AI Generator Qr Code

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

• 

  Crucible (software)

  Crucible is a collaborative code review application by Australian software company Atlassian. Like other Atlassian products, Crucible is a Web-based application primarily aimed at enterprise, and certain features that enable peer review of a codebase may be considered enterprise social software. Crucible is particularly tailored to remote workers, and facilitates asynchronous review and commenting on code. Crucible also integrates with popular source control tools, such as Git and Subversion. Crucible is not open source, but customers are allowed to view and modify the code for their own use.

  Read more →
• 

  Research data archiving

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

  Read more →
• 

  Basic Formal Ontology

  Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a top-level ontology developed by Barry Smith and colleagues to promote interoperability among domain ontologies. The BFO methodology accomplishes this through a process of downward population. BFO is a formal ontology. The structure of BFO is based on a division of entities into two disjoint categories of continuant and occurrent, the former consists of objects and spatial regions, the latter contains processes conceived as extended through (or spanning) time. BFO thereby seeks to consolidate both time and space within a single framework A guide to building BFO-conformant domain ontologies was published by MIT Press in 2015. In 2021, the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 Information Technology — Top-level Ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) was published by the Joint Technical Committee of the International Standards Organization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 21838 is a multi-part standard. Part 1 of the standard specifies the requirements that must be met if an ontology is to be classified as a top-level ontology by the standard. == History == BFO arose against the background of research in ontologies in the domain of geospatial information science by David Mark, Pierre Grenon, Achille Varzi and others, with a special role for the study of vagueness and of the ways sharp boundaries in the geospatial and other domains are created by fiat. BFO has passed through four major releases. 2001: release of BFO 1 2007: release of BFO 1.1 2015: release of BFO 2.0 2020: release of BFO 2020 2021: release of BFO 2020 as an ISO/IEC Standard The current revision was released in 2020, and this forms the basis of the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2, which was released by the Joint Committee of the International Standards Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission in 2021. == Applications == BFO has been adopted as a foundational ontology by over 650 ontology projects, principally in the areas of biomedical ontology, security and defense (intelligence) ontology, and industry ontologies. Example applications of BFO can be seen in the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). In January 2024, BFO and the Common Core Ontologies (CCO), a suite of BFO-extension ontologies, were adopted as the "baseline standards for formal DOD and IC ontology" development work in the DOD and Intelligence Community. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the chief data officers of the DOD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

  Read more →
• 

  Anyword

  Anyword is a technology company that offers an artificial intelligence platform, using natural language processing to generate and optimize marketing text for websites, social media, email, and ads. The company also offers a complete managed service to publishers and brands to help them increase their revenue through social ads. It is used by National Geographic, Red Bull, The New York Times, BBC, Ted Baker, etc. The company has an office in New York, and Tel Aviv. == History == It was founded in 2013 — its original name was Keywee Inc. In March 2015, Anyword received $9.1 million in the Series A funding round led by a notable group of investors. In July 2016, the company was selected as an official Facebook Marketing Partner. In August 2019, Anyword was named Best Content Marketing Platform in the Digiday Technology Award winners. In November 2021, it raised $21 million in its Series B funding round.

  Read more →
• 

  Uniform convergence in probability

  Uniform convergence in probability is a form of convergence in probability in statistical asymptotic theory and probability theory. It means that, under certain conditions, the empirical frequencies of all events in a certain event-family uniformly converge to their theoretical probabilities. Uniform convergence in probability has applications to statistics as well as machine learning as part of statistical learning theory. Specifically, the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and the homonymous classes of functions are fundamentally related to uniform convergence. The law of large numbers says that, for each single event A {\displaystyle A} , its empirical frequency in a sequence of independent trials converges (with high probability) to its theoretical probability. In many application however, the need arises to judge simultaneously the probabilities of events of an entire class S {\displaystyle S} from one and the same sample. Moreover, it, is required that the relative frequency of the events converge to the probability uniformly over the entire class of events S {\displaystyle S} . The Uniform Convergence Theorem gives a sufficient condition for this convergence to hold. Roughly, if the event-family is sufficiently simple (its VC dimension is sufficiently small) then uniform convergence holds. == Definitions == For a class of predicates H {\displaystyle H} defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and a set of samples x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x m ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{m})} , where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} , the empirical frequency of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} on x {\displaystyle x} is Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | . {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|.} The theoretical probability of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} is defined as Q P ( h ) = P { y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } . {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{y\in X:h(y)=1\}.} The Uniform Convergence Theorem states, roughly, that if H {\displaystyle H} is "simple" and we draw samples independently (with replacement) from X {\displaystyle X} according to any distribution P {\displaystyle P} , then with high probability, the empirical frequency will be close to its expected value, which is the theoretical probability. Here "simple" means that the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of the class H {\displaystyle H} is small relative to the size of the sample. In other words, a sufficiently simple collection of functions behaves roughly the same on a small random sample as it does on the distribution as a whole. The Uniform Convergence Theorem was first proved by Vapnik and Chervonenkis using the concept of growth function. == Uniform Convergence Theorem == The statement of the Uniform Convergence Theorem is as follows: If H {\displaystyle H} is a set of { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability distribution on X {\displaystyle X} then for ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} and m {\displaystyle m} a positive integer, we have: P m { | Q P ( h ) − Q x ^ ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } ≤ 4 Π H ( 2 m ) e − ε 2 m / 8 . {\displaystyle P^{m}\{|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q_{x}}}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}\leq 4\Pi _{H}(2m)e^{-\varepsilon ^{2}m/8}.} In the above, for any x ∈ X m , {\displaystyle x\in X^{m},} Q P ( h ) = P { ( y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } , {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{(y\in X:h(y)=1\},} Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|} and | x | = m . {\displaystyle |x|=m.} P m {\displaystyle P^{m}} indicates that the probability is taken over x {\displaystyle x} consisting of m {\displaystyle m} i.i.d. draws from the distribution P . {\displaystyle P.} Finally, the growth function Π H {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}} is defined in the following way, for any { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions H {\displaystyle H} over X {\displaystyle X} and for any natural number m {\displaystyle m} : Π H ( m ) = max | { h ∩ D : D ⊆ X , | D | = m , h ∈ H } | . {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)=\max |\{h\cap D:D\subseteq X,|D|=m,h\in H\}|.} From the point of view of Learning Theory one can consider H {\displaystyle H} to be the Concept/Hypothesis class defined over the instance set X {\displaystyle X} . Crucially, the Sauer–Shelah lemma implies that Π H ( m ) ≤ m d {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)\leq m^{d}} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} . == Proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem == and are the sources of the proof below. Before we get into the details of the proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem we will present a high level overview of the proof. Symmetrization: We transform the problem of analyzing | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } into the problem of analyzing | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} , where r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are i.i.d samples of size m {\displaystyle m} drawn according to the distribution P {\displaystyle P} . One can view r {\displaystyle r} as the original randomly drawn sample of length m {\displaystyle m} , while s {\displaystyle s} may be thought as the testing sample which is used to estimate Q P ( h ) {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)} . Permutation: Since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are picked identically and independently, so swapping elements between them will not change the probability distribution on r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . So, we will try to bound the probability of | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} for some h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} by considering the effect of a specific collection of permutations of the joint sample x = r | | s {\displaystyle x=r||s} . Specifically, we consider permutations σ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (x)} which swap x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x m + i {\displaystyle x_{m+i}} in some subset of 1 , 2 , . . . , m {\displaystyle {1,2,...,m}} . The symbol r | | s {\displaystyle r||s} means the concatenation of r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . Reduction to a finite class: We can now restrict the function class H {\displaystyle H} to a fixed joint sample and hence, if H {\displaystyle H} has finite VC Dimension, it reduces to the problem to one involving a finite function class. We present the technical details of the proof. It should be stressed that this proof glosses over details like the measurability of the events V {\displaystyle V} and R {\displaystyle R} ; measurability is granted in the case of H {\displaystyle H} being finite or countable, but this is not normally the case in standard applications of the theorem (e.g. for statistical learning theory or to prove the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem). To get measurability, one needs to use a notion of separability of the underlying space, possibly related to H {\displaystyle H} . === Symmetrization === Lemma: Let V = { x ∈ X m : | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } {\displaystyle V=\{x\in X^{m}:|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}} and R = { ( r , s ) ∈ X m × X m : | Q r ^ ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 for some h ∈ H } . {\displaystyle R=\{(r,s)\in X^{m}\times X^{m}:|{\widehat {Q_{r}}}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2{\text{ for some }}h\in H\}.} Then for m ≥ 2 ε 2 {\displaystyle m\geq {\frac {2}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}} , P m ( V ) ≤ 2 P 2 m ( R ) {\displaystyle P^{m}(V)\leq 2P^{2m}(R)} . Proof: By the triangle inequality, if | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2} then | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} . Therefore, P 2 m ( R ) ≥ P 2 m { ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } = ∫ V P m { s : ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } d P m ( r ) = A {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P^{2m}(R)\\[5pt]\geq {}&P^{2m}\{\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\\[5pt]={}&\int _{V}P^{m}\{s:\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\,dP^{m}(r)\\[5pt]={}&A\end{aligned}}} since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are independent. Now for r ∈ V {\displaystyle r\in V} fix an h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } . For this h {\displaystyle h} , we shall

  Read more →
• 

  Data quality

  Data quality refers to the state of qualitative or quantitative pieces of information. There are many definitions of data quality, but data is generally considered high quality if it is "fit for [its] intended uses in operations, decision making and planning". Data is deemed of high quality if it correctly represents the real-world construct to which it refers. Apart from these definitions, as the number of data sources increases, the question of internal data consistency becomes significant, regardless of fitness for use for any particular external purpose. People's views on data quality can often be in disagreement, even when discussing the same set of data used for the same purpose. When this is the case, businesses may adopt recognised international standards for data quality (See #International Standards for Data Quality below). Data governance can also be used to form agreed upon definitions and standards, including international standards, for data quality. In such cases, data cleansing, including standardization, may be required in order to ensure data quality. == Definitions == Defining data quality is difficult due to the many contexts data are used in, as well as the varying perspectives among end users, producers, and custodians of data. From a consumer perspective, data quality is: "data that are fit for use by data consumers" data "meeting or exceeding consumer expectations" data that "satisfies the requirements of its intended use" From a business perspective, data quality is: data that are "'fit for use' in their intended operational, decision-making and other roles" or that exhibits "'conformance to standards' that have been set, so that fitness for use is achieved" data that "are fit for their intended uses in operations, decision making and planning" "the capability of data to satisfy the stated business, system, and technical requirements of an enterprise" From a standards-based perspective, data quality is: the "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (quality dimensions) of an object (data) fulfills requirements" "the usefulness, accuracy, and correctness of data for its application" Arguably, in all these cases, "data quality" is a comparison of the actual state of a particular set of data to a desired state, with the desired state being typically referred to as "fit for use," "to specification," "meeting consumer expectations," "free of defect," or "meeting requirements." These expectations, specifications, and requirements are usually defined by one or more individuals or groups, standards organizations, laws and regulations, business policies, or software development policies. == Dimensions of data quality == Drilling down further, those expectations, specifications, and requirements are stated in terms of characteristics or dimensions of the data, such as: accessibility or availability accuracy or correctness comparability completeness or comprehensiveness consistency, coherence, or clarity credibility, reliability, or reputation flexibility plausibility relevance, pertinence, or usefulness timeliness or latency uniqueness validity or reasonableness A systematic scoping review of the literature suggests that data quality dimensions and methods with real world data are not consistent in the literature, and as a result quality assessments are challenging due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of these data. == International standards for data quality == ISO 8000 is an international standard for data quality. Managed by the International Organization for Standardization, the ISO 8000 standards address and describe general aspects of data quality including principles, vocabulary and measurement data governance data quality management data quality assessment quality of master data, including exchange of characteristic data and identifiers quality of industrial data == History == Before the rise of the inexpensive computer data storage, massive mainframe computers were used to maintain name and address data for delivery services. This was so that mail could be properly routed to its destination. The mainframes used business rules to correct common misspellings and typographical errors in name and address data, as well as to track customers who had moved, died, gone to prison, married, divorced, or experienced other life-changing events. Government agencies began to make postal data available to a few service companies to cross-reference customer data with the National Change of Address registry (NCOA). This technology saved large companies millions of dollars in comparison to manual correction of customer data. Large companies saved on postage, as bills and direct marketing materials made their way to the intended customer more accurately. Initially sold as a service, data quality moved inside the walls of corporations, as low-cost and powerful server technology became available. Companies with an emphasis on marketing often focused their quality efforts on name and address information, but data quality is recognized as an important property of all types of data. Principles of data quality can be applied to supply chain data, transactional data, and nearly every other category of data found. For example, making supply chain data conform to a certain standard has value to an organization by: 1) avoiding overstocking of similar but slightly different stock; 2) avoiding false stock-out; 3) improving the understanding of vendor purchases to negotiate volume discounts; and 4) avoiding logistics costs in stocking and shipping parts across a large organization. For companies with significant research efforts, data quality can include developing protocols for research methods, reducing measurement error, bounds checking of data, cross tabulation, modeling and outlier detection, verifying data integrity, etc. == Overview == There are a number of theoretical frameworks for understanding data quality. A systems-theoretical approach influenced by American pragmatism expands the definition of data quality to include information quality, and emphasizes the inclusiveness of the fundamental dimensions of accuracy and precision on the basis of the theory of science (Ivanov, 1972). One framework, dubbed "Zero Defect Data" (Hansen, 1991) adapts the principles of statistical process control to data quality. Another framework seeks to integrate the product perspective (conformance to specifications) and the service perspective (meeting consumers' expectations) (Kahn et al. 2002). Another framework is based in semiotics to evaluate the quality of the form, meaning and use of the data (Price and Shanks, 2004). One highly theoretical approach analyzes the ontological nature of information systems to define data quality rigorously (Wand and Wang, 1996). A considerable amount of data quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Nearly 200 such terms have been identified and there is little agreement in their nature (are these concepts, goals or criteria?), their definitions or measures (Wang et al., 1993). Software engineers may recognize this as a similar problem to "ilities". MIT has an Information Quality (MITIQ) Program, led by Professor Richard Wang, which produces a large number of publications and hosts a significant international conference in this field (International Conference on Information Quality, ICIQ). This program grew out of the work done by Hansen on the "Zero Defect Data" framework (Hansen, 1991). In practice, data quality is a concern for professionals involved with a wide range of information systems, ranging from data warehousing and business intelligence to customer relationship management and supply chain management. One industry study estimated the total cost to the U.S. economy of data quality problems at over U.S. $600 billion per annum (Eckerson, 2002). Incorrect data – which includes invalid and outdated information – can originate from different data sources – through data entry, or data migration and conversion projects. In 2002, the USPS and PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report stating that 23.6 percent of all U.S. mail sent is incorrectly addressed. One reason contact data becomes stale very quickly in the average database – more than 45 million Americans change their address every year. In fact, the problem is such a concern that companies are beginning to set up a data governance team whose sole role in the corporation is to be responsible for data quality. In some organizations, this data governance function has been established as part of a larger Regulatory Compliance function - a recognition of the importance of Data/Information Quality to organizations. Problems with data quality don't only arise from incorrect data; inconsistent data is a problem as well. Eliminating data shadow systems and centralizing data in a warehouse is one of the initiatives a company can take to ensure data consistency. En

  Read more →
• 

  Information behavior

  Information behavior is a field of information science research that seeks to understand the way people search for and use information in various contexts. It can include information seeking and information retrieval, but it also aims to understand why people seek information and how they use it. The term 'information behavior' was coined by Thomas D. Wilson in 1982 and sparked controversy upon its introduction. The term has now been adopted and Wilson's model of information behavior is widely cited in information behavior literature. In 2000, Wilson defined information behavior as "the totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information". A variety of theories of information behavior seek to understand the processes that surround information seeking. An analysis of the most cited publications on information behavior during the early 21st century shows its theoretical nature. Information behavior research can employ various research methodologies grounded in broader research paradigms from psychology, sociology and education. In 2003, a framework for information-seeking studies was introduced that aims to guide the production of clear, structured descriptions of research objects and positions information-seeking as a concept within information behavior. == Concepts of information behavior == === Information need === Information need is a concept introduced by Wilson. Understanding the information need of an individual involved three elements: Why the individual decides to look for information, What purpose the information they find will serve, and How the information is used once it is retrieved === Information-seeking behavior === Information-seeking behavior is a more specific concept of information behavior. It specifically focuses on searching, finding, and retrieving information. Information-seeking behavior research can focus on improving information systems or, if it includes information need, can also focus on why the user behaves the way they do. A review study on information search behavior of users highlighted that behavioral factors, personal factors, product/service factors and situational factors affect information search behavior. Information-seeking behavior can be more or less explicit on the part of users: users might seek to solve some task or to establish some piece of knowledge which can be found in the data in question, or alternatively the search process itself is part of the objective of the user, in use cases for exploring visual content or for familiarising oneself with the content of an information service. In the general case, information-seeking needs to be understood and analysed as a session rather than as a one-off transaction with a search engine, and in a broader context which includes user high-level intentions in addition to the immediate information need. === Information use === An information need is the recognition that a gap exists in one’s knowledge, prompting a desire to seek information to fill that gap. It often arises when a person encounters a problem or question they cannot resolve with their current understanding. === Information poverty and barriers === Introduced by Elfreda Chatman in 1987, information poverty is informed by the understanding that information is not equally accessible to all people. Information poverty does not describe a lack of information, but rather a worldview in which one's own experiences inside their own small world may create a distrust in the information provided by those outside their own lived experiences. == Metatheories == In Library and Information Science (LIS), a metatheory is described "a set of assumptions that orient and direct theorizing about a given phenomenon". Library and information science researchers have adopted a number of different metatheories in their research. A common concern among LIS researchers, and a prominent discussion in the field, is the broad spectrum of theories that inform the study of information behavior, information users, or information use. This variation has been noted as a cause of concern because it makes individual studies difficult to compare or synthesize if they are not guided by the same theory. This sentiment has been expressed in studies of information behavior literature from the early 1980s and more recent literature reviews have declared it necessary to refine their reviews to specific contexts or situations due to the sheer breadth of information behavior research available. Below are descriptions of some, but not all, metatheories that have guided LIS research. === Cognitivist approach === A cognitive approach to understanding information behavior is grounded in psychology. It holds the assumption that a person's thinking influences how they seek, retrieve, and use information. Researchers that approach information behavior with the assumption that it is influenced by cognition, seek to understand what someone is thinking while they engage in information behavior and how those thoughts influence their behavior. Wilson's attempt to understand information-seeking behavior by defining information need includes a cognitive approach. Wilson theorizes that information behavior is influenced by the cognitive need of an individual. By understanding the cognitive information need of an individual, we may gain insight into their information behavior. Nigel Ford takes a cognitive approach to information-seeking, focusing on the intellectual processes of information-seeking. In 2004, Ford proposed an information-seeking model using a cognitive approach that focuses on how to improve information retrieval systems and serves to establish information-seeking and information behavior as concepts in and of themselves, rather than synonymous terms. === Constructionist approach === The constructionist approach to information behavior has roots in the humanities and social sciences. It relies on social constructionism, which assumes that a person's information behavior is influenced by their experiences in society. In order to understand information behavior, constructionist researchers must first understand the social discourse that surrounds the behavior. The most popular thinker referenced in constructionist information behavior research is Michel Foucault, who famously rejected the concept of a universal human nature. The constructionist approach to information behavior research creates space for contextualizing the behavior based on the social experiences of the individual. One study that approaches information behavior research through the social constructionist approach is a study of the information behavior of a public library knitting group. The authors use a collectivist theory to frame their research, which denies the universality of information behavior and focuses on "understanding the ways that discourse communities collectively construct information needs, seeking, sources, and uses". === Constructivist approach === The constructivist approach is born out of education and sociology in which, "individuals are seen as actively constructing an understanding of their worlds, heavily influenced by the social world(s) in which they are operating". Constructivist approaches to information behavior research generally treat the individual's reality as constructed within their own mind rather than built by the society in which they live. The constructivist metatheory makes space for the influence of society and culture with social constructivism, "which argues that, while the mind constructs reality in its relationship to the world, this mental process is significantly informed by influences received from societal conventions, history and interaction with significant others". == Theories == A common concern among LIS researchers, and a prominent discussion in the field, is the broad spectrum of theories that inform LIS research. This variation has been noted as a cause of concern because it makes individual studies difficult to compare if they are not guided by the same theory. Recent studies have shown that the impact of these theories and theoretical models is very limited. LIS researchers have applied concepts and theories from many disciplines, including sociology, psychology, communication, organizational behavior, and computer science. === Wilson's theory of information behavior (1981) === The term was coined by Thomas D. Wilson in his 1981 paper, on the grounds that the current term, 'information needs' was unhelpful since 'need' could not be directly observed, while how people behaved in seeking information could be observed and investigated. However, there is increasing work in the information-searching field that is relating behaviors to underlying needs. In 2000, Wilson described information behavior as the totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information, including both active and passive information-seeking, and information use. He described info

  Read more →
• 

  Basic Formal Ontology

  Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a top-level ontology developed by Barry Smith and colleagues to promote interoperability among domain ontologies. The BFO methodology accomplishes this through a process of downward population. BFO is a formal ontology. The structure of BFO is based on a division of entities into two disjoint categories of continuant and occurrent, the former consists of objects and spatial regions, the latter contains processes conceived as extended through (or spanning) time. BFO thereby seeks to consolidate both time and space within a single framework A guide to building BFO-conformant domain ontologies was published by MIT Press in 2015. In 2021, the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 Information Technology — Top-level Ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) was published by the Joint Technical Committee of the International Standards Organization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 21838 is a multi-part standard. Part 1 of the standard specifies the requirements that must be met if an ontology is to be classified as a top-level ontology by the standard. == History == BFO arose against the background of research in ontologies in the domain of geospatial information science by David Mark, Pierre Grenon, Achille Varzi and others, with a special role for the study of vagueness and of the ways sharp boundaries in the geospatial and other domains are created by fiat. BFO has passed through four major releases. 2001: release of BFO 1 2007: release of BFO 1.1 2015: release of BFO 2.0 2020: release of BFO 2020 2021: release of BFO 2020 as an ISO/IEC Standard The current revision was released in 2020, and this forms the basis of the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2, which was released by the Joint Committee of the International Standards Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission in 2021. == Applications == BFO has been adopted as a foundational ontology by over 650 ontology projects, principally in the areas of biomedical ontology, security and defense (intelligence) ontology, and industry ontologies. Example applications of BFO can be seen in the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). In January 2024, BFO and the Common Core Ontologies (CCO), a suite of BFO-extension ontologies, were adopted as the "baseline standards for formal DOD and IC ontology" development work in the DOD and Intelligence Community. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the chief data officers of the DOD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

  Read more →
• 

  Lexical substitution

  Lexical substitution is the task of identifying a substitute for a word in the context of a clause. For instance, given the following text: "After the match, replace any remaining fluid deficit to prevent chronic dehydration throughout the tournament", a substitute of game might be given. Lexical substitution is strictly related to word sense disambiguation (WSD), in that both aim to determine the meaning of a word. However, while WSD consists of automatically assigning the appropriate sense from a fixed sense inventory, lexical substitution does not impose any constraint on which substitute to choose as the best representative for the word in context. By not prescribing the inventory, lexical substitution overcomes the issue of the granularity of sense distinctions and provides a level playing field for automatic systems that automatically acquire word senses (a task referred to as Word Sense Induction). == Evaluation == In order to evaluate automatic systems on lexical substitution, a task was organized at the Semeval-2007 evaluation competition held in Prague in 2007. A Semeval-2010 task on cross-lingual lexical substitution has also taken place. == Skip-gram model == The skip-gram model takes words with similar meanings into a vector space (collection of objects that can be added together and multiplied by numbers) that are found close to each other in N-dimensions (list of items). A variety of neural networks (computer system modeled after a human brain) are formed together as a result of the vectors and networks that are related together. This all occurs in the dimensions of the vocabulary that has been generated in a network. The model has been used in lexical substitution automation and prediction algorithms. One such algorithm developed by Oren Melamud, Omer Levy, and Ido Dagan uses the skip-gram model to find a vector for each word and its synonyms. Then, it calculates the cosine distance between vectors to determine which words will be the best substitutes. === Example === In a sentence like "The dog walked at a quick pace" each word has a specific vector in relation to the other. The vector for "The" would be [1,0,0,0,0,0,0] because the 1 is the word vocabulary and the 0s are the words surrounding that vocabulary, which create a vector.

  Read more →
• 

  Leiden algorithm

  The Leiden algorithm is a community detection algorithm developed by Traag et al at Leiden University. It was developed as a modification of the Louvain method. Like the Louvain method, the Leiden algorithm attempts to optimize modularity in extracting communities from networks; however, it addresses key issues present in the Louvain method, namely poorly connected communities and the resolution limit of modularity. == Improvement over Louvain method == Broadly, the Leiden algorithm uses the same two primary phases as the Louvain algorithm: a local node moving step (though, the method by which nodes are considered in Leiden is more efficient) and a graph aggregation step. However, to address the issues with poorly-connected communities and the merging of smaller communities into larger communities (the resolution limit of modularity), the Leiden algorithm employs an intermediate refinement phase in which communities may be split to guarantee that all communities are well-connected. Consider, for example, the following graph: Three communities are present in this graph (each color represents a community). Additionally, the center "bridge" node (represented with an extra circle) is a member of the community represented by blue nodes. Now consider the result of a node-moving step which merges the communities denoted by red and green nodes into a single community (as the two communities are highly connected): Notably, the center "bridge" node is now a member of the larger red community after node moving occurs (due to the greedy nature of the local node moving algorithm). In the Louvain method, such a merging would be followed immediately by the graph aggregation phase. However, this causes a disconnection between two different sections of the community represented by blue nodes. In the Leiden algorithm, the graph is instead refined: The Leiden algorithm's refinement step ensures that the center "bridge" node is kept in the blue community to ensure that it remains intact and connected, despite the potential improvement in modularity from adding the center "bridge" node to the red community. == Graph components == Before defining the Leiden algorithm, it will be helpful to define some of the components of a graph. === Vertices and edges === A graph is composed of vertices (nodes) and edges. Each edge is connected to two vertices, and each vertex may be connected to zero or more edges. Edges are typically represented by straight lines, while nodes are represented by circles or points. In set notation, let V {\displaystyle V} be the set of vertices, and E {\displaystyle E} be the set of edges: V := { v 1 , v 2 , … , v n } E := { e i j , e i k , … , e k l } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&:=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots ,v_{n}\}\\E&:=\{e_{ij},e_{ik},\dots ,e_{kl}\}\end{aligned}}} where e i j {\displaystyle e_{ij}} is the directed edge from vertex v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} to vertex v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} . We can also write this as an ordered pair: e i j := ( v i , v j ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}e_{ij}&:=(v_{i},v_{j})\end{aligned}}} === Community === A community is a unique set of nodes: C i ⊆ V C i ⋂ C j = ∅ ∀ i ≠ j {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}C_{i}&\subseteq V\\C_{i}&\bigcap C_{j}=\emptyset ~\forall ~i\neq j\end{aligned}}} and the union of all communities must be the total set of vertices: V = ⋃ i = 1 C i {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&=\bigcup _{i=1}C_{i}\end{aligned}}} === Partition === A partition is the set of all communities: P = { C 1 , C 2 , … , C n } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {P}}&=\{C_{1},C_{2},\dots ,C_{n}\}\end{aligned}}} == Partition quality == How communities are partitioned is an integral part on the Leiden algorithm. How partitions are decided can depend on how their quality is measured. Additionally, many of these metrics contain parameters of their own that can change the outcome of their communities. === Modularity === Modularity is a highly used quality metric for assessing how well a set of communities partition a graph. The equation for this metric is defined for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = 1 2 m ∑ i j ( A i j − k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q={\frac {1}{2m}}\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-{\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: A i j {\displaystyle A_{ij}} represents the edge weight between nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} ; see Adjacency matrix; k i {\displaystyle k_{i}} and k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} are the sum of the weights of the edges attached to nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} , respectively; m {\displaystyle m} is the sum of all of the edge weights in the graph; c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} and c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} are the communities to which the nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} belong; and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is Kronecker delta function: δ ( c i , c j ) = { 1 if c i and c j are the same community 0 otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\delta (c_{i},c_{j})&={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}c_{i}{\text{ and }}c_{j}{\text{ are the same community}}\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} === Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB) === One of the most well used metrics for the Leiden algorithm is the Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB). This model is used by default in most mainstream Leiden algorithm libraries under the name RBConfigurationVertexPartition. This model introduces a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and is highly similar to the equation for modularity. This model is defined by the following quality function for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = ∑ i j ( A i j − γ k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q=\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-\gamma {\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: γ {\displaystyle \gamma } represents a linear resolution parameter === Constant Potts Model (CPM) === Another metric similar to RB is the Constant Potts Model (CPM). This metric also relies on a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } The quality function is defined as: H = − ∑ i j ( A i j w i j − γ ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle H=-\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}w_{ij}-\gamma )\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} === Understanding Potts Model resolution parameters/Resolution limit === Typically Potts models such as RB or CPM include a resolution parameter in their calculation. Potts models are introduced as a response to the resolution limit problem that is present in modularity maximization based community detection. The resolution limit problem is that, for some graphs, maximizing modularity may cause substructures of a graph to merge and become a single community and thus smaller structures are lost. These resolution parameters allow modularity adjacent methods to be modified to suit the requirements of the user applying the Leiden algorithm to account for small substructures at a certain granularity. The figure on the right illustrates why resolution can be a helpful parameter when using modularity based quality metrics. In the first graph, modularity only captures the large scale structures of the graph; however, in the second example, a more granular quality metric could potentially detect all substructures in a graph. == Algorithm == The Leiden algorithm starts with a graph of disorganized nodes (a) and sorts it by partitioning them to maximize modularity (the difference in quality between the generated partition and a hypothetical randomized partition of communities). The method it uses is similar to the Louvain algorithm, except that after moving each node it also considers that node's neighbors that are not already in the community it was placed in. This process results in our first partition (b), also referred to as P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} . Then the algorithm refines this partition by first placing each node into its own individual community and then moving them from one community to another to maximize modularity. It does this iteratively until each node has been visited and moved, and each community has been refined - this creates partition (c), which is the initial partition of P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} . Then an aggregate network (d) is created by turning each community into a node. P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} is used as the basis for the aggregate network while P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is used to create its initial partition. Because we use the original partition P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} in this step, we must retain it so that it can be used in future iterations. These steps together form the first iteration of the algorithm. In subsequent iterations, the nodes of the aggregate network (which each represent a community) are once again placed into their own individual communities and then sorted according to modularity to form a new P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} , forming (e) in the above graphic. In the case depicted by the graph, the nodes were already sorted optimally, so no change too

  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 →
• 

  Pseudonymization

  Pseudonymization is a data management and de-identification procedure by which personally identifiable information fields within a data record are replaced by one or more artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms. A single pseudonym for each replaced field or collection of replaced fields makes the data record less identifiable while remaining suitable for data analysis and data processing. Pseudonymization (or pseudonymisation, the spelling under European guidelines) is one way to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demands for secure data storage of personal information. Pseudonymized data can be restored to its original state with the addition of information which allows individuals to be re-identified. In contrast, anonymization is intended to prevent re-identification of individuals within the dataset. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone ... and that this process is irreversible." == Impact of Schrems II ruling == The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on 9 December 2021 highlighted pseudonymization as the top technical supplementary measure for Schrems II compliance. Less than two weeks later, the EU Commission highlighted pseudonymization as an essential element of the equivalency decision for South Korea, which is the status that was lost by the United States under the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The importance of GDPR-compliant pseudonymization increased dramatically in June 2021 when the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission highlighted GDPR-compliant pseudonymization as the state-of-the-art technical supplementary measure for the ongoing lawful use of EU personal data when using third country (i.e., non-EU) cloud processors or remote service providers under the "Schrems II" ruling by the CJEU. Under the GDPR and final EDPB Schrems II Guidance, the term pseudonymization requires a new protected "state" of data, producing a protected outcome that: Protects direct, indirect, and quasi-identifiers, together with characteristics and behaviors; Protects at the record and data set level versus only the field level so that the protection travels wherever the data goes, including when it is in use; and Protects against unauthorized re-identification via the mosaic effect by generating high entropy (uncertainty) levels by dynamically assigning different tokens at different times for various purposes. The combination of these protections is necessary to prevent the re-identification of data subjects without the use of additional information kept separately, as required under GDPR Article 4(5) and as further underscored by paragraph 85(4) of the final EDPB Schrems II guidance: Article 4(5) "Definitions" of the GDPR defines pseudonymization as "the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person." "Use Case 2: Transfer of pseudonymised Data Paragraph 85(4)" of the final EDPB Schrems II Guidance requires that “the controller has established by means of a thorough analysis of the data in question – taking into account any information that the public authorities of the recipient country may be expected to possess and use – that the pseudonymised personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person even if cross-referenced with such information." GDPR-compliant pseudonymization requires that data is "anonymous" in the strictest EU sense of the word – globally anonymous – but for the additional information held separately and made available under controlled conditions as authorized by the data controller for permitted re-identification of individual data subjects. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone, in line with recital 26 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and that this process is irreversible." Before the Schrems II ruling, pseudonymization was a technique used by security experts or government officials to hide personally identifiable information to maintain data structure and privacy of information. Some common examples of sensitive information include postal code, location of individuals, names of individuals, race and gender, etc. After the Schrems II ruling, GDPR-compliant pseudonymization must satisfy the above-noted elements as an "outcome" versus merely a technique. == Data fields == The choice of which data fields are to be pseudonymized is partly subjective. Less selective fields, such as birth date or postal code are often also included because they are usually available from other sources and therefore make a record easier to identify. Pseudonymizing these less identifying fields removes most of their analytic value and is therefore normally accompanied by the introduction of new derived and less identifying forms, such as year of birth or a larger postal code region. Data fields that are less identifying, such as date of attendance, are usually not pseudonymized. This is because too much statistical utility is lost in doing so, not because the data cannot be identified. For example, given prior knowledge of a few attendance dates it is easy to identify someone's data in a pseudonymized dataset by selecting only those people with that pattern of dates. This is an example of an inference attack. The weakness of pre-GDPR pseudonymized data to inference attacks is commonly overlooked. A famous example is the AOL search data scandal. The AOL example of unauthorized re-identification did not require access to separately kept "additional information" that was under the control of the data controller as is now required for GDPR-compliant pseudonymization, outlined below under the section "New Definition for Pseudonymization Under GDPR". Protecting statistically useful pseudonymized data from re-identification requires: a sound information security base controlling the risk that the analysts, researchers or other data workers cause a privacy breach The pseudonym allows tracking back of data to its origins, which distinguishes pseudonymization from anonymization, where all person-related data that could allow backtracking has been purged. Pseudonymization is an issue in, for example, patient-related data that has to be passed on securely between clinical centers. The application of pseudonymization to e-health intends to preserve the patient's privacy and data confidentiality. It allows primary use of medical records by authorized health care providers and privacy preserving secondary use by researchers. In the US, HIPAA provides guidelines on how health care data must be handled and data de-identification or pseudonymization is one way to simplify HIPAA compliance. However, plain pseudonymization for privacy preservation often reaches its limits when genetic data are involved (see also genetic privacy). Due to the identifying nature of genetic data, depersonalization is often not sufficient to hide the corresponding person. Potential solutions are the combination of pseudonymization with fragmentation and encryption. An example of application of pseudonymization procedure is creation of datasets for de-identification research by replacing identifying words with words from the same category (e.g. replacing a name with a random name from the names dictionary), however, in this case it is in general not possible to track data back to its origins. == New definition under GDPR == Effective as of May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines pseudonymization for the very first time at the EU level in Article 4(5). Under Article 4(5) definitional requirements, data is pseudonymized if it cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of separately kept "additional information". Pseudonymized data embodies the state of the art in Data Protection by Design and by Default because it requires protection of both direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). GDPR Data Protection by Design and by Default principles as embodied in pseudonymization require protection of both direct and indirect identifiers so that personal data is not cross-referenceable (or re-identifiable) via the "mosaic effect" without access to "additional information" that is kept separately by the controller. Because access to separately kept "additional information" is required

  Read more →
• 

  ImHex

  ImHex is a free cross-platform hex editor available on Windows, macOS, and Linux. ImHex is used by programmers and reverse engineers to view and analyze binary data. == History == The initial release of the project in November 2020, saw significant interest on GitHub. == Features == Features include: Hex editor Custom pattern matching and analysis scripting language Visual, node based data pre-processor Disassembler Running and visualizing of YARA rules Bookmarks Binary data diffing Additional Tools MSVC, Itanium, D and Rust name demangler ASCII table Calculator Base converter File utilities IEEE 754 floating point decoder Division by invariant multiplication calculator TCP/IP client and server Support for: Data importing and exporting ASCII string, Unicode string, numeric, hexadecimal and regular expressions search Byte manipulation File hashing Plug-ins

  Read more →
• 

  Information quality

  Information quality (IQ) is a contextual property of or a perspective to the content within information systems. There exist two complementary yet partially conflicting definitions of high-quality: firstly, information is considered high quality if it is fit for its intended purpose ; secondly, it is deemed high quality if it conforms to specified requirements . The primary distinction between these definitions is that Juran's perspective focuses on the suitability of information for its intended purpose, which can be measured by the success of its application even without direct access to or exact knowledge of the data. For example, a black-box AI with access to English Wikipedia can work well for users' purposes but using Estonian Wikipedia fails for the same purposes. Given that the AI remains the same, it can be concluded that English version data would be of higher quality in comparison to Estonian version, even without exact comparison of data contents and their properties in each version. In contrast, Crosby emphasizes adherence to predefined specifications, assuming specific criteria rather than measuring the success of its use; for instance, information in Wikipedia could be proven to be good based on criteria such as existing peer validation and academic references, even if the AI results are poor. This approach falls into problems when data is not completely accessible or all quality properties cannot be known and measured leading to false impression of quality due to lacking and misleading metrics. Numerous IQ frameworks and methodologies provide tangible approach to assess and measure DQ/IQ in a robust and rigorous manner. == Conceptual problems == Although the foundational definitions are usable for most everyday purposes, specialists often use more complex models for information quality. It has been suggested, however, that higher the quality the greater will be the confidence in meeting more general, less specific contexts. == Dimensions and metrics of information quality == "Information quality" is a measure of its fitness for use or conformance to requirements. In this way, "quality" is considered contextual and it can then vary across users and uses of the information. The exact degree of quality is often described with dimensions such as accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and similar scales. Although a huge amount of academic research has been directed to these dimensions, there does not exist consensus on their definitions or practical usefulness . Historically, Richard Wang and Diane Strong proposed a list of dimensions or elements used in assessing Information Quality is: Intrinsic IQ: accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Contextual IQ: relevance, value-added, timeliness, completeness, amount of information Representational IQ: interpretability, format, coherence, compatibility Accessibility IQ: accessibility, access security Other authors propose similar but different lists of dimensions for analysis, and emphasize measurement and reporting as information quality metrics. Larry English prefers the term "characteristics" to dimensions. However, a considerable amount of information quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Research has recently shown the huge diversity of terms and classification structures used. === Quality metrics === Source: Authority/verifiability Authority refers to the expertise or recognized official status of a source. Consider the reputation of the author and publisher. When working with legal or government information, consider whether the source is the official provider of the information. Verifiability refers to the ability of a reader to verify the validity of the information irrespective of how authoritative the source is. To verify the facts is part of the duty of care of the journalistic deontology, as well as, where possible, to provide the sources of information so that they can be verified Scope of coverage Scope of coverage refers to the extent to which a source explores a topic. Consider time periods, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics. Composition and organization Composition and organization has to do with the ability of the information source to present its particular message in a coherent, logically sequential manner. Objectivity Objectivity is the bias or opinion expressed when a writer interprets or analyze facts. Consider the use of persuasive language, the source's presentation of other viewpoints, its reason for providing the information and advertising. Integrity Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished Comprehensiveness Of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study. Comprehending mentally; having an extensive mental grasp. Insurance. covering or providing broad protection against loss. Validity Validity of some information has to do with the degree of obvious truthfulness which the information carries Uniqueness As much as 'uniqueness' of a given piece of information is intuitive in meaning, it also significantly implies not only the originating point of the information but also the manner in which it is presented and thus the perception which it conjures. The essence of any piece of information we process consists to a large extent of those two elements. Timeliness Timeliness refers to information that is current at the time of publication. Consider publication, creation and revision dates. Beware of Web site scripting that automatically reflects the current day's date on a page. Reproducibility (utilized primarily when referring to instructive information) Means that documented methods are capable of being used on the same data set to achieve a consistent result. == Professional associations == IQ International—the International Association for Information and Data Quality IQ International is a not-for-profit, vendor neutral, professional association formed in 2004, dedicated to building the information and data quality profession. CDOIQ Society Chief Data Officers and Information Quality Society is a global professional society supporting data leaders with networking, meetings, best practices, experience, certification, and training. == Information quality conferences == A number of major conferences relevant to information quality are held annually: Annual MIT Chief Data Officer & Information Quality (CDOIQ) Symposium Annual conferences held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Data Governance and Information Quality Conference Commercial conferences held each year in the USA Data Quality Asia Pacific Commercial conference held annually in Sydney or Melbourne, Australia Enterprise Data and Business Intelligence Conference Europe Commercial conferences held annually in London, England. Information and Data Quality Conference Not for profit conference run annually by IQ International (the International Association for Information and Data Quality) in the USA International Conference on Information Quality Academic Conference launched through MITIQ held annually at a University Master Data Management & Data Governance Conferences Six major conferences are run annually by the MDM Institute in venues such as London, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Madrid, Frankfurt, Shanghai and New York City.

  Read more →
• 

  Living lab

  The concept of the living lab has been defined in multiple ways. A definition from the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is used most widely, describing them as "user-centred open innovation ecosystems” that integrate research and innovation through co-creation in real-world environments.[1] Emerging at the intersection of ambient intelligence research and user experience methodologies in the late 1990s, the concept was pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as a way to study human interaction with new technologies in natural settings. Over time, living labs have evolved beyond their origins as controlled research environments, becoming dynamic platforms for participatory design, collaborative experimentation, and iterative innovation across various domains, including urban development, healthcare, sustainability, and digital technology. Characterized by principles such as real-world experimentation, active user involvement, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, living labs enable the continuous adaptation and validation of solutions in everyday contexts. Today, they are implemented globally, supported by networks like the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), and increasingly recognized as vital tools for addressing local and global transformation agendas. == Background == The term "living lab" has emerged in parallel from the ambient intelligence (AmI) research communities context and from the discussion on experience and application research (EAR). The emergence of the term is based on the concept of user experience and ambient intelligence. The term dates back to the late 1990s when Professor William J. Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex (Sandy) Pentland at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were credited with first exploring the concept of a living laboratory. It was first associated with MIT's Media Lab as a concept for studying real-life contexts, where they described a living lab as a controlled environment designed to test new information and communication technology (ICT) innovations in a simulated home setting. This was also when some of the key characteristics often assigned to living labs today began to take shape. They argued that a living lab represents a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts. Research on living labs has expanded since the 1990s, especially in the 2010s, with growing interest in co-creation and participatory design. Particularly in Europe, the living lab evolved into a model that focused on studying user interactions with technology in real-world environments. This shift was influenced by earlier experiences in participatory design and social experiments with ICT. As interest grew, the term began to encompass a broader array of initiatives and projects, leading to variations in its interpretation and implementation. Today, living labs are used in various fields, such as technology, healthcare, and urban sustainability, showing a transition from a narrow focus on their role as controlled environments to a more wide-ranging understanding of collaborative innovation addressing real societal challenges, while also being referred to with various descriptions and definitions available from different sources. == Description == The ENoLL definition that refers to living labs as "user-centred open innovation ecosystems” that integrate research and innovation through co-creation in real-world environments is the most widely accepted description of living labs in academic literature. In simple terms, living labs can be described as an organization or experimental space, that can be both virtually or physically located, bringing different stakeholders from research, business, government, and citizens together to design and test solutions to be implemented in a real world environment. A common definition for the living lab term still does not exist to this day, which is due to the fact that living labs are interpreted and implemented across different contexts and can cover a wide range of activities and organizations, leading to different understandings of how living labs should function. Living labs also often operate in various territorial contexts (e.g. city, agglomeration, region, campus), and can vary in their methodological approach integrating concurrent research and innovation processes within a public-private-people partnership. Despite these variations, common characteristics include user-centricity, real-world experimentation, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and iterative innovation processes. The systematic user co-creation approach refers to integrating research and innovation processes through the co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios, concepts and related technological artefacts in real life use cases. Such use cases involve user communities, not only as observed subjects but also as a source of creation. This approach allows all involved stakeholders to concurrently consider both the global performance of a product or service and its potential adoption by users. This consideration may be made at the earlier stage of research and development and through all elements of the product life-cycle, from design up to recycling. User-centred research methods, such as action research, community informatics, contextual design, user-centered design, participatory design, empathic design, emotional design, and other usability methods, already exist but fail to sufficiently empower users for co-creating into open development environments. More recently, the Web 2.0 has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities in new product development (NPD) such as mass collaboration projects (e.g. crowdsourcing, Wisdom of Crowds) in collectively creating new contents and applications. Real-world experimentation emphasizes conducting activities in real-life settings to ensure that the results of the projects and solutions are applicable to actual market conditions. Multi-stakeholder collaboration refers to an approach that involved various stakeholders, such as users, businesses, researchers, and government entities, working together towards a common goal. This is an important characteristics of living lab because collaboration of these diverse groups allows for exchange of ideas and perspectives, which are thought to enhance innovation processes. Iterative innovation processes involve a cyclical method of developing products or services, where stages such as research, development, testing, and implementation are revisited multiple times based on feedback and evaluation. This process allows for continuous improvement of the innovation, product, or service being developed. In particular, the ongoing involvement of the user creates feedback mechanisms that are ultimately key to successful development and implementation of products and services. A living lab is not similar to a testbed as its philosophy is to turn users, from being traditionally considered as observed subjects for testing modules against requirements, into value creation in contributing to the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related artefacts. Hence, a living lab rather constitutes an experiential environment, which could be compared to the concept of experiential learning, where users are immersed in a creative social space for designing and experiencing their own future. Living labs could also be used by policy makers and users/citizens for designing, exploring, experiencing and refining new policies and regulations in real-life scenarios for evaluating their potential impacts before their implementations. == European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) == The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is an international, non-profit, independent association of certified living labs, which popularized the living lab concept in the aim to increase user involvement in innovation. Formed in November 2006 under the guidance of the Finnish European Presidency, ENoLL is composed of a variety of stakeholders, including municipalities and research institutes, businesses, and users. Its primary role is to support the collaboration among living labs across Europe and includes many living labs focused on user-driven innovation across sectors. ENoLL focuses on facilitating knowledge exchange, joint actions and project partnerships among its historically labelled +/- 500 members, influencing EU policies, promoting living labs and enabling their implementation worldwide. ENoLL serves as a platform for linking living labs around the globe, which enables knowledge sharing and collaborative learning among diverse cultural environments. Membership to the platform is open to organizations worldwide, and ENoLL has expanded beyond Europe to include global members. ENoLL follows an application and accreditation pro

  Read more →