computing and computer vision, pose (or spatial pose) represents the position and the orientation of an object, each usually in three dimensions. Poses are often stored internally as transformation matrices. The term “pose” is largely synonymous with the term “transform”, but a transform may often include scale, whereas pose does not. In computer vision, the pose of an object is often estimated from camera input by the process of pose estimation. This information can then be used, for example, to allow a robot to manipulate an object or to avoid moving into the object based on its perceived position and orientation in the environment. Other applications include skeletal action recognition. == Pose estimation == The specific task of determining the pose of an object in an image (or stereo images, image sequence) is referred to as pose estimation. Pose estimation problems can be solved in different ways depending on the image sensor configuration, and choice of methodology. Three classes of methodologies can be distinguished: Analytic or geometric methods: Given that the image sensor (camera) is calibrated and the mapping from 3D points in the scene and 2D points in the image is known. If also the geometry of the object is known, it means that the projected image of the object on the camera image is a well-known function of the object's pose. Once a set of control points on the object, typically corners or other feature points, has been identified, it is then possible to solve the pose transformation from a set of equations which relate the 3D coordinates of the points with their 2D image coordinates. Algorithms that determine the pose of a point cloud with respect to another point cloud are known as point set registration algorithms, if the correspondences between points are not already known. Genetic algorithm methods: If the pose of an object does not have to be computed in real-time a genetic algorithm may be used. This approach is robust especially when the images are not perfectly calibrated. In this particular case, the pose represent the genetic representation and the error between the projection of the object control points with the image is the fitness function. Learning-based methods: These methods use artificial learning-based system which learn the mapping from 2D image features to pose transformation. In short, this means that a sufficiently large set of images of the object, in different poses, must be presented to the system during a learning phase. Once the learning phase is completed, the system should be able to present an estimate of the object's pose given an image of the object. == Camera pose ==
Read more →
Evidence-based library and information practice

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

Algorithms and Combinatorics (ISSN 0937-5511) is a book series in mathematics, and particularly in combinatorics and the design and analysis of algorithms. It is published by Springer Science+Business Media, and was founded in 1987. == Books == The books published in this series include: The Simplex Method: A Probabilistic Analysis (Karl Heinz Borgwardt, 1987, vol. 1) Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization (Martin Grötschel, László Lovász, and Alexander Schrijver, 1988, vol. 2; 2nd ed., 1993) Systems Analysis by Graphs and Matroids (Kazuo Murota, 1987, vol. 3) Greedoids (Bernhard Korte, László Lovász, and Rainer Schrader, 1991, vol. 4) Mathematics of Ramsey Theory (Jaroslav Nešetřil and Vojtěch Rödl, eds., 1990, vol. 5) Matroid Theory and its Applications in Electric Network Theory and in Statics (Andras Recszki, 1989, vol. 6) Irregularities of Partitions: Papers from the meeting held in Fertőd, July 7–11, 1986 (Gábor Halász and Vera T. Sós, eds., 1989, vol. 8) Paths, Flows, and VLSI-Layout: Papers from the meeting held at the University of Bonn, Bonn, June 20–July 1, 1988 (Bernhard Korte, László Lovász, Hans Jürgen Prömel, and Alexander Schrijver, eds., 1990, vol. 9) New Trends in Discrete and Computational Geometry (János Pach, ed., 1993, vol. 10) Discrete Images, Objects, and Functions in Z n {\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} ^{n}} (Klaus Voss, 1993, vol. 11) Linear Optimization and Extensions (Manfred Padberg, 1999, vol. 12) The Mathematics of Paul Erdős I (Ronald Graham and Jaroslav Nešetřil, eds., 1997, vol. 13) The Mathematics of Paul Erdős II (Ronald Graham and Jaroslav Nešetřil, eds., 1997, vol. 14) Geometry of Cuts and Metrics (Michel Deza and Monique Laurent, 1997, vol. 15) Probabilistic Methods for Algorithmic Discrete Mathematics (M. Habib, C. McDiarmid, J. Ramirez-Alfonsin, and B. Reed, 1998, vol. 16) Modern Cryptography, Probabilistic Proofs and Pseudorandomness (Oded Goldreich, 1999, vol. 17) Geometric Discrepancy: An Illustrated Guide (Jiří Matoušek, 1999, vol. 18) Applied Finite Group Actions (Adalbert Kerber, 1999, vol. 19) Matrices and Matroids for Systems Analysis (Kazuo Murota, 2000, vol. 20; corrected ed., 2010) Combinatorial Optimization (Bernhard Korte and Jens Vygen, 2000, vol. 21; 5th ed., 2012) The Strange Logic of Random Graphs (Joel Spencer, 2001, vol. 22) Graph Colouring and the Probabilistic Method (Michael Molloy and Bruce Reed, 2002, Vol. 23) Combinatorial Optimization: Polyhedra and Efficiency (Alexander Schrijver, 2003, vol. 24. In three volumes: A. Paths, flows, matchings; B. Matroids, trees, stable sets; C. Disjoint paths, hypergraphs) Discrete and Computational Geometry: The Goodman-Pollack Festschrift (B. Aronov, S. Basu, J. Pach, and M. Sharir, eds., 2003, vol. 25) Topics in Discrete Mathematics: Dedicated to Jarik Nešetril on the Occasion of his 60th birthday (M. Klazar, J. Kratochvíl, M. Loebl, J. Matoušek, R. Thomas, and P. Valtr, eds., 2006, vol. 26) Boolean Function Complexity: Advances and Frontiers (Stasys Jukna, 2012, Vol. 27) Sparsity: Graphs, Structures, and Algorithms (Jaroslav Nešetřil and Patrice Ossona de Mendez, 2012, vol. 28) Optimal Interconnection Trees in the Plane (Marcus Brazil and Martin Zachariasen, 2015, vol. 29) Combinatorics and Complexity of Partition Functions (Alexander Barvinok, 2016, vol. 30)
Read more →
March algorithm

The March algorithm is a widely used algorithm that tests SRAM memory by filling all its entries test patterns. It carries out several passes through an SRAM checking the patterns and writing new patterns. The SRAM read and write operations performed on each pass are called a March element and each element is repeated for each entry. The March algorithm is often used to find functional faults in SRAM during testing such as: Stuck-at Faults (SAFs) Transition Faults (TFs) Address Decoder Faults (AFs) Coupling Faults (CFs), such as Inversion (CFin), Idempotent (CFid), and State (CFst) coupling faults It has been suggested to test SRAM modules using the algorithm before sale using a built-in self-test mechanism. == Notation == Each pass in a test sequence is represented by an "element". An element consists of a vertical arrow to indicate the direction in which the memory is scanned followed by a list of read/write operations to be applied to each memory cell. Multiple elements can be listed, separated by semicolons, to form a "test". For example, { ⇕ ( w 0 ) ; ⇑ ( r 0 , w 1 ) ; ⇓ ( r 1 , w 0 , r 0 ) } {\displaystyle \{\Updownarrow (w0);\Uparrow (r0,w1);\Downarrow (r1,w0,r0)\}} specifies to: Scan in both directions, writing 0. Scan from lowest to highest address, reading 0 and writing 1. Scan from highest to lowest address, reading 1, writing 0 and reading 0. == Variants == Many variants of the March algorithm exist with different sequences of tests. Each variant makes a different tradeoff between what faults it can detect and the complexity of the algorithm. Several variants have been given names:
Read more →
Secure element

A secure element (SE) is a secure operating system (OS) in a tamper-resistant processor chip or secure component. It can protect assets (root of trust, sensitive data, keys, certificates, applications) against high-level software and hardware attacks. Applications that process this sensitive data on an SE are isolated and so operate within a controlled environment not affected by software (including possible malware) found elsewhere on the OS. The hardware and embedded software meet the requirements of the Security IC Platform Protection Profile [PP 0084] including resistance to physical tampering scenarios described within it. More than 96 billion secure elements were produced and shipped between 2010 and 2021. SEs exist in various form factors, as devices such as smart cards, UICCs, or smart microSD cards, or embedded, or integrated, as parts of larger devices. SEs are an evolution of the chips in earlier smart cards, which have been adapted to suit the needs of numerous use cases, such as smartphones, tablets, set-top boxes, wearables, connected cars, and other internet of things (IoT) devices. The technology is widely used by technology firms such as Oracle, Apple and Samsung. SEs provide secure isolation, storage and processing for applications (called applets) they host while being isolated from the external world (e.g. rich OS and application processor when embedded in a smartphone) and from other applications running on the SE. Java Card and MULTOS are the most deployed standardized multi-application operating systems currently used to develop applications running on SEs. Since 1999, GlobalPlatform has been the body responsible for standardizing secure element technologies to support a dynamic model of application management in a multi-actor model. GlobalPlatform also runs Functional and Security Certification programmes for secure elements, and hosts a list of Functional Certified and Security Certified products. GlobalPlatform technology is also embedded in other standards such as ETSI SCP (now SET) since release 7. A Common Criteria Secure Element Protection Profile has been released targeting EAL4+ level with ALC_DVS.2 and AVA_VAN.5 extension to standardize the security features of a secure element across markets.
Read more →
Savepoint

A savepoint is a way of implementing subtransactions (also known as nested transactions) within a relational database management system by indicating a point within a transaction that can be "rolled back to" without affecting any work done in the transaction before the savepoint was created. Multiple savepoints can exist within a single transaction. Savepoints are useful for implementing complex error recovery in database applications. If an error occurs in the midst of a multiple-statement transaction, the application may be able to recover from the error (by rolling back to a savepoint) without needing to abort the entire transaction. A savepoint can be declared by issuing a SAVEPOINT name statement. All changes made after a savepoint has been declared can be undone by issuing a ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT name command. Issuing RELEASE SAVEPOINT name will cause the named savepoint to be discarded, but will not otherwise affect anything. Issuing the commands ROLLBACK or COMMIT will also discard any savepoints created since the start of the main transaction. Savepoints are defined in the SQL standard and are supported by all established SQL relational databases, including PostgreSQL, Oracle Database, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, IBM Db2, SQLite (since 3.6.8), Firebird, H2 Database Engine, and Informix (since version 11.50xC3).
Read more →
Software intelligence

Software intelligence is insight into the inner workings and structural condition of software assets produced by software designed to analyze database structure, software framework and source code to better understand and control complex software systems in information technology environments. Similarly to business intelligence (BI), software intelligence is produced by a set of software tools and techniques for the mining of data and the software's inner-structure. Results are automatically produced and feed a knowledge base containing technical documentation and blueprints of the innerworking of applications, and make it available to all to be used by business and software stakeholders to make informed decisions, measure the efficiency of software development organizations, communicate about the software health, prevent software catastrophes. == History == Software intelligence has been used by Kirk Paul Lafler, an American engineer, entrepreneur, and consultant, and founder of Software Intelligence Corporation in 1979. At that time, it was mainly related to SAS activities, in which he has been an expert since 1979. In the early 1980s, Victor R. Basili participated in different papers detailing a methodology for collecting valid software engineering data relating to software engineering, evaluation of software development, and variations. In 2004, different software vendors in software analysis started using the terms as part of their product naming and marketing strategy. Then in 2010, Ahmed E. Hassan and Tao Xie defined software intelligence as a "practice offering software practitioners up-to-date and pertinent information to support their daily decision-making processes and Software Intelligence should support decision-making processes throughout the lifetime of a software system". They go on by defining software intelligence as a "strong impact on modern software practice" for the upcoming decades. == Capabilities == Because of the complexity and wide range of components and subjects implied in software, software intelligence is derived from different aspects of software: Software composition is the construction of software application components. Components result from software coding, as well as the integration of the source code from external components: Open source, 3rd party components, or frameworks. Other components can be integrated using application programming interface call to libraries or services. Software architecture refers to the structure and organization of elements of a system, relations, and properties among them. Software flaws designate problems that can cause security, stability, resiliency, and unexpected results. There is no standard definition of software flaws but the most accepted is from The MITRE Corporation where common flaws are cataloged as Common Weakness Enumeration. Software grades assess attributes of the software. Historically, the classification and terminology of attributes have been derived from the ISO 9126-3 and the subsequent ISO 25000:2005 quality model. Software economics refers to the resource evaluation of software in the past, present, or future to make decisions and to govern. == Components == The capabilities of software intelligence platforms include an increasing number of components: Code analyzer to serve as an information basis for other software intelligence components identifying objects created by the programming language, external objects from Open source, third parties objects, frameworks, API, or services Graphical visualization and blueprinting of the inner structure of the software product or application considered including dependencies, from data acquisition (automated and real-time data capture, end-user entries) up to data storage, the different layers within the software, and the coupling between all elements. Navigation capabilities within components and impact analysis features List of flaws, architectural and coding violations, against standardized best practices, cloud blocker preventing migration to a Cloud environment, and rogue data-call entailing the security and integrity of software Grades or scores of the structural and software quality aligned with industry-standard like OMG, CISQ or SEI assessing the reliability, security, efficiency, maintainability, and scalability to cloud or other systems. Metrics quantifying and estimating software economics including work effort, sizing, and technical debt Industry references and benchmarking allowing comparisons between outputs of analysis and industry standards == User aspect == Some considerations must be made in order to successfully integrate the usage of software Intelligence systems in a company. Ultimately the software intelligence system must be accepted and utilized by the users in order for it to add value to the organization. If the system does not add value to the users' mission, they simply don't use it as stated by M. Storey in 2003. At the code level and system representation, software intelligence systems must provide a different level of abstractions: an abstract view for designing, explaining and documenting and a detailed view for understanding and analyzing the software system. At the governance level, the user acceptance for software intelligence covers different areas related to the inner functioning of the system as well as the output of the system. It encompasses these requirements: Comprehensive: missing information may lead to a wrong or inappropriate decision, as well as it is a factor influencing the user acceptance of a system. Accurate: accuracy depends on how the data is collected to ensure fair and indisputable opinion and judgment. Precise: precision is usually judged by comparing several measurements from the same or different sources. Scalable: lack of scalability in the software industry is a critical factor leading to failure. Credible: outputs must be trusted and believed. Deploy-able and usable. == Applications == Software intelligence has many applications in all businesses relating to the software environment, whether it is software for professionals, individuals, or embedded software. Depending on the association and the usage of the components, applications will relate to: Change and modernization: uniform documentation and blueprinting on all inner components, external code integrated, or call to internal or external components of the software Resiliency and security: measuring against industry standards to diagnose structural flaws in an IT environment. Compliance validation regarding security, specific regulations or technical matters. Decisions making and governance: Providing analytics about the software itself or stakeholders involved in the development of the software, e.g. productivity measurement to inform business and IT leaders about progress towards business goals. Assessment and Benchmarking to help business and IT leaders to make informed, fact-based decision about software. == Marketplace == Software intelligence is a high-level discipline and has been gradually growing covering the applications listed above. There are several markets driving the need for it: Application Portfolio Analysis (APA) aiming at improving the enterprise performance. Software Assessment for producing the software KPI and improving quality and productivity. Software security and resiliency measures and validation. Software evolution or legacy modernization, for which blueprinting the software systems are needed nor tools improving and facilitating modifications.
Read more →
Algorithmic game theory

Algorithmic game theory (AGT) is an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of game theory and computer science, focused on understanding and designing algorithms for environments where multiple strategic agents interact. This research area combines computational thinking with economic principles to address challenges that emerge when algorithmic inputs come from self-interested participants. In traditional algorithm design, inputs are assumed to be fixed and reliable. However, in many real-world applications—such as online auctions, internet routing, digital advertising, and resource allocation systems—inputs are provided by multiple independent agents who may strategically misreport information to manipulate outcomes in their favor. AGT provides frameworks to analyze and design systems that remain effective despite such strategic behavior. The field can be approached from two complementary perspectives: Analysis: Evaluating existing algorithms and systems through game-theoretic tools to understand their strategic properties. This includes calculating and proving properties of Nash equilibria (stable states where no participant can benefit by changing only their own strategy), measuring price of anarchy (efficiency loss due to selfish behavior), and analyzing best-response dynamics (how systems evolve when players sequentially optimize their strategies). Design: Creating mechanisms and algorithms with both desirable computational properties and game-theoretic robustness. This sub-field, known as algorithmic mechanism design, develops systems that incentivize truthful behavior while maintaining computational efficiency. Algorithm designers in this domain must satisfy traditional algorithmic requirements (such as polynomial-time running time and good approximation ratio) while simultaneously addressing incentive constraints that ensure participants act according to the system's intended design. == History == === Nisan-Ronen: a new framework for studying algorithms === In 1999, the seminal paper of Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen drew the attention of the Theoretical Computer Science community to designing algorithms for selfish (strategic) users. As they claim in the abstract: We consider algorithmic problems in a distributed setting where the participants cannot be assumed to follow the algorithm but rather their own self-interest. As such participants, termed agents, are capable of manipulating the algorithm, the algorithm designer should ensure in advance that the agents’ interests are best served by behaving correctly. Following notions from the field of mechanism design, we suggest a framework for studying such algorithms. In this model the algorithmic solution is adorned with payments to the participants and is termed a mechanism. The payments should be carefully chosen as to motivate all participants to act as the algorithm designer wishes. We apply the standard tools of mechanism design to algorithmic problems and in particular to the shortest path problem. This paper coined the term algorithmic mechanism design and was recognized by the 2012 Gödel Prize committee as one of "three papers laying foundation of growth in Algorithmic Game Theory". === Price of Anarchy === The other two papers cited in the 2012 Gödel Prize for fundamental contributions to Algorithmic Game Theory introduced and developed the concept of "Price of Anarchy". In their 1999 paper "Worst-case Equilibria", Koutsoupias and Papadimitriou proposed a new measure of the degradation of system efficiency due to the selfish behavior of its agents: the ratio of between system efficiency at an optimal configuration, and its efficiency at the worst Nash equilibrium. (The term "Price of Anarchy" only appeared a couple of years later.) === The Internet as a catalyst === The Internet created a new economy—both as a foundation for exchange and commerce, and in its own right. The computational nature of the Internet allowed for the use of computational tools in this new emerging economy. On the other hand, the Internet itself is the outcome of actions of many. This was new to the classic, ‘top-down’ approach to computation that held till then. Thus, game theory is a natural way to view the Internet and interactions within it, both human and mechanical. Game theory studies equilibria (such as the Nash equilibrium). An equilibrium is generally defined as a state in which no player has an incentive to change their strategy. Equilibria are found in several fields related to the Internet, for instance financial interactions and communication load-balancing. Game theory provides tools to analyze equilibria, and a common approach is then to ‘find the game’—that is, to formalize specific Internet interactions as a game, and to derive the associated equilibria. Rephrasing problems in terms of games allows the analysis of Internet-based interactions and the construction of mechanisms to meet specified demands. If equilibria can be shown to exist, a further question must be answered: can an equilibrium be found, and in reasonable time? This leads to the analysis of algorithms for finding equilibria. Of special importance is the complexity class PPAD, which includes many problems in algorithmic game theory. == Areas of research == === Algorithmic mechanism design === Mechanism design is the subarea of economics that deals with optimization under incentive constraints. Algorithmic mechanism design considers the optimization of economic systems under computational efficiency requirements. Typical objectives studied include revenue maximization and social welfare maximization. === Inefficiency of equilibria === The concepts of price of anarchy and price of stability were introduced to capture the loss in performance of a system due to the selfish behavior of its participants. The price of anarchy captures the worst-case performance of the system at equilibrium relative to the optimal performance possible. The price of stability, on the other hand, captures the relative performance of the best equilibrium of the system. These concepts are counterparts to the notion of approximation ratio in algorithm design. === Complexity of finding equilibria === The existence of an equilibrium in a game is typically established using non-constructive fixed point theorems. There are no efficient algorithms known for computing Nash equilibria. The problem is complete for the complexity class PPAD even in 2-player games. In contrast, correlated equilibria can be computed efficiently using linear programming, as well as learned via no-regret strategies. === Computational social choice === Computational social choice studies computational aspects of social choice, the aggregation of individual agents' preferences. Examples include algorithms and computational complexity of voting rules and coalition formation. Other topics include: Algorithms for computing Market equilibria Fair division Multi-agent systems And the area counts with diverse practical applications: Sponsored search auctions Spectrum auctions Cryptocurrencies Prediction markets Reputation systems Sharing economy Matching markets such as kidney exchange and school choice Crowdsourcing and peer grading Economics of the cloud == Journals and newsletters == ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) SIGEcom Exchanges Algorithmic Game Theory papers are often also published in Game Theory journals such as GEB, Economics journals such as Econometrica, and Computer Science journals such as SICOMP.
Read more →
Developmental robotics

Developmental robotics (DevRob), sometimes called epigenetic robotics, is a scientific field which aims at studying the developmental mechanisms, architectures and constraints that allow lifelong and open-ended learning of new skills and new knowledge in embodied machines. As in human children, learning is expected to be cumulative and of progressively increasing complexity, and to result from self-exploration of the world in combination with social interaction. The typical methodological approach consists in starting from theories of human and animal development elaborated in fields such as developmental psychology, neuroscience, developmental and evolutionary biology, and linguistics, then to formalize and implement them in robots, sometimes exploring extensions or variants of them. The experimentation of those models in robots allows researchers to confront them with reality, and as a consequence, developmental robotics also provides feedback and novel hypotheses on theories of human and animal development. Developmental robotics is related to but differs from evolutionary robotics (ER). ER uses populations of robots that evolve over time, whereas DevRob is interested in how the organization of a single robot's control system develops through experience, over time. DevRob is also related to work done in the domains of robotics and artificial life. == Background == Can a robot learn like a child? Can it learn a variety of new skills and new knowledge unspecified at design time and in a partially unknown and changing environment? How can it discover its body and its relationships with the physical and social environment? How can its cognitive capacities continuously develop without the intervention of an engineer once it is "out of the factory"? What can it learn through natural social interactions with humans? These are the questions at the center of developmental robotics. Alan Turing, as well as a number of other pioneers of cybernetics, already formulated those questions and the general approach in 1950, but it is only since the end of the 20th century that they began to be investigated systematically. Because the concept of adaptive intelligent machines is central to developmental robotics, it has relationships with fields such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, cognitive robotics or computational neuroscience. Yet, while it may reuse some of the techniques elaborated in these fields, it differs from them from many perspectives. It differs from classical artificial intelligence because it does not assume the capability of advanced symbolic reasoning and focuses on embodied and situated sensorimotor and social skills rather than on abstract symbolic problems. It differs from cognitive robotics because it focuses on the processes that allow the formation of cognitive capabilities rather than these capabilities themselves. It differs from computational neuroscience because it focuses on functional modeling of integrated architectures of development and learning. More generally, developmental robotics is uniquely characterized by the following three features: It targets task-independent architectures and learning mechanisms, i.e. the machine/robot has to be able to learn new tasks that are unknown by the engineer; It emphasizes open-ended development and lifelong learning, i.e. the capacity of an organism to acquire continuously novel skills. This should not be understood as a capacity for learning "anything" or even “everything”, but just that the set of skills that is acquired can be infinitely extended at least in some (not all) directions; The complexity of acquired knowledge and skills shall increase (and the increase be controlled) progressively. Developmental robotics emerged at the crossroads of several research communities including embodied artificial intelligence, enactive and dynamical systems cognitive science, connectionism. Starting from the essential idea that learning and development happen as the self-organized result of the dynamical interactions among brains, bodies and their physical and social environment, and trying to understand how this self-organization can be harnessed to provide task-independent lifelong learning of skills of increasing complexity, developmental robotics strongly interacts with fields such as developmental psychology, developmental and cognitive neuroscience, developmental biology (embryology), evolutionary biology, and cognitive linguistics. As many of the theories coming from these sciences are verbal and/or descriptive, this implies a crucial formalization and computational modeling activity in developmental robotics. These computational models are then not only used as ways to explore how to build more versatile and adaptive machines but also as a way to evaluate their coherence and possibly explore alternative explanations for understanding biological development. == Research directions == === Skill domains === Due to the general approach and methodology, developmental robotics projects typically focus on having robots develop the same types of skills as human infants. A first category that is important being investigated is the acquisition of sensorimotor skills. These include the discovery of one's own body, including its structure and dynamics such as hand-eye coordination, locomotion, and interaction with objects as well as tool use, with a particular focus on the discovery and learning of affordances. A second category of skills targeted by developmental robots are social and linguistic skills: the acquisition of simple social behavioural games such as turn-taking, coordinated interaction, lexicons, syntax and grammar, and the grounding of these linguistic skills into sensorimotor skills (sometimes referred as symbol grounding). In parallel, the acquisition of associated cognitive skills are being investigated such as the emergence of the self/non-self distinction, the development of attentional capabilities, of categorization systems and higher-level representations of affordances or social constructs, of the emergence of values, empathy, or theories of mind. === Mechanisms and constraints === The sensorimotor and social spaces in which humans and robot live are so large and complex that only a small part of potentially learnable skills can actually be explored and learnt within a life-time. Thus, mechanisms and constraints are necessary to guide developmental organisms in their development and control of the growth of complexity. There are several important families of these guiding mechanisms and constraints which are studied in developmental robotics, all inspired by human development: Motivational systems, generating internal reward signals that drive exploration and learning, which can be of two main types: extrinsic motivations push robots/organisms to maintain basic specific internal properties such as food and water level, physical integrity, or light (e.g. in phototropic systems); intrinsic motivations push robot to search for novelty, challenge, compression or learning progress per se, thus generating what is sometimes called curiosity-driven learning and exploration, or alternatively active learning and exploration; Social guidance: as humans learn a lot by interacting with their peers, developmental robotics investigates mechanisms that can allow robots to participate to human-like social interaction. By perceiving and interpreting social cues, this may allow robots both to learn from humans (through diverse means such as imitation, emulation, stimulus enhancement, demonstration, etc. ...) and to trigger natural human pedagogy. Thus, social acceptance of developmental robots is also investigated; Statistical inference biases and cumulative knowledge/skill reuse: biases characterizing both representations/encodings and inference mechanisms can typically allow considerable improvement of the efficiency of learning and are thus studied. Related to this, mechanisms allowing to infer new knowledge and acquire new skills by reusing previously learnt structures is also an essential field of study; The properties of embodiment, including geometry, materials, or innate motor primitives/synergies often encoded as dynamical systems, can considerably simplify the acquisition of sensorimotor or social skills, and is sometimes referred as morphological computation. The interaction of these constraints with other constraints is an important axis of investigation; Maturational constraints: In human infants, both the body and the neural system grow progressively, rather than being full-fledged already at birth. This implies, for example, that new degrees of freedom, as well as increases of the volume and resolution of available sensorimotor signals, may appear as learning and development unfold. Transposing these mechanisms in developmental robots, and understanding how it may hinder or on the contrary ease the acquisition of novel complex skills is a central questi
Read more →
Magic state distillation

Magic state distillation is a method for creating more accurate quantum states from multiple noisy ones, which is important for building fault tolerant quantum computers. It has also been linked to quantum contextuality, a concept thought to contribute to quantum computers' power. The technique was first proposed by Emanuel Knill in 2004, and further analyzed by Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev the same year. Thanks to the Gottesman–Knill theorem, it is known that some quantum operations (operations in the Clifford group) can be perfectly simulated in polynomial time on a classical computer. In order to achieve universal quantum computation, a quantum computer must be able to perform operations outside this set. Magic state distillation achieves this, in principle, by concentrating the usefulness of imperfect resources, represented by mixed states, into states that are conducive for performing operations that are difficult to simulate classically. A variety of qubit magic state distillation routines and distillation routines for qubits with various advantages have been proposed. == Stabilizer formalism == The Clifford group consists of a set of n {\displaystyle n} -qubit operations generated by the gates {H, S, CNOT} (where H is Hadamard and S is [ 1 0 0 i ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&i\end{bmatrix}}} ) called Clifford gates. The Clifford group generates stabilizer states which can be efficiently simulated classically, as shown by the Gottesman–Knill theorem. This set of gates with a non-Clifford operation is universal for quantum computation. == Magic states == Magic states are purified from n {\displaystyle n} copies of a mixed state ρ {\displaystyle \rho } . These states are typically provided via an ancilla to the circuit. A magic state for the π / 6 {\displaystyle \pi /6} rotation operator is | M ⟩ = cos ⁡ ( β / 2 ) | 0 ⟩ + e i π 4 sin ⁡ ( β / 2 ) | 1 ⟩ {\displaystyle |M\rangle =\cos(\beta /2)|0\rangle +e^{i{\frac {\pi }{4}}}\sin(\beta /2)|1\rangle } where β = arccos ⁡ ( 1 3 ) {\displaystyle \beta =\arccos \left({\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}\right)} . A non-Clifford gate can be generated by combining (copies of) magic states with Clifford gates. Since a set of Clifford gates combined with a non-Clifford gate is universal for quantum computation, magic states combined with Clifford gates are also universal. == Purification algorithm for distilling |M〉 == The first magic state distillation algorithm, invented by Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev, is as follows. Input: Prepare 5 imperfect states. Output: An almost pure state having a small error probability. repeat Apply the decoding operation of the five-qubit error correcting code and measure the syndrome. If the measured syndrome is | 0000 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0000\rangle } , the distillation attempt is successful. else Get rid of the resulting state and restart the algorithm. until The states have been distilled to the desired purity.
Read more →
Grid-oriented storage

Grid-oriented Storage (GOS) was a term used for data storage by a university project during the era when the term grid computing was popular. == Description == GOS was a successor of the term network-attached storage (NAS). GOS systems contained hard disks, often RAIDs (redundant arrays of independent disks), like traditional file servers. GOS was designed to deal with long-distance, cross-domain and single-image file operations, which is typical in Grid environments. GOS behaves like a file server via the file-based GOS-FS protocol to any entity on the grid. Similar to GridFTP, GOS-FS integrates a parallel stream engine and Grid Security Infrastructure (GSI). Conforming to the universal VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch), GOS-FS can be pervasively used as an underlying platform to best utilize the increased transfer bandwidth and accelerate the NFS/CIFS-based applications. GOS can also run over SCSI, Fibre Channel or iSCSI, which does not affect the acceleration performance, offering both file level protocols and block level protocols for storage area network (SAN) from the same system. In a grid infrastructure, resources may be geographically distant from each other, produced by differing manufacturers, and have differing access control policies. This makes access to grid resources dynamic and conditional upon local constraints. Centralized management techniques for these resources are limited in their scalability both in terms of execution efficiency and fault tolerance. Provision of services across such platforms requires a distributed resource management mechanism and the peer-to-peer clustered GOS appliances allow a single storage image to continue to expand, even if a single GOS appliance reaches its capacity limitations. The cluster shares a common, aggregate presentation of the data stored on all participating GOS appliances. Each GOS appliance manages its own internal storage space. The major benefit of this aggregation is that clustered GOS storage can be accessed by users as a single mount point. GOS products fit the thin-server categorization. Compared with traditional “fat server”-based storage architectures, thin-server GOS appliances deliver numerous advantages, such as the alleviation of potential network/grid bottle-necks, CPU and OS optimized for I/O only, ease of installation, remote management and minimal maintenance, low cost and Plug and Play, etc. Examples of similar innovations include NAS, printers, fax machines, routers and switches. An Apache server has been installed in the GOS operating system, ensuring an HTTPS-based communication between the GOS server and an administrator via a Web browser. Remote management and monitoring makes it easy to set up, manage, and monitor GOS systems. == History == Frank Zhigang Wang and Na Helian proposed a funding proposal to the UK government titled “Grid-Oriented Storage (GOS): Next Generation Data Storage System Architecture for the Grid Computing Era” in 2003. The proposal was approved and granted one million pounds in 2004. The first prototype was constructed in 2005 at Centre for Grid Computing, Cambridge-Cranfield High Performance Computing Facility. The first conference presentation was at IEEE Symposium on Cluster Computing and Grid (CCGrid), 9–12 May 2005, Cardiff, UK. As one of the five best work-in-progress, it was included in the IEEE Distributed Systems Online. In 2006, the GOS architecture and its implementations was published in IEEE Transactions on Computers, titled “Grid-oriented Storage: A Single-Image, Cross-Domain, High-Bandwidth Architecture”. Starting in January 2007, demonstrations were presented at Princeton University, Cambridge University Computer Lab and others. By 2013, the Cranfield Centre still used future tense for the project. Peer-to-peer file sharings use similar techniques.
Read more →