AI Grammar Rephrase

AI Grammar Rephrase — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  CHAOS (chess)

  CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge organization system

  Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system, or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization (KO) for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations. Despite their differences in type, coverage, and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. KOS vary in complexity from simple sorted lists to complex relational networks. They represent both structural and functional features, and serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish relationships, and present properties. From their origins in library and information science (LIS), KOS have been applied to other domains and disciplines within science and industry, although scholarly research and debate remain primarily within the KO field. Challenges of KOS include ambiguity of terminology, repercussions of biased systems, and potential obsolescence. KOS can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web. One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry. == Types == While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance. Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen. The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice. === Term lists === Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings. Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists, however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models". Examples include the Union List of Artist Names name authority file and the GeoNames gazetteer. === Categorization and classification === KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema & systems. Despite inconsistent use of the terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature, categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes. Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification). === Relationship models === The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri, semantic networks, and ontologies. One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet. === Others === Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies, topic maps, web directory structures, publication organization systems, and bibliometric maps. Some KOS organize other KOS themselves—for instance, PeriodO is a gazetteer of periodization categories. == Applications == Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers. With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible, and more complex structures were developed. Prominent examples of KOS outside of LIS include organism taxonomy in biology, the periodic table of elements in chemistry, SIC and NAICS classification systems for industry & business, and AGROVOC agricultural controlled vocabulary. == Challenges == The study and design of KOS is an ongoing topic of discussion among KO scholars. === Terminology === [There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary. Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue. For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably. === Bias === As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes. For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have been raised, contributing to ongoing revisions. Ethical and intentional design approaches have been proposed for multi-perspective KOS in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices. === Obsolescence === The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science. Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services, as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.

  Read more →
• 

  Explore-then-commit algorithm

  Explore Then Commit (ETC) is an algorithm for the multi-armed bandit problem foc,used on finding the best trade-off between exploration and exploitation. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , they then get an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s Read more →

• 

  Linguistic categories

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

  Read more →
• 

  European Cloud Partnership

  The European Cloud Partnership (ECP) is an advisory group set up by the European Commission as part of the European Cloud Computing Strategy to provide guidance on the development of cloud computing in the European Union. The ECP is led by a steering board composed of representatives of the IT and telecom industry as well as European government policymakers. == History == After publishing a document, "Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe", the European Commission set up the European Cloud Partnership in 2012, with a steering board including both government and industry representatives. The ECP's first meeting was held on 19 November 2012; it was chaired by the President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. In 2013 the ECP began drafting its charter. That year, as information about the PRISM scandal came to light, the ECP emphasized the need for Europe to develop its own cloud infrastructure, rather than depend on that of the United States. It completed a report titled "Trusted Cloud Europe" in February 2014 defining its policy, and outlining a process for effective public and private sector participation in cloud computing development in Europe. The report recommended that the commission identify technical, legal and operational best practices, and promote these through certifications and guidelines, and facilitate recognition across national boundaries. The report also recommended that the commission identify cloud computing stakeholders and help them work together through consultations and workshops. In March 2014, the European Commission invited external parties to submit opinions, take part in a discussion forum and complete an online survey in response to the report.

  Read more →
• 

  Sieve of Eratosthenes

  In mathematics, the sieve of Eratosthenes is an ancient algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to any given limit. It does so by iteratively marking as composite (i.e., not prime) the multiples of each prime, starting with the first prime number, 2. The multiples of a given prime are generated as a sequence of numbers starting from that prime, with constant difference between them that is equal to that prime. This is the sieve's key distinction from using trial division to sequentially test each candidate number for divisibility by each prime. Once all the multiples of each discovered prime have been marked as composites, the remaining unmarked numbers are primes. The earliest known reference to the sieve (Ancient Greek: κόσκινον Ἐρατοσθένους, kóskinon Eratosthénous) is in Nicomachus of Gerasa's Introduction to Arithmetic, an early 2nd-century CE book which attributes it to Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a 3rd-century BCE Greek mathematician, though describing the sieving by odd numbers instead of by primes. One of a number of prime number sieves, it is one of the most efficient ways to find all of the smaller primes. It may be used to find primes in arithmetic progressions. == Overview == A prime number is a natural number that has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: the number 1 and itself. To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to a given integer n by Eratosthenes's method: Create a list of consecutive integers from 2 through n: (2, 3, 4, ..., n). Initially, let p equal 2, the smallest prime number. Enumerate the multiples of p by counting in increments of p from 2p to n, and mark them in the list (these will be 2p, 3p, 4p, ...; the p itself should not be marked). Find the smallest number in the list greater than p that is not marked. If there was no such number, stop. Otherwise, let p now equal this new number (which is the next prime), and repeat from step 3. When the algorithm terminates, the numbers remaining not marked in the list are all the primes below n. The main idea here is that every value given to p will be prime, because if it were composite it would be marked as a multiple of some other, smaller prime. Note that some of the numbers may be marked more than once (e.g., 15 will be marked both for 3 and 5). The key property of the sieve is that only additions are needed, no multiplications or divisions are used. As a refinement, it is sufficient to mark the numbers in step 3 starting from p2, as all the smaller multiples of p will have already been marked at that point. This means that the algorithm is allowed to terminate in step 4 when p2 is greater than n. Another refinement is to initially list odd numbers only, (3, 5, ..., n), and count in increments of 2p in step 3, thus marking only odd multiples of p. This actually appears in the original algorithm. This can be generalized with wheel factorization, forming the initial list only from numbers coprime with the first few primes and not just from odds (i.e., numbers coprime with 2), and counting in the correspondingly adjusted increments so that only such multiples of p are generated that are coprime with those small primes, in the first place. === Example === To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to 30, proceed as follows. First, generate a list of natural numbers from 2 to 30: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The first number in the list is 2; cross out every 2nd number in the list after 2 by counting up from 2 in increments of 2 (these will be all the multiples of 2 in the list): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number in the list after 2 is 3; cross out every 3rd number in the list after 3 by counting up from 3 in increments of 3 (these will be all the multiples of 3 in the list): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number not yet crossed out in the list after 3 is 5; cross out every 5th number in the list after 5 by counting up from 5 in increments of 5 (i.e. all the multiples of 5): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number not yet crossed out in the list after 5 is 7; the next step would be to cross out every 7th number in the list after 7, but they are all already crossed out at this point, as these numbers (14, 21, 28) are also multiples of smaller primes because 7 × 7 is greater than 30. The numbers not crossed out at this point in the list are all the prime numbers below 30: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 == Algorithm and variants == === Pseudocode === The sieve of Eratosthenes can be expressed in pseudocode, as follows: algorithm Sieve of Eratosthenes is input: an integer n > 1. output: all prime numbers from 2 through n. let A be an array of Boolean values, indexed by integers 2 to n, initially all set to true. for i = 2, 3, 4, ..., not exceeding √n do if A[i] is true for j = i2, i2+i, i2+2i, i2+3i, ..., not exceeding n do set A[j] := false return all i such that A[i] is true. This algorithm produces all primes not greater than n. It includes a common optimization, which is to start enumerating the multiples of each prime i from i2. The time complexity of this algorithm is O(n log log n), provided the array update is an O(1) operation, as is usually the case. === Segmented sieve === As Sorenson notes, the problem with the sieve of Eratosthenes is not the number of operations it performs but rather its memory requirements. For large n, the range of primes may not fit in memory; worse, even for moderate n, its cache use is highly suboptimal. The algorithm walks through the entire array A, exhibiting almost no locality of reference. A solution to these problems is offered by segmented sieves, where only portions of the range are sieved at a time. These have been known since the 1970s, and work as follows: Divide the range 2 through n into segments of some size Δ ≥ √n. Find the primes in the first (i.e. the lowest) segment, using the regular sieve. For each of the following segments, in increasing order, with m being the segment's topmost value, find the primes in it as follows: Set up a Boolean array of size Δ. Mark as non-prime the positions in the array corresponding to the multiples of each prime p ≤ √m found so far, by enumerating its multiples in steps of p starting from the lowest multiple of p between m - Δ and m. The remaining non-marked positions in the array correspond to the primes in the segment. It is not necessary to mark any multiples of these primes, because all of these primes are larger than √m, as for k ≥ 1, one has ( k Δ + 1 ) 2 > ( k + 1 ) Δ {\displaystyle (k\Delta +1)^{2}>(k+1)\Delta } . If Δ is chosen to be √n, the space complexity of the algorithm is O(√n), while the time complexity is the same as that of the regular sieve. For ranges with upper limit n so large that the sieving primes below √n as required by the page segmented sieve of Eratosthenes cannot fit in memory, a slower but much more space-efficient sieve like the pseudosquares prime sieve, developed by Jonathan P. Sorenson, can be used instead. === Incremental sieve === An incremental formulation of the sieve generates primes indefinitely (i.e., without an upper bound) by interleaving the generation of primes with the generation of their multiples (so that primes can be found in gaps between the multiples), where the multiples of each prime p are generated directly by counting up from the square of the prime in increments of p (or 2p for odd primes). The generation must be initiated only when the prime's square is reached, to avoid adverse effects on efficiency. It can be expressed symbolically under the dataflow paradigm as primes = [2, 3, ...] \ [[p², p²+p, ...] for p in primes], using list comprehension notation with \ denoting set subtraction of arithmetic progressions of numbers. Primes can also be produced by iteratively sieving out the composites through divisibility testing by sequential primes, one prime at a time. It is not the sieve of Eratosthenes but is often confused with it, even though the sieve of Eratosthenes directly generates the composites instead of testing for them. Trial division has worse theoretical complexity than that of the sieve of Eratosthenes in generating ranges of primes. When testing each prime, the optimal trial division algorithm uses all prime numbers not exceeding its square root, whereas the sieve of Eratosthenes produces each composite from its prime factors only, and gets the primes "for free", between the composites. The widely known 1975 functional sieve code by David Turner is often presented as an example of the sieve of Eratosthenes but is actually a sub-optimal trial division sieve. == Algorithmic complexity == The sieve of Eratosthenes is a popular way to benchmark computer performance. The time complexity of calculating all primes below n in the random access machine model is O(n log log n) ope

  Read more →
• 

  DIKW pyramid

  The DIKW pyramid (also known as the knowledge pyramid or information hierarchy) is a model describing relationships between data, information, knowledge and wisdom sometimes also stylized as a chain, refer to models of possible structural and functional relationships between a set of components—often four, data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The concept has roots predating the 1980s. In the latter years of that decade, interest in the models grew after explicit presentations and discussions, including from Milan Zeleny, Russell Ackoff, and Robert W. Lucky. Subsequent important discussions extended along theoretical and practical lines into the coming decades. While debate continues as to actual meaning of the component terms of DIKW-type models, and the actual nature of their relationships—including occasional doubt being cast over any simple, linear, unidirectional model—even so they have become very popular visual representations in use by business, the military, and others. Among the academic and popular, not all versions of the DIKW-type models include all four components (earlier ones excluding data, later ones excluding or downplaying wisdom, and several including additional components (for instance Ackoff inserting "understanding" before and Zeleny adding "enlightenment" after the wisdom component). In addition, DIKW-type models are no longer always presented as pyramids, instead also as a chart or framework (e.g., by Zeleny), as flow diagrams (e.g., by Liew, and by Chisholm et al.), and sometimes as a continuum (e.g., by Choo et al.). == Short description == As Rowley noted in 2007, the DIKW model "is often quoted, or used implicitly, in definitions of data, information and knowledge in the information management, information systems and knowledge management literatures, but [as of that date] there ha[d] been limited direct discussion of the hierarchy". Reviews of textbooks and a survey of scholars in relevant fields indicate that there was not a consensus as to definitions used in the model as of that date, and as reviewed by Liew in that year, even less "in the description of the processes that transform components lower in the hierarchy into those above them". Zins work, published in 2007—from studies in 2003-2005 that documented "130 definitions of data, information, and knowledge formulated by 45 scholars", published in 2007—to suggest that the data–information–knowledge components of DIKW refer to a class of no less than five models, as a function of whether data, information, and knowledge are each conceived of as subjective, objective (what Zins terms, "universal" or "collective") or both. In Zins' usage, subjective and objective "are not related to arbitrariness and truthfulness, which are usually attached to the concepts of subjective knowledge and objective knowledge". Information science, Zins argues, studies data and information, but not knowledge, as knowledge is an internal (subjective) rather than an external (universal–collective) phenomenon. == Representations == === Graphical representation === DIKW is a hierarchical model often depicted as a pyramid, sometimes as a chain, with data at its base and wisdom at its apex (or chain-beginning and -end). Both Zeleny and Ackoff have been credited with originating the pyramid representation, although neither used a pyramid to present their ideas. According to Wallace, Debons and colleagues may have been the first to "present the hierarchy graphically". Many variations of the DIKW-type pyramid have been produced. One, in use by knowledge managers in the United States Department of Defense, attempts to show the DIKW progression to enable effective decisions and consequent activities supporting shared understanding throughout defense organizations, as well as supporting management of risks associated with decisions. DIKW-type hierarchical information paradigms have also been represented as two-dimensional charts, and as flow diagrams, where relationships between the components may be presented less hierarchically, with defining aspects of the relationships, feedback loops, etc. === Computational representation === Intelligent decision support systems are trying to improve decision making by introducing new technologies and methods from the domain of modeling and simulation in general, and in particular from the domain of intelligent software agents in the contexts of agent-based modeling. The following example describes a military decision support system, but the architecture and underlying conceptual idea are transferable to other application domains: The value chain starts with data quality describing the information within the underlying command and control systems. Information quality tracks the completeness, correctness, currency, consistency and precision of the data items and information statements available. Knowledge quality deals with procedural knowledge and information embedded in the command and control system such as templates for adversary forces, assumptions about entities such as ranges and weapons, and doctrinal assumptions, often coded as rules. Awareness quality measures the degree of using the information and knowledge embedded within the command and control system. Awareness is explicitly placed in the cognitive domain. By the introduction of a common operational picture, data are put into context, which leads to information instead of data. The next step, which is enabled by service-oriented web-based infrastructures (but not yet operationally used), is the use of models and simulations for decision support. Simulation systems are the prototype for procedural knowledge, which is the basis for knowledge quality. Finally, using intelligent software agents to continually observe the battle sphere, apply models and simulations to analyze what is going on, to monitor the execution of a plan, and to do all the tasks necessary to make the decision maker aware of what is going on, command and control systems could even support situational awareness, the level in the value chain traditionally limited to pure cognitive methods. == History == Danny P. Wallace, a professor of library and information science, explained that the origin of the DIKW pyramid is uncertain: The presentation of the relationships among data, information, knowledge, and sometimes wisdom in a hierarchical arrangement has been part of the language of information science for many years. Although it is uncertain when and by whom those relationships were first presented, the ubiquity of the notion of a hierarchy is embedded in the use of the acronym DIKW as a shorthand representation for the data-to-information-to-knowledge-to-wisdom transformation.Many authors think that the idea of the DIKW relationship originated from two lines in the poem "Choruses", by T. S. Eliot, that appeared in the pageant play The Rock, in 1934: === Knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom === In 1927, Clarence W. Barron addressed his employees at Dow Jones & Company on the hierarchy: "Knowledge, Intelligence and Wisdom". === Data, information, knowledge === In 1955, English-American economist and educator Kenneth Boulding presented a variation on the hierarchy consisting of "signals, messages, information, and knowledge". However, "[t]he first author to distinguish among data, information, and knowledge and to also employ the term 'knowledge management' may have been American educator Nicholas L. Henry", in a 1974 journal article. === Data, information, knowledge, wisdom === Other early versions (prior to 1982) of the hierarchy that refer to a data tier include those of Chinese-American geographer Yi-Fu Tuan and sociologist-historian Daniel Bell.. In 1980, Irish-born engineer Mike Cooley invoked the same hierarchy in his critique of automation and computerization, in his book Architect or Bee?: The Human / Technology Relationship. Thereafter, in 1987, Czechoslovakia-born educator Milan Zeleny mapped the components of the hierarchy to knowledge forms: know-nothing, know-what, know-how, and know-why. Zeleny "has frequently been credited with proposing the [representation of DIKW as a pyramid ]... although he actually made no reference to any such graphical model." The hierarchy appears again in a 1988 address to the International Society for General Systems Research, by American organizational theorist Russell Ackoff, published in 1989. Subsequent authors and textbooks cite Ackoff's as the "original articulation" of the hierarchy or otherwise credit Ackoff with its proposal. Ackoff's version of the model includes an understanding tier (as Adler had, before him), interposed between knowledge and wisdom. Although Ackoff did not present the hierarchy graphically, he has also been credited with its representation as a pyramid. In 1989, Bell Labs veteran Robert W. Lucky wrote about the four-tier "information hierarchy" in the form of a pyramid in his book Silicon Dreams. In the same year as Ackoff presented his a

  Read more →
• 

  Five safes

  The Five Safes is a framework for helping make decisions about making effective use of data which is confidential or sensitive. It is mainly used to describe or design research access to statistical data held by government and health agencies, and by data archives such as the UK Data Service. It is not an internationally accepted standard. Two of the Five Safes refer to statistical disclosure control, and so the Five Safes is usually used to contrast statistical and non-statistical controls when comparing data management options. == Concept == The Five Safes proposes that data management decisions be considered as solving problems in five 'dimensions': projects, people, settings, data and outputs. The combination of the controls leads to 'safe use'. These are most commonly expressed as questions, for example: These dimensions are scales, not limits. That is, solutions can have a mix of more or fewer controls in each dimension, but the overall aim of 'safe use' independent of the particular mix. For example, a public use file available for open download cannot control who uses it, where or for what purpose, and so all the control (protection) must be in the data itself. In contrast, a file which is only accessed through a secure environment with certified users can contain very sensitive information: the non-statistical controls allow the data to be 'unsafe'. One academic likened the process to a graphic equalizer, where bass and treble can be combined independently to produce a sound the listener likes, which has proven to be a very useful metaphor. This 2023 Data Foundation webinar is an expert discussion of how the elements interact, including an excellent introductory representation. There is no 'order' to the Five Safes, in that one is necessarily more important than the others. However, Ritchie argued that the 'managerial' controls (projects, people, setting) should be addressed before the 'statistical' controls (data, output). The Five Safes concept is associated with other topics which developed from the same programme at ONS, although these are not necessarily implemented. Safe people is associated with 'active researcher management', while safe outputs is linked with principles-based output statistical disclosure control. The Five Safes is a positive framework, describing what is and is not. The EDRU ('evidence-based, default-open, risk-managed, user-centred') attitudinal model is sometimes used to give a normative context == The 'data access spectrum' == From 2003 the Five Safes was also represented in a simpler form as a 'Data Access Spectrum'. The non-data controls (project, people, setting, outputs) tend to work together, in that organisations often see these as a complementary set of restrictions on access. These can then be contrasted with choices about data anonymisation to present a linear representation of data access options. This presentation is consistent with the idea of 'data as a residual', as well as data protection laws of the time which often characterised data simply as anonymous or not anonymous. A similar idea had already been developed independently in 2001 by Chuck Humphrey of the Canadian RDC network, the 'continuum of access'. More recently, The Open Data Institute has developed a 'Data Spectrum toolkit' which includes industry-specific examples. == History and terminology == The Five Safes was devised in the winter of 2002/2003 by Felix Ritchie at the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) to describe its secure remote-access Virtual Microdata Laboratory (VML). It was described at this time as the 'VML Security Model'. This was adopted by the NORC data enclave, and more widely in the US, as the 'portfolio model' (although this is now also used to refer to a slightly different legal/statistical/educational breakdown). In 2012 the framework as was still being referred to as the 'VML security model', but its increasing use among non-UK organisations led to the adoption of the more general and informative phrase 'Five Safes'. The original framework only had four safes (projects, people, settings and outputs): the framework was used to describe highly detailed data access through a secure environment, and so the 'data' dimension was irrelevant. From 2007 onwards, 'safe data' was included as the framework was used to a describe a wider range of ONS activities. As the US version was based upon the 2005 specification, some US iterations uses have the original four dimensions (eg). Some discussions, such as the OECD, use the term 'secure' instead 'safe'. However, the use of both these terms can cause presentational problems: less control in a particular dimension could be seen to imply 'unsafe users' or 'insecure settings', for example, which distracts from the main message. Hence, the Australian government uses the term "five data sharing principles". The 'Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework' uses a framework based on the Five Safes but relabelling "projects", "people", and "settings" as "governance", "agency" and "infrastructure", respectively; "Output" is omitted, and "safe use" becomes "functional anonymisation". There is no reference to the Five Safes or any associated literature. The Australian version was required to include references to the Five Safes, and presented it as an alternative without comment. == Application == The framework has had three uses: pedagogical, descriptive, and design. Since 2016, it has also been used, directly and indirectly in legislation. See for more detailed examples. === Pedagogy === The first significant use of the framework, other than internal administrative use, was to structure researcher training courses at the UK Office for National Statistics from 2003. UK Data Archive, Administrative Data Research Network, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography, NORC, Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, amongst others, have also used this framework. Most of these courses are for researchers using restricted-access facilities; the Eurostat courses are unusual in that they are designed for all users of sensitive data. === Description === The framework is often used to describe existing data access solutions (e.g. UK HMRC Data Lab, UK Data Service, Statistics New Zealand) or planned/conceptualised ones (e.g. Eurostat in 2011). An early use was to help identify areas where ONS' still had 'irreducible risks' in its provision of secure remote access. The framework is mostly used for confidential social science data. To date it appears to have made little impact on medical research planning, although it is now included in the revised guidelines on implementing HIPAA regulations in the US, and by Cancer Research UK and the Health Foundation in the UK. It has also been used to describe a security model for the Scottish Health Informatics Programme. === Design === In general the Five Safes has been used to describe solutions post-factum, and to explain/justify choices made, but an increasing number of organisations have used the framework to design data access solutions. For example, the Hellenic Statistical Agency developed a data strategy built around the Five Safes in 2016; the UK Health Foundation used the Five Safes to design its data management and training programmes. Use in the private sector is less common but some organisations have incorporated the Five Safes into consulting services. In 2015 the UK Data Service organized a workshop to encourage data users from the academic and private sectors to think about how to manage confidential research data, using the Five Safes to demonstrate alternative options and best practice. Early adopters for strategic design use were in Australia: both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Department of Social Service used the Five Safes as an ex ante design tool. In 2017 the Australian Productivity Commission recommended adopting a version of the framework to support cross-government data sharing and re-use. This underwent extensive consultation and culminated in the DAT Act 2022. Since 2020 the Five Safes has been the overriding framework for the design of new secure facilities and data sharing arrangements in the UK for public health and social sciences. This has been promoted by the Office for Statistics Regulation, the UK Statistics Authority, NHS DIgital, and the research funding bodies Administrative Data Research UK and DARE UK. === Regulation and legislation === Three laws have incorporated the Fives Safes. They are explicit in the South Australian Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016, and implicit in the research provisions of the UK Digital Economy Act 2017. The Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 renames the Five Safes as the Five Data Sharing Principles.A 2025 statutory review of the DAT Act 2022 found "that the DAT Act has not been effective in achieving its objectives.". The review includes specific referen

  Read more →
• 

  Abiquo Enterprise Edition

  Abiquo Hybrid Cloud Management Platform is a web-based cloud computing software platform developed by Abiquo. Written entirely in Java, it is used to build, integrate and manage public and private clouds in homogeneous environments. Users can deploy and manage servers, storage system and network and virtual devices. It also supports LDAP integration. == Hypervisors == Abiquo supports five hypervisor systems. VMware ESXi Microsoft Hyper-V Citrix XenServer Oracle VM Server for x86 KVM From version 3.1, it also supports multiple public cloud providers: Amazon AWS Rackspace Google Compute Engine HP Cloud ElasticHosts DigitalOcean Abiquo version 3.2 added: Microsoft Azure Abiquo version 3.4 added: Support for Docker hosts, adding multi-tenant networking, storage management and private registry management for Docker SoftLayer CloudSigma Later versions continued to add features including autoscaling on any cloud, integration to VMware NSX and OpenStack Neutron for software defined networking, guest config with cloud-init and integrated monitoring driving guest automation. == Storage services == Abiquo supports any vendor for hypervisor storage, and also supports tiered storage pools, enabling storage-as-a-service from specific vendors and technologies including: NFS Generic iSCSI NetApp Nexenta == SAAS version == In April 2014 Abiquo launched Abiquo anyCloud, a SAAS version of the Abiquo Hybrid Cloud Platform software. This version lets users manage public cloud resources from: Amazon AWS Microsoft Azure IBM SoftLayer DigitalOcean Rackspace Open Cloud (an OpenStack cloud) HP Public Cloud (an OpenStack cloud) Google Compute Engine ElasticHosts Additional security and process features include workflow, to have an enterprise administrator electronically sign off on changes, an audit trail of activity and the ability to share cloud accounts among and enterprise team in a secure way. == Reviews and awards == Finalist for the 2015 Cloud Awards Finalist for the 2015 UK Cloud Awards in the category Cloud Management Product of the Year EMA Radar for Private Cloud platforms 2013 Global Telecoms Business Innovation Summit and Awards 2013 (with Interoute) EuroCloud UK Awards

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology alignment

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

  Read more →
• 

  Environmental informatics

  Environmental informatics is the science of information applied to environmental science. As such, it provides the information processing and communication infrastructure to the interdisciplinary field of environmental sciences aiming at data, information and knowledge integration, the application of computational intelligence to environmental data as well as the identification of environmental impacts of information technology. Environmental informatics thus acts as a bridge, providing an interdisciplinary means of analysing, describing and understanding the complex interactions between humans, nature and technology. Since each field of applied computer science has its own subject matter, terminology and methods, specialised disciplines, such as environmental, bio- and geoinformatics have emerged, each of which combines computer science with a specific field of application such as environmental, bio- or geosciences. Environmental informatics, bioinformatics and geoinformatics all deal with computer-based processing of environmental phenomena. However, environmental informatics is the only field that pursues normative goals (e.g., political goals of environmental protection, environmental planning, and sustainability). This also influences the choice of methods. This also distinguishes it from application areas such as numerical weather prediction, which is considered an early and important example of computer simulation of environmental phenomena. The UK Natural Environment Research Council defines environmental informatics as the "research and system development focusing on the environmental sciences relating to the creation, collection, storage, processing, modelling, interpretation, display and dissemination of data and information." Kostas Karatzas defined environmental informatics as the "creation of a new 'knowledge-paradigm' towards serving environmental management needs." Karatzas argued further that environmental informatics "is an integrator of science, methods and techniques and not just the result of using information and software technology methods and tools for serving environmental engineering needs." Environmental informatics emerged in early 1990 in Central Europe. Current initiatives to effectively manage, share, and reuse environmental and ecological data are indicative of the increasing importance of fields like environmental informatics and ecoinformatics to develop the foundations for effectively managing ecological information. Examples of these initiatives are National Science Foundation Datanet projects, DataONE and Data Conservancy. == Subject matter and objectives == The subject of environmental informatics are environmental information systems (EIS). An EIS 'is a computer-based system that integrates and stores data collected about the natural environment and provides powerful methods for accessing and evaluating it.' This allows environmental data to be processed by computers for environmental protection, planning, research and technology. According to Jaeschke and Bossel, environmental informatics has three interrelated objectives: Environmental informatics serves to procure data and information for describing the state and development of the environment. Of particular importance is information that is needed to prevent or limit undesirable changes and to support desirable changes. Based on the evaluation and analysis of data, environmental informatics improves our understanding of the environment and the interactions between nature, technology and society. It thus supports environmentally relevant decisions. This enables the influence of development (system correction), the assessment of the effects and side effects of potential measures, and the creation of tools for the routine planning, implementation and monitoring of measures. == History == The simulation model World3, which formed the basis of the highly acclaimed study The Limits to Growth, is considered the starting point of environmental informatics. It incorporated environmental information, among other things, to calculate scenarios for global development. In the mid-1980s, interest grew in structuring environmental protection as an area of application for computer science. One of the first publications in German was the book Informatik im Umweltschutz. Anwendungen und Perspektiven (Computer science in environmental protection. Applications and perspectives) from 1986. The term 'environmental informatics' did not appear until around 1993, which is why the development of environmental informatics is usually referred to as having taken place in the 1990s. In 1993, the first university chair for environmental informatics was established in Cottbus. In 1994, the anthology Umweltinformatik. Informatikmethoden für Umweltschutz und Umweltforschung (Environmental Informatics: Informatics Methods for Environmental Protection and Environmental Research) was published. The development of environmental informatics was 'primarily initiated by German computer science.' In the English-speaking world, the volume Environmental Informatics was published in 1995, mainly based on the German anthology of 1994. An article in the conference proceedings of the World Computer Congress of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) in Hamburg in 1994 describes the initial situation of environmental informatics as follows: 'On the one hand, we suffer from the huge amount of available data – people sometimes speak of data graveyards – on the other hand, the really relevant data may still be missing.' This statement indicates the need that led to the emergence of environmental informatics as a specialised discipline of applied computer science. Furthermore, the specific characteristics and processing requirements of environmental data necessitated the emergence of environmental informatics. The special features of environmental data include: The data structures required are highly heterogeneous due to specific processes and differing perspectives on environmental aspects (e.g., water protection, emission control, hazardous substances). In addition to the heterogeneity of the data, heterogeneous databases also play a role, as environmental data is often obtained and presented in an interdisciplinary manner. Obligations change frequently as a result of new legislation, whether regional (e.g. state regulations on water protection), national (e.g. federal emission control regulations) or international (e.g. Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals|REACH). The objects represented are often multidimensional and, therefore, require complex geometric representation using curves or polygons. It is often necessary to process uncertain, imprecise or incomplete data, which is, for example, the result of extrapolations or forecasts. A new "knowledge paradigm" has emerged to meet the requirements of environmental management. Environmental informatics produces its own concepts, methods and techniques and is not merely the result of using information and communication technology methods and tools to meet environmental requirements. The development of environmental informatics since the 1990s has been significantly influenced by the newly established conferences EnviroInfo, ISESS and ITEE and is documented in the respective proceedings. Aspects of sustainability and sustainable development were increasingly integrated into environmental informatics after 2000, thereby expanding the field. In 2004, the Working Group on Sustainable Information Society of the Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V. (German Informatics Society, GI) published the Memorandum on a Sustainable Information Society, which formulates recommendations for an information society that is compatible with human, social and natural needs. Since 2007, environmental informatics has often been described in more detail as informatics for environmental protection, sustainable development and risk management. The increased focus on sustainability has also contributed to the formation of the research focus Information and Communications Technology for Sustainability (ICT4S) and to the emergence of the international conference ICT4S in 2013. ICT-ENSURE, the European Commission's funding measure for the establishment of a European research area on "ICT for Environmental Sustainability Research" (2008–2010), has also contributed to the structuring of environmental informatics. == Environmental informatics and sustainable development == Efforts to place environmental informatics within the context of sustainable development have been growing since 2000 and were significantly influenced by the Memorandum on a Sustainable Information Society. According to this Memorandum, the information society offers great but unevenly distributed opportunities for education, participation and intercultural understanding. In addition, the Memorandum highlighted the material and energy consumption of inf

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic translation

  Semantic translation is the process of using semantic information to aid in the translation of data in one representation or data model to another representation or data model. Semantic translation takes advantage of semantics that associate meaning with individual data elements in one dictionary to create an equivalent meaning in a second system. An example of semantic translation is the conversion of XML data from one data model to a second data model using formal ontologies for each system such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL). This is frequently required by intelligent agents that wish to perform searches on remote computer systems that use different data models to store their data elements. The process of allowing a single user to search multiple systems with a single search request is also known as federated search. Semantic translation should be differentiated from data mapping tools that do simple one-to-one translation of data from one system to another without actually associating meaning with each data element. Semantic translation requires that data elements in the source and destination systems have "semantic mappings" to a central registry or registries of data elements. The simplest mapping is of course where there is equivalence. There are three types of Semantic equivalence: Class Equivalence - indicating that class or "concepts" are equivalent. For example: "Person" is the same as "Individual" Property Equivalence - indicating that two properties are equivalent. For example: "PersonGivenName" is the same as "FirstName" Instance Equivalence - indicating that two individual instances of objects are equivalent. For example: "Dan Smith" is the same person as "Daniel Smith" Semantic translation is very difficult if the terms in a particular data model do not have direct one-to-one mappings to data elements in a foreign data model. In that situation, an alternative approach must be used to find mappings from the original data to the foreign data elements. This problem can be alleviated by centralized metadata registries that use the ISO-11179 standards such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM).

  Read more →
• 

  Dyme (company)

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

  Read more →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Artificial intelligence in India

  The artificial intelligence (AI) market in India is projected to reach $8 billion by 2025, growing at 40% CAGR from 2020 to 2025. This growth is part of the broader AI boom, a global period of rapid technological advancements with India being pioneer starting in the early 2010s with NLP based Chatbots from Haptik, Corover.ai, Niki.ai and then gaining prominence in the early 2020s based on reinforcement learning, marked by breakthroughs such as generative AI models from Krutrim, Sarvam, CoRover, OpenAI and Alphafold by Google DeepMind. In India, the development of AI has been similarly transformative, with applications in healthcare, finance, and education, bolstered by government initiatives like NITI Aayog's 2018 National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. Institutions such as the Indian Statistical Institute and the Indian Institute of Science published breakthrough AI research papers and patents. India's transformation to AI is primarily being driven by startups and government initiatives & policies like Digital India. By fostering technological trust through digital public infrastructure, India is tackling socioeconomic issues by taking a bottom-up approach to AI. NASSCOM and Boston Consulting Group estimate that by 2027, India's AI services might be valued at $17 billion. According to 2025 Technology and Innovation Report, by UN Trade and Development, India ranks 10th globally for private sector investments in AI. According to Mary Meeker, India has emerged as a key market for AI platforms, accounting for the largest share of ChatGPT's mobile app users and having the third-largest user base for DeepSeek in 2025. While AI presents significant opportunities for economic growth and social development in India, challenges such as data privacy concerns, skill shortages, and ethical considerations need to be addressed for responsible AI deployment. The growth of AI in India has also led to an increase in the number of cyberattacks that use AI to target organizations. == History == === Early days (1960s-1980s) === The TIFRAC (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Automatic Calculator) was designed and developed by a team led by Rangaswamy Narasimhan between 1954 and 1960. He worked on pattern recognition from 1961 to 1964 at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign's Digital Computer Laboratory. In order to conduct research on database technology, computer networking, computer graphics, and systems software, he and M. G. K. Menon founded the National Centre for Software Development and Computing Techniques. In 1965, he established the Computer Society of India and supervised the initial research work on AI at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Jagdish Lal launched the first computer science program in 1976 at Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College. H. K. Kesavan from the University of Waterloo and Vaidyeswaran Rajaraman from the University of Wisconsin–Madison joined the IIT Kanpur Electrical Engineering Department in 1963–1964 as Assistant Professor and Head of Department, respectively. H.N. Mahabala, who was employed at Bendix Corporation's Computer Division, joined the department in 1965. He previously worked with Marvin Minsky. The IIT Kanpur Computer Center was led by H. K. Kesavan, with Vaidyeswaran Rajaraman serving as his deputy. Kesavan informally permitted Rajaraman and Mahabala to introduce artificial intelligence into computer science classes. The computer science program was approved by IIT Kanpur in 1971 and split out from the electrical engineering department. In 1973, an IBM System/370 Model 155 was installed at IIT Madras. John McCarthy, head of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Stanford University visited IIT Kanpur in 1971. He donated PDP-1 with a time-sharing operating system. During the 1970s, the balance of payments deficit in India restricted import of computers. The Department of Computer Science and Automation at the Indian Institute of Science established in 1969, played an important role in nurturing the development of data science and artificial intelligence in India. First course on AI was introduced in the 1970s by G. Krishna. B. L. Deekshatulu introduced the first course on pattern recognition in the early 1970s. === Foundation phase === ==== 1980s ==== In the 1980s, the Indian Statistical Institute's Optical Character Recognition Project was one of the country's first attempts at studying artificial intelligence and machine learning. OCR technology has benefited greatly from the work of ISI's Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Unit, which is headed by Bidyut Baran Chaudhuri. He also contributed in the development of computer vision and digital image processing. As part of the Indian Fifth Generation Computer Systems Research Programme, the Department of Electronics, with support from the United Nations Development Programme, initiated the Knowledge Based Computer Systems Project in 1986, marking the beginning of India's first major AI research program. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi requested that the Department of Electronics and IISc to initiate the Parallel Processing Project in 1986–1987. The Center for Development of Advanced Computing eventually joined those efforts. IIT Madras was selected to develop system diagnosis, ISI for image processing, National Centre for Software Technology for natural language processing and TIFR for speech processing. In 1987, the proposal of N. Seshagiri, Director General of the National Informatics Centre for the prototype development of supercomputer was cleared. Negotiations for a Cray supercomputer were underway between the Reagan administration and the Rajiv Gandhi government. US Defense Secretaries Frank Carlucci and Caspar Weinberger visited New Delhi after the US approved the transfer in 1988. The sale of a lower-end XMP-14 supercomputer was permitted in lieu of the Cray XMP-24 supercomputer due to security concerns. The Center for Development of Advanced Computing was formally established in March 1988 by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (previously the Ministry of IT) within the Department of Information Technology (formerly the Department of Electronics) in response to a recommendation made to the Prime Minister by the Scientific Advisory Council. The National Initiative in Supercomputing, which produced the PARAM series, was led by Vijay P. Bhatkar. For the first ten years, supercomputing and Indian language computing were the two main focus areas. C-DAC has expanded its operations in order to meet the needs in a number of domains, including network and internet software, real-time systems, artificial intelligence, and NLP. Under the direction of Professor KV Ramakrishnamacharyulu from National Sanskrit University and Professor Rajeev Sangal from the International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, the Akshar Bharati Research Group was established in 1984 with support from IIT Kanpur and the University of Hyderabad for computational processing of Indian languages. They focused on computational linguistics, NLP with ontological database systems, and Indian language/translation theories with linguistic tradition. ==== 1990s ==== From IIT Kanpur, Mohan Tambe joined C-DAC in the 1990s to work on Graphics and Intelligence based Script Technology (GIST), which addressed the challenge of adapting personal computer software based on Latin script to Devanagiri and a number of other Indian language scripts. He was previously working on the Machine Translation for Indian languages Project. Within C-DAC, he established the GIST group. The technology was expanded to encompass NLP, artificial intelligence-based machine-aided language learning and translation, multimedia and multilingual computing solutions, and more. GIST resulted in the creation of G-CLASS (GIST cross language search plug-ins suite), a cross-language search engine. The Applied Artificial Intelligence Group at C-DAC has developed some basic and novel applications in the field of NLP, including machine translation, information extraction/retrieval, automatic summarization, speech recognition, text-to-speech synthesis, intelligent language teaching, and natural language-based document management with Decision Support Systems. These applications are the result of the foundation laid by previous language technology activities. Software firms in the Indian private sector began looking into AI applications, mostly in the area of business process automation. In order to allow machines to read, comprehend, and interpret human languages, the Language Technologies Research Center was founded in October 1999 at the International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad. It focused on the advancements in semantic parsing, information extraction, natural language generation, sentiment analysis, and dialogue systems. Some of the early AI research in India was driven by societal needs. For example; Eklavya, a knowledge-based program created by I

  Read more →