Tridium

Tridium Inc. is an American engineering hardware and software company based in Richmond, Virginia, whose products facilitate and integrate the automation of building and other engineering control systems. Since November 2005, the company has operated as an independent business entity of Honeywell International Inc. == History == Tridium Inc. was founded in 1995. In 1999, Tridium launched the Niagara Framework, a software infrastructure that connects all systems and devices to a central console. In 2002, John Petze became president and CEO, replacing Jerry Frank. The company was acquired by Honeywell International Inc in 2005. == Products == Tridium's products facilitate by integrating building automation using open and proprietary communications protocols such as Modbus, Lonworks and BACnet. Tridium is the developer of Niagara Framework. The Niagara Framework is a universal software infrastructure that allows building controls integrators, HVAC and mechanical contractors to build custom, web-enabled applications for accessing, automating and controlling smart devices real-time via local network or over the Internet.

Imaging phantom

An imaging phantom, or simply phantom (less commonly spelled fantom), is a specially designed object that is scanned or imaged in the field of medical imaging to evaluate, analyze, and tune the performance of various imaging devices. A phantom is more readily available and provides more consistent results than the use of a living subject or cadaver, while also avoiding direct risks to living subjects. Phantoms were originally employed in 2D x-ray–based imaging techniques such as radiography or fluoroscopy, but more recently phantoms with desired imaging characteristics have been developed for 3D techniques such as SPECT, MRI, CT, ultrasound, PET, and other imaging modalities. == Design == A phantom used to evaluate an imaging device should respond in a similar manner to how human tissues and organs would act in that specific imaging modality. For instance, phantoms made for 2D radiography may hold various quantities of x-ray contrast agents with similar x-ray absorbing properties (such as the attenuation coefficient) to normal tissue to tune the contrast of the imaging device or modulate the patient's exposure to radiation. In such a case, the radiography phantom would not necessarily need to have similar textures and mechanical properties since these are not relevant in x-ray imaging modalities. However, in the case of ultrasonography, a phantom with similar rheological and ultrasound scattering properties to real tissue would be essential, but x-ray absorbing properties would not be relevant. The term "phantom" describes an object that is designed to resemble human tissue and can be evaluated, analyzed or manipulated to study the performance of a medical device. Phantoms are created using a digital file that is rendered through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computer-aided design (CAD). The digital files allow for quick modifications that are read by the 3D printer. The 3D printer will create the product in successive layers using polymeric materials. There are several types of phantoms including tissue-mimicking, radiological phantoms, dental phantoms, BOMABs (used to calibrate whole-body counters), and 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).

Semantic heterogeneity

Semantic heterogeneity is when database schema or datasets for the same domain are developed by independent parties, resulting in differences in meaning and interpretation of data values. Beyond structured data, the problem of semantic heterogeneity is compounded due to the flexibility of semi-structured data and various tagging methods applied to documents or unstructured data. Semantic heterogeneity is one of the more important sources of differences in heterogeneous datasets. Yet, for multiple data sources to interoperate with one another, it is essential to reconcile these semantic differences. Decomposing the various sources of semantic heterogeneities provides a basis for understanding how to map and transform data to overcome these differences. == Classification == One of the first known classification schemes applied to data semantics is from William Kent in the late 80s. Kent's approach dealt more with structural mapping issues than differences in meaning, which he pointed to data dictionaries as potentially solving. One of the most comprehensive classifications is from Pluempitiwiriyawej and Hammer, "Classification Scheme for Semantic and Schematic Heterogeneities in XML Data Sources". They classify heterogeneities into three broad classes: Structural conflicts arise when the schema of the sources representing related or overlapping data exhibit discrepancies. Structural conflicts can be detected when comparing the underlying schema. The class of structural conflicts includes generalization conflicts, aggregation conflicts, internal path discrepancy, missing items, element ordering, constraint and type mismatch, and naming conflicts between the element types and attribute names. Domain conflicts arise when the semantics of the data sources that will be integrated exhibit discrepancies. Domain conflicts can be detected by looking at the information contained in the schema and using knowledge about the underlying data domains. The class of domain conflicts includes schematic discrepancy, scale or unit, precision, and data representation conflicts. Data conflicts refer to discrepancies among similar or related data values across multiple sources. Data conflicts can only be detected by comparing the underlying sources. The class of data conflicts includes ID-value, missing data, incorrect spelling, and naming conflicts between the element contents and the attribute values. Moreover, mismatches or conflicts can occur between set elements (a "population" mismatch) or attributes (a "description" mismatch). Michael Bergman expanded upon this schema by adding a fourth major explicit category of language, and also added some examples of each kind of semantic heterogeneity, resulting in about 40 distinct potential categories . This table shows the combined 40 possible sources of semantic heterogeneities across sources: A different approach toward classifying semantics and integration approaches is taken by Sheth et al. Under their concept, they split semantics into three forms: implicit, formal and powerful. Implicit semantics are what is either largely present or can easily be extracted; formal languages, though relatively scarce, occur in the form of ontologies or other description logics; and powerful (soft) semantics are fuzzy and not limited to rigid set-based assignments. Sheth et al.'s main point is that first-order logic (FOL) or description logic is inadequate alone to properly capture the needed semantics. == Relevant applications == Besides data interoperability, relevant areas in information technology that depend on reconciling semantic heterogeneities include data mapping, semantic integration, and enterprise information integration, among many others. From the conceptual to actual data, there are differences in perspective, vocabularies, measures and conventions once any two data sources are brought together. Explicit attention to these semantic heterogeneities is one means to get the information to integrate or interoperate. A mere twenty years ago, information technology systems expressed and stored data in a multitude of formats and systems. The Internet and Web protocols have done much to overcome these sources of differences. While there is a large number of categories of semantic heterogeneity, these categories are also patterned and can be anticipated and corrected. These patterned sources inform what kind of work must be done to overcome semantic differences where they still reside.

NoSQL

NoSQL (originally meaning "not only SQL" or "non-relational") refers to a type of database design that stores and retrieves data differently from the traditional table-based structure of relational databases. Unlike relational databases, which organize data into rows and columns like a spreadsheet, NoSQL databases use a single data structure—such as key–value pairs, wide columns, graphs, or documents—to hold information. Since this non-relational design does not require a fixed schema, it scales easily to manage large, often unstructured datasets. NoSQL systems are sometimes called "Not only SQL" because they can support SQL-like query languages or work alongside SQL databases in polyglot-persistent setups, where multiple database types are combined. Non-relational databases date back to the late 1960s, but the term "NoSQL" emerged in the early 2000s, spurred by the needs of Web 2.0 companies like social media platforms. NoSQL databases are popular in big data and real-time web applications due to their simple design, ability to scale across clusters of machines (called horizontal scaling), and precise control over data availability. These structures can speed up certain tasks and are often considered more adaptable than fixed database tables. However, many NoSQL systems prioritize speed and availability over strict consistency (per the CAP theorem), using eventual consistency—where updates reach all nodes eventually, typically within milliseconds, but may cause brief delays in accessing the latest data, known as stale reads. While most lack full ACID transaction support, some, like MongoDB, include it as a key feature. == Barriers to adoption == Barriers to wider NoSQL adoption include their use of low-level query languages instead of SQL, inability to perform ad hoc joins across tables, lack of standardized interfaces, and significant investments already made in relational databases. Some NoSQL systems risk losing data through lost writes or other forms, though features like write-ahead logging—a method to record changes before they’re applied—can help prevent this. For distributed transaction processing across multiple databases, keeping data consistent is a challenge for both NoSQL and relational systems, as relational databases cannot enforce rules linking separate databases, and few systems support both ACID transactions and X/Open XA standards for managing distributed updates. Limitations within the interface environment are overcome using semantic virtualization protocols, such that NoSQL services are accessible to most operating systems. == History == The term NoSQL was used by Carlo Strozzi in 1998 to name his lightweight Strozzi NoSQL open-source relational database that did not expose the standard Structured Query Language (SQL) interface, but was still relational. His NoSQL RDBMS is distinct from the around-2009 general concept of NoSQL databases. Strozzi suggests that, because the current NoSQL movement "departs from the relational model altogether, it should therefore have been called more appropriately 'NoREL'", referring to "not relational". Johan Oskarsson, then a developer at Last.fm, reintroduced the term NoSQL in early 2009 when he organized an event to discuss "open-source distributed, non-relational databases". The name attempted to label the emergence of an increasing number of non-relational, distributed data stores, including open source clones of Google's Bigtable/MapReduce and Amazon's DynamoDB. == Types and examples == There are various ways to classify NoSQL databases, with different categories and subcategories, some of which overlap. What follows is a non-exhaustive classification by data model, with examples: === Key–value store === Key–value (KV) stores use the associative array (also called a map or dictionary) as their fundamental data model. In this model, data is represented as a collection of key–value pairs, such that each possible key appears at most once in the collection. The key–value model is one of the simplest non-trivial data models, and richer data models are often implemented as an extension of it. The key–value model can be extended to a discretely ordered model that maintains keys in lexicographic order. This extension is computationally powerful, in that it can efficiently retrieve selective key ranges. Key–value stores can use consistency models ranging from eventual consistency to serializability. Some databases support ordering of keys. There are various hardware implementations, and some users store data in memory (RAM), while others on solid-state drives (SSD) or rotating disks (aka hard disk drive (HDD)). === Document store === The central concept of a document store is that of a "document". While the details of this definition differ among document-oriented databases, they all assume that documents encapsulate and encode data (or information) in some standard formats or encodings. Encodings in use include XML, YAML, and JSON and binary forms like BSON. Documents are addressed in the database via a unique key that represents that document. Another defining characteristic of a document-oriented database is an API or query language to retrieve documents based on their contents. Different implementations offer different ways of organizing and/or grouping documents: Collections Tags Non-visible metadata Directory hierarchies Compared to relational databases, collections could be considered analogous to tables and documents analogous to records. But they are different – every record in a table has the same sequence of fields, while documents in a collection may have fields that are completely different. === Graph === Graph databases are designed for data whose relations are well represented as a graph consisting of elements connected by a finite number of relations. Examples of data include social relations, public transport links, road maps, network topologies, etc. Graph databases and their query language == Performance == The performance of NoSQL databases is usually evaluated using the metric of throughput, which is measured as operations per second. Performance evaluation must pay attention to the right benchmarks such as production configurations, parameters of the databases, anticipated data volume, and concurrent user workloads. Ben Scofield rated different categories of NoSQL databases as follows: Performance and scalability comparisons are most commonly done using the YCSB benchmark. == Handling relational data == Since most NoSQL databases lack ability for joins in queries, the database schema generally needs to be designed differently. There are three main techniques for handling relational data in a NoSQL database. (See table join and ACID support for NoSQL databases that support joins.) === Multiple queries === Instead of retrieving all the data with one query, it is common to do several queries to get the desired data. NoSQL queries are often faster than traditional SQL queries, so the cost of additional queries may be acceptable. If an excessive number of queries would be necessary, one of the other two approaches is more appropriate. === Caching, replication and non-normalized data === Instead of only storing foreign keys, it is common to store actual foreign values along with the model's data. For example, each blog comment might include the username in addition to a user id, thus providing easy access to the username without requiring another lookup. When a username changes, however, this will now need to be changed in many places in the database. Thus this approach works better when reads are much more common than writes. === Nesting data === With document databases like MongoDB it is common to put more data in a smaller number of collections. For example, in a blogging application, one might choose to store comments within the blog post document, so that with a single retrieval one gets all the comments. Thus in this approach a single document contains all the data needed for a specific task. == ACID and join support == A database is marked as supporting ACID properties (atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability) or join operations if the documentation for the database makes that claim. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the capability is fully supported in a manner similar to most SQL databases. == Query optimization and indexing in NoSQL databases == Different NoSQL databases, such as DynamoDB, MongoDB, Cassandra, Couchbase, HBase, and Redis, exhibit varying behaviors when querying non-indexed fields. Many perform full-table or collection scans for such queries, applying filtering operations after retrieving data. However, modern NoSQL databases often incorporate advanced features to optimize query performance. For example, MongoDB supports compound indexes and query-optimization strategies, Cassandra offers secondary indexes and materialized views, and Redis employs custom indexing mechanisms tailored to specific use cases. Systems like El

Pydio

Pydio Cells, previously known as just Pydio and formerly known as AjaXplorer, is an open-source file-sharing and synchronisation software that runs on the user's own server or in the cloud. == Presentation == The project was created by musician Charles Du Jeu (current CEO and CTO) in 2007 under the name AjaXplorer. The name was changed in 2013 and became Pydio (an acronym for Put Your Data in Orbit). In May 2018, Pydio switched from PHP to Go with the release of Pydio Cells. The PHP version reached end-of-life state on 31 December 2019. Pydio Cells runs on any server supporting a recent Go version. Windows/Linux/macOS on the Intel architecture are directly supported; a fully functional working ARM implementation is under active development. Pydio Cells has been developed from scratch using the Go programming language; release 4.0.0 introduced code refactoring to fully support the Go modular structure as well as grid computing. Nevertheless, the web-based interface of Cells is very similar to the one from Pydio 8 (in PHP), and it successfully replicates most of its features, while adding a few more. There is also a new synchronisation client (also written in Go). The PHP version has been phased out as the company's focus is moving to Pydio Cells, with community feedback on the new features. According to the company, the switch to the new environment was made "to overcome inherent PHP limitations and provide you with a future-proof and modern solution for collaborating on documents". From a technical point of view, Pydio differs from solutions such as Google Drive or Dropbox. Pydio is not based on a public cloud; instead, the software connects to the user's existing storage (such as SAN / Local FS, SAMBA / CIFS, (s)FTP, NFS, S3-compatible cloud storage, Azure Blob Storage, Google Cloud Storage) as well as to the existing user directories (LDAP / AD, OAuth2 / OIDC SSO, SAML / Azure ADFS SSO, RADIUS, Shibboleth...), which allows companies to keep their data inside their infrastructure, according to their data security policy and user rights management. The software is built in a modular perspective; up to Pydio 8, various plugins allowed administrators to implement extra features. On the server side, Pydio Cells is deployed as a collection of independent microservices communicating among themselves using gRPC and logging user actions via Activity Streams 2.0 (AS2). Pydio Cells microservices are built with the Go Micro framework (using an embedded NATS server). A standard installation will deploy all required services on the same physical server, but for the purposes of performance, reliability and high availability, these can now be spread across several different servers (even in geographically separate locations) according to the 12-factors architecture pattern. Pydio Cells is available either through a free and open-source community distribution (Pydio Cells Home), or a commercially-licensed enterprise distribution (in two variants, Pydio Cells Connect and Pydio Cells Enterprise), which add features not available in the community distribution as well as additional levels of support beyond the community forums. == Features == File sharing between different internal users and across other Pydio instances SSL/TLS Encryption WebDAV file server Creation of dedicated workspaces, for each line of business / project / client, with a dedicated user rights management for each workspace. File-sharing with external users (private links, public links, password protection, download limitation, etc.) Online viewing and editing of documents with Collabora Office (Pydio Cells Enterprise also offers OnlyOffice integration) Preview and editing of image files Integrated audio and video reader Activity stream ('timeline') for all actions taken by users Integrated chat platform Client applications are available for all major desktop and mobile platforms.

Maritime Informatics

Maritime Informatics is a thematic topic within the broader discipline of informatics. It can be considered as both a field of study and domain of application. As an application domain, it is the outlet of innovations originating from data science and artificial intelligence; as a field of study, it is positioned between computer science and marine engineering. == Beginnings of maritime informatics == As a result of the increasing levels of digitalisation occurring in the maritime sector starting around 2010 and stimulated by the EU-endorsed MonaLisa project for sea traffic management (STM), a number of academics and shipping industry leaders recognised that the maritime transportation sector would benefit from a specific field of study and application to be known as Maritime Informatics - the use of information systems, data sharing and data analytics in the business and operations of maritime transportation. They considered that it would lead to improvements in efficiency, safety, resilience, and ecological sustainability - all of which are currently lacking for many aspects of sea transport. One of the first public airings of the concept of Maritime Informatics was a presentation delivered on 11 September 2014 in Gothenburg, Sweden. A proposal for an inaugural minitrack on Maritime Informatics was accepted for the 2015 Americas Conference on Information Systems in Puerto Rico where three papers were presented. Since then numerous publications has been brought forward captured at www.maritimeinformatics.org and in late 2020 the first reference book on Maritime Informatics was co-written by 81 expert contributors (47 practitioners and 34 researchers) from 20 countries. Most impactful authors and journals in the domain have been documented in a review paper. Dimitrios Zissis, Luca Cazzanti and Leonardo M. Millefiori are the top three authors; top journals and conferences include Ocean Engineering, Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems, Sensors, the international Conference On Engineering, Technology And Innovation, Expert Systems With Applications, IEEE Access, and Journal of Navigation. == Background == The shipping industry has several particular organisational aspects that are recognised and taken into account in maritime informatics: It is predominantly a self-organising ecosystem Many activities are undertaken as part of episodic tight coupling There is a so-called maritime stack There is increasing pressure to balance capital productivity and energy efficiency There is the potential virtuous interplay between different types of systems == Data sharing == Digital data sharing is key to the all-important, arguably fundamental, data analytics aspects of maritime informatics because it opens the way for better access to relevant and reliable data. As in land-based commerce, digital data sharing is a growing phenomenon in maritime operations - though there is a way to go. It is enabling greater transparency for all those involved in the transportation of goods and passengers, not least being the end-customer. This leads to better and more informed decision-making and planning by all those involved. The push for digitalisation and data sharing is being pursued both by governments and the commercial sector. For example, the Member States of the IMO agreed a mandatory requirement for their governments to introduce electronic information exchange between ships and ports as from 8 April 2019. Meanwhile, commercial operators, particularly in the container lines are putting systems in place for sharing data for mutual benefit in their operations. Data sharing is an important aspect of the Port Collaborative Decision Making (PortCDM) and Port Call Optimization initiatives, both of which seek to improve the coordination, synchronization and efficiency of the port call process by enabling a common and shared situational awareness among all those involved. == Standardisation == The availability and sharing of relevant digital data underpins maritime informatics and is key to more effective and efficient coordination and synchronisation in the predominantly self-organising ecosystem that is maritime transportation. For this to occur, a high priority underpinning maritime informatics is the encouragement of standardised digital data exchange and data sharing, leading, in turn, to improvements in shipping analytics. Improved availability of data will support better historical analysis, now-casting and forecasting. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) FAL Committee is taking the lead in ensuring that the common terms used in the various standards being developed or in use in the maritime sector are compatible and therefore interoperable as far as is practicable, by creating and maintaining The IMO Compendium on Facilitation and Electronic Business. The IMO Compendium consists of an IMO Data Set and IMO Reference Data Model agreed by the main organisations involved in the development of standards for the electronic exchange of information related to the FAL Convention: the World Customs Organization (WCO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). There are several other prominent international governmental and non-governmental organisations actively contributing to the ongoing standardisation and harmonisation process including the UN Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport (UN EDIFACT), the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), the International Harbour Masters Association (IHMA) and BIMCO - the world's largest direct-membership organisation for shipowners, charterers, shipbrokers and agents.