Social collaboration

Social collaboration refers to processes that help multiple people or groups interact and share information to achieve common goals. Such processes find their 'natural' environment on the Internet, where collaboration and social dissemination of information are made easier by current innovations and the proliferation of the web. Sharing concepts on a digital collaboration environment often facilitates a "brainstorming" process, where new ideas may emerge due to the varied contributions of individuals. These individuals may hail from different walks of life, different cultures and different age groups, their diverse thought processes help in adding new dimensions to ideas, dimensions that previously may have been missed. A crucial concept behind social collaboration is that 'ideas are everywhere.' Individuals are able to share their ideas in an unrestricted environment as anyone can get involved and the discussion is not limited to only those who have domain knowledge. Social collaboration is also known as enterprise social networking, and the products to support it are often branded enterprise social networks (ESNs). It is important that we understand the rhythm of social collaboration. There needs to be a balance, with ease to move from focused solitary work to brainstorming for problem solving in group work. This critical balance can be achieved by creating structures or a work environment where it is not too rigid to prevent brainstorming in group work nor too loose to result in total chaos. Social collaboration should happen at the edge of chaos. Work practices should support social collaboration. The most effective environment is one that supports opportunistic planning. Opportunistic planning provides a general plan but then gives enough room for flexibility to change activities and tasks until the last moment. This way, people are able to cope up with unforeseen developments and not throwing away everything with one grand plan. == Comparison to social networking == Social collaboration is related to social networking, with the distinction that while social networking is individual-centric, social collaboration is entirely group-centric. Generally speaking, social networking means socializing for personal, professional or entertainment purposes, for example, LinkedIn and Facebook. Social collaboration, on the other hand, means working socially to achieve a common goal, for example, GitHub and Quora. Social networking services generally focus on individuals sharing messages in a more-or-less undirected way and receiving messages from many sources into a single personalized activity feed. Social collaboration services, on the other hand, focus on the identification of groups and collaboration spaces in which messages are explicitly directed at the group and the group activity feed is seen the same way by everyone. Social collaboration may refer to time-bound collaborations with an explicit goal to be completed or perpetual collaborations in which the goal is knowledge sharing (e.g. community of practice, online community). == Comparison to crowdsourcing == Social collaboration is similar to crowdsourcing as it involves individuals working together towards a common goal. Crowdsourcing is a method for harnessing specific information from a large, diverse group of people. Unlike social collaboration, which involves much communication and cooperation among a large group of people, crowdsourcing is more like individuals working towards the common goal relatively independently. Therefore, the process of working involves less communication. Andrea Grover, curator of a crowdsourcing art show, explained that collaboration among individuals is an appealing experience, because participation is "a low investment, with the possibility of a high return." == Social collaboration software == Notable social collaboration software includes Glip messaging, Google Apps, Knowledge Plaza Electronic Document System and Social Intranet, Microsoft Lync social collaboration tool for businesses, Slack, Weekdone for managers, and Wrike. == Future == Social collaboration is going to be used as a tool in companies to enhance productivity. Social workers could be able to use social collaboration tools to manage personal tasks, professional projects and social networks with other colleagues within the same organization. Social collaboration will serve as a platform to get people involved and connected. This kind of platform provides a spiritual training practice for social workers. Social collaboration software could help enhance the communication between customers and employees and build trust in the organization. When we need real-time chat, it would be excellent to include every participant in a shared and archived forum which keeps a record of important information and logs. So collaborators need not worry about losing important records while working towards the common goal. The interactive communication and synchronous environment promote understanding among colleagues. Collaboration helps in building strong relationships between workers, which in turn leads to faster problem solving. The close connection between workers and customers creates a scalable organization which naturally increases the trust and faith that customers have in the company. Therefore, the interactive customer relationship levels up customer satisfaction in ways that traditional collaboration methods cannot. Apart from its effect on the way work will be conducted in the future, social collaboration will also affect society. In the coming years social collaboration will be the driving force in societal change as more and more people work together to get their vision across to governments and governing agencies. An example of this is Change.org, an online petition tool where users can help bring their government's attention to pressing social issues that need to be addressed.

Machine translation software usability

The sections below give objective criteria for evaluating the usability of machine translation software output. == Stationarity or canonical form == Do repeated translations converge on a single expression in both languages? I.e. does the translation method show stationarity or produce a canonical form? Does the translation become stationary without losing the original meaning? This metric has been criticized as not being well correlated with BLEU (BiLingual Evaluation Understudy) scores. == Adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang == Is the system adaptive to colloquialism, argot or slang? The French language has many rules for creating words in the speech and writing of popular culture. Two such rules are: (a) The reverse spelling of words such as femme to meuf. (This is called verlan.) (b) The attachment of the suffix -ard to a noun or verb to form a proper noun. For example, the noun faluche means "student hat". The word faluchard formed from faluche colloquially can mean, depending on context, "a group of students", "a gathering of students" and "behavior typical of a student". The Google translator as of 28 December 2006 doesn't derive the constructed words as for example from rule (b), as shown here: Il y a une chorale falucharde mercredi, venez nombreux, les faluchards chantent des paillardes! ==> There is a choral society falucharde Wednesday, come many, the faluchards sing loose-living women! French argot has three levels of usage: familier or friendly, acceptable among friends, family and peers but not at work grossier or swear words, acceptable among friends and peers but not at work or in family verlan or ghetto slang, acceptable among lower classes but not among middle or upper classes The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts annual evaluations [1] Archived 2009-03-22 at the Wayback Machine of machine translation systems based on the BLEU-4 criterion [2]. A combined method called IQmt which incorporates BLEU and additional metrics NIST, GTM, ROUGE and METEOR has been implemented by Gimenez and Amigo [3]. == Well-formed output == Is the output grammatical or well-formed in the target language? Using an interlingua should be helpful in this regard, because with a fixed interlingua one should be able to write a grammatical mapping to the target language from the interlingua. Consider the following Arabic language input and English language translation result from the Google translator as of 27 December 2006 [4]. This Google translator output doesn't parse using a reasonable English grammar: وعن حوادث التدافع عند شعيرة رمي الجمرات -التي كثيرا ما يسقط فيها العديد من الضحايا- أشار الأمير نايف إلى إدخال "تحسينات كثيرة في جسر الجمرات ستمنع بإذن الله حدوث أي تزاحم". ==> And incidents at the push Carbuncles-throwing ritual, which often fall where many of the victims - Prince Nayef pointed to the introduction of "many improvements in bridge Carbuncles God would stop the occurrence of any competing." == Semantics preservation == Do repeated re-translations preserve the semantics of the original sentence? For example, consider the following English input passed multiple times into and out of French using the Google translator as of 27 December 2006: Better a day earlier than a day late. ==> Améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. ==> Pour améliorer un jour plus tôt qu'un jour tard. ==> To improve one day earlier than a day late. As noted above and in, this kind of round-trip translation is a very unreliable method of evaluation. == Trustworthiness and security == An interesting peculiarity of Google Translate as of 24 January 2008 (corrected as of 25 January 2008) is the following result when translating from English to Spanish, which shows an embedded joke in the English-Spanish dictionary which has some added poignancy given recent events: Heath Ledger is dead ==> Tom Cruise está muerto This raises the issue of trustworthiness when relying on a machine translation system embedded in a Life-critical system in which the translation system has input to a Safety Critical Decision Making process. Conjointly it raises the issue of whether in a given use the software of the machine translation system is safe from hackers. It is not known whether this feature of Google Translate was the result of a joke/hack or perhaps an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation. Reporters from CNET Networks asked Google for an explanation on January 24, 2008; Google said only that it was an "internal issue with Google Translate". The mistranslation was the subject of much hilarity and speculation on the Internet. If it is an unintended consequence of the use of a method such as statistical machine translation, and not a joke/hack, then this event is a demonstration of a potential source of critical unreliability in the statistical machine translation method. In human translations, in particular on the part of interpreters, selectivity on the part of the translator in performing a translation is often commented on when one of the two parties being served by the interpreter knows both languages. This leads to the issue of whether a particular translation could be considered verifiable. In this case, a converging round-trip translation would be a kind of verification.

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.

Reservoir sampling

Reservoir sampling is a family of randomized algorithms for choosing a simple random sample, without replacement, of k items from a population of unknown size n in a single pass over the items. The size of the population n is not known to the algorithm and is typically too large for all n items to fit into main memory. The population is revealed to the algorithm over time, and the algorithm cannot look back at previous items. At any point, the current state of the algorithm must permit extraction of a simple random sample without replacement of size k over the part of the population seen so far. == Motivation == Suppose we see a sequence of items, one at a time. We want to keep 10 items in memory, and we want them to be selected at random from the sequence. If we know the total number of items n and can access the items arbitrarily, then the solution is easy: select 10 distinct indices i between 1 and n with equal probability, and keep the i-th elements. The problem is that we do not always know the exact n in advance. == Simple: Algorithm R == A simple and popular but slow algorithm, Algorithm R, was created by Jeffrey Vitter. Initialize an array R {\displaystyle R} indexed from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to k {\displaystyle k} , containing the first k items of the input x 1 , . . . , x k {\displaystyle x_{1},...,x_{k}} . This is the reservoir. For each new input x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , generate a random number j uniformly in { 1 , . . . , i } {\displaystyle \{1,...,i\}} . If j ∈ { 1 , . . . , k } {\displaystyle j\in \{1,...,k\}} , then set R [ j ] := x i . {\displaystyle R[j]:=x_{i}.} Otherwise, discard x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Return R {\displaystyle R} after all inputs are processed. This algorithm works by induction on i ≥ k {\displaystyle i\geq k} . While conceptually simple and easy to understand, this algorithm needs to generate a random number for each item of the input, including the items that are discarded. The algorithm's asymptotic running time is thus O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . Generating this amount of randomness and the linear run time causes the algorithm to be unnecessarily slow if the input population is large. This is Algorithm R, implemented as follows: == Optimal: Algorithm L == If we generate n {\displaystyle n} random numbers u 1 , . . . , u n ∼ U [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle u_{1},...,u_{n}\sim U[0,1]} independently, then the indices of the smallest k {\displaystyle k} of them is a uniform sample of the k {\displaystyle k} -subsets of { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle \{1,...,n\}} . The process can be done without knowing n {\displaystyle n} : Keep the smallest k {\displaystyle k} of u 1 , . . . , u i {\displaystyle u_{1},...,u_{i}} that has been seen so far, as well as w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , the index of the largest among them. For each new u i + 1 {\displaystyle u_{i+1}} , compare it with u w i {\displaystyle u_{w_{i}}} . If u i + 1 < u w i {\displaystyle u_{i+1}

Rendezvous hashing

Rendezvous or highest random weight (HRW) hashing is an algorithm that allows clients to achieve distributed agreement on a set of k {\displaystyle k} options out of a possible set of n {\displaystyle n} options. A typical application is when clients need to agree on which sites (or proxies) objects are assigned to. Consistent hashing addresses the special case k = 1 {\displaystyle k=1} using a different method. Rendezvous hashing is both much simpler and more general than consistent hashing (see below). == History == Rendezvous hashing was invented by David Thaler and Chinya Ravishankar at the University of Michigan in 1996. Consistent hashing appeared a year later in the literature. Given its simplicity and generality, rendezvous hashing is now being preferred to consistent hashing in real-world applications. Rendezvous hashing was used very early on in many applications including mobile caching, router design, secure key establishment, and sharding and distributed databases. Other examples of real-world systems that use Rendezvous Hashing include the GitHub load balancer, the Apache Ignite distributed database, the Tahoe-LAFS file store, the CoBlitz large-file distribution service, Apache Druid, IBM's Cloud Object Store, the Arvados Data Management System, Apache Kafka, and the Twitter EventBus pub/sub platform. One of the first applications of rendezvous hashing was to enable multicast clients on the Internet (in contexts such as the MBONE) to identify multicast rendezvous points in a distributed fashion. It was used in 1998 by Microsoft's Cache Array Routing Protocol (CARP) for distributed cache coordination and routing. Some Protocol Independent Multicast routing protocols use rendezvous hashing to pick a rendezvous point. == Problem definition and approach == === Algorithm === Rendezvous hashing solves a general version of the distributed hash table problem: We are given a set of n {\displaystyle n} sites (servers or proxies, say). How can any set of clients, given an object O {\displaystyle O} , agree on a k-subset of sites to assign to O {\displaystyle O} ? The standard version of the problem uses k = 1. Each client is to make its selection independently, but all clients must end up picking the same subset of sites. This is non-trivial if we add a minimal disruption constraint, and require that when a site fails or is removed, only objects mapping to that site need be reassigned to other sites. The basic idea is to give each site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} a score (a weight) for each object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , and assign the object to the highest scoring site. All clients first agree on a hash function h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} . For object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , the site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} is defined to have weight w i , j = h ( O i , S j ) {\displaystyle w_{i,j}=h(O_{i},S_{j})} . Each client independently computes these weights w i , 1 , w i , 2 … w i , n {\displaystyle w_{i,1},w_{i,2}\dots w_{i,n}} and picks the k sites that yield the k largest hash values. The clients have thereby achieved distributed k {\displaystyle k} -agreement. If a site S {\displaystyle S} is added or removed, only the objects mapping to S {\displaystyle S} are remapped to different sites, satisfying the minimal disruption constraint above. The HRW assignment can be computed independently by any client, since it depends only on the identifiers for the set of sites S 1 , S 2 … S n {\displaystyle S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{n}} and the object being assigned. HRW easily accommodates different capacities among sites. If site S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} has twice the capacity of the other sites, we simply represent S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} twice in the list, say, as S k , 1 , S k , 2 {\displaystyle S_{k,1},S_{k,2}} . Clearly, twice as many objects will now map to S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} as to the other sites. === Properties === Consider the simple version of the problem, with k = 1, where all clients are to agree on a single site for an object O. Approaching the problem naively, it might appear sufficient to treat the n sites as buckets in a hash table and hash the object name O into this table. Unfortunately, if any of the sites fails or is unreachable, the hash table size changes, forcing all objects to be remapped. This massive disruption makes such direct hashing unworkable. Under rendezvous hashing, however, clients handle site failures by picking the site that yields the next largest weight. Remapping is required only for objects currently mapped to the failed site, and disruption is minimal. Rendezvous hashing has the following properties: Low overhead: The hash function used is efficient, so overhead at the clients is very low. Load balancing: Since the hash function is randomizing, each of the n sites is equally likely to receive the object O. Loads are uniform across the sites. Site capacity: Sites with different capacities can be represented in the site list with multiplicity in proportion to capacity. A site with twice the capacity of the other sites will be represented twice in the list, while every other site is represented once. High hit rate: Since all clients agree on placing an object O into the same site SO, each fetch or placement of O into SO yields the maximum utility in terms of hit rate. The object O will always be found unless it is evicted by some replacement algorithm at SO. Minimal disruption: When a site fails, only the objects mapped to that site need to be remapped. Disruption is at the minimal possible level. Distributed k-agreement: Clients can reach distributed agreement on k sites simply by selecting the top k sites in the ordering. == O(log n) running time via skeleton-based hierarchical rendezvous hashing == The standard version of Rendezvous Hashing described above works quite well for moderate n, but when n {\displaystyle n} is extremely large, the hierarchical use of Rendezvous Hashing achieves O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time. This approach creates a virtual hierarchical structure (called a "skeleton"), and achieves O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time by applying HRW at each level while descending the hierarchy. The idea is to first choose some constant m {\displaystyle m} and organize the n {\displaystyle n} sites into c = ⌈ n / m ⌉ {\displaystyle c=\lceil n/m\rceil } clusters C 1 = { S 1 , S 2 … S m } , C 2 = { S m + 1 , S m + 2 … S 2 m } … {\displaystyle C_{1}=\left\{S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{m}\right\},C_{2}=\left\{S_{m+1},S_{m+2}\dots S_{2m}\right\}\dots } Next, build a virtual hierarchy by choosing a constant f {\displaystyle f} and imagining these c {\displaystyle c} clusters placed at the leaves of a tree T {\displaystyle T} of virtual nodes, each with fanout f {\displaystyle f} . In the accompanying diagram, the cluster size is m = 4 {\displaystyle m=4} , and the skeleton fanout is f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} . Assuming 108 sites (real nodes) for convenience, we get a three-tier virtual hierarchy. Since f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} , each virtual node has a natural numbering in octal. Thus, the 27 virtual nodes at the lowest tier would be numbered 000 , 001 , 002 , . . . , 221 , 222 {\displaystyle 000,001,002,...,221,222} in octal (we can, of course, vary the fanout at each level - in that case, each node will be identified with the corresponding mixed-radix number). The easiest way to understand the virtual hierarchy is by starting at the top, and descending the virtual hierarchy. We successively apply Rendezvous Hashing to the set of virtual nodes at each level of the hierarchy, and descend the branch defined by the winning virtual node. We can in fact start at any level in the virtual hierarchy. Starting lower in the hierarchy requires more hashes, but may improve load distribution in the case of failures. For example, instead of applying HRW to all 108 real nodes in the diagram, we can first apply HRW to the 27 lowest-tier virtual nodes, selecting one. We then apply HRW to the four real nodes in its cluster, and choose the winning site. We only need 27 + 4 = 31 {\displaystyle 27+4=31} hashes, rather than 108. If we apply this method starting one level higher in the hierarchy, we would need 9 + 3 + 4 = 16 {\displaystyle 9+3+4=16} hashes to get to the winning site. The figure shows how, if we proceed starting from the root of the skeleton, we may successively choose the virtual nodes ( 2 ) 3 {\displaystyle (2)_{3}} , ( 20 ) 3 {\displaystyle (20)_{3}} , and ( 200 ) 3 {\displaystyle (200)_{3}} , and finally end up with site 74. The virtual hierarchy need not be stored, but can be created on demand, since the virtual nodes names are simply prefixes of base- f {\displaystyle f} (or mixed-radix) representations. We can easily create appropriately sorted strings from the digits, as required. In the example, we would be working with the strings 0 , 1 , 2 {\displaystyle 0,1,2} (at tier 1), 20 , 21 , 22 {\displaystyle 20,21,22} (at tier 2), and 200 , 201 , 202

Reference Software International

Reference Software International, Inc. (RSI), was an American software developer active from 1985 to 1993 and based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and San Francisco, California. The company released several productivity and reference software packages, including the Grammatik grammar checker, for MS-DOS. The company was acquired by WordPerfect Corporation in 1993. == History == === Background (1980–1985) === Reference Software International, Inc., was founded by Donald "Don" Emery and Bruce Wampler in 1985 in San Francisco, California. Both Wampler and Emery were college professors when they founded RSI: Wampler at the University of New Mexico as a professor of computer science and Emery a professor of marketing at San Francisco State University. After graduating from the University of Utah in around 1978, Wampler founded his first software company, Aspen Software, in Tijeras, New Mexico, in 1979. Wampler founded Aspen to develop an early spell checker software package, called Proofreader, for the TRS-80, licensing Random House's Webster's Unabridged Dictionary for the package's lexicon. In 1980, he began development on a grammar checker inspired by Writer's Workbench, a pioneering grammar checker for Unix systems. Wampler used Writer's Workbench heavily during the writer of his doctoral dissertation but disliked having to jump between the Apple II on which he composed the dissertation and the mainframe on which Writer's Workbench ran, and so wanted to develop a version of the latter for microcomputers. Wampler's work came to fruition as Grammatik in 1981, eventually ported to several other microcomputer platforms in the early 1980s. In 1983, by which point the company had 12 employees and sold a combined 80,000 units of Grammatik and Proofreader, Wampler sold Aspen to Dictronics, a software company best known for developing the Electronic Thesaurus, an early thesaurus program for microcomputers. Dictronics was in turn purchased by Wang Laboratories; according to Wampler, "Wang bought [Aspen] and sat on it. They did nothing with it". Wampler moved on to teach for the University of New Mexico, but, frustrated by Wang's inaction, got the urge to resurrect his work. In 1985, he was able to license back Grammatik and Proofreader from a small California-based software firm that had grandfathered rights to a forked version of both. In the same year, he met Emery, who, impressed by Wampler's, founded Reference Software International to market his software. RSI's research and development headquarters were based in Albuquerque, while the company's sales and marketing department was based in Walnut Creek, California. === Success (1985–1992) === In August 1985, RSI released their first product: the Random House Reference Set, a new version of Proofreader for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, revised to be a terminate-and-stay-resident program that ran atop other word processors such as WordStar or WordPerfect. At the time, Reference Set was the only such program on the market that functioned like this. RSI netted $114,000 from sales of Reference Set by the end of 1985. In June 1986, they released version 2.0 of Grammatik as Grammatik II for the PC. The latter was a breakout hit for RSI, receiving praise in the press (including technology journals such as PC Magazine) and RSI selling 1,000 units a month. In spring 1987, they released Reference Set II, which allowed users to import their own words into the built-in dictionary and added a thesaurus of 300,000 words. In November 1987, they released version 3.0 of Reference Set, which comprised two new field-specific dictionaries for the medical and legal professions. As well as the general Random House dictionary and thesaurus, it included Stedman's Medical Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary. Emery consulted Paul Brest and Bob Jackson—professors of law at Stanford Law School and San Francisco State respectively—for the curation of the law dictionary; and Burton Grebin—at the time the executive director of Mount Saint Mary's Hospital—for the curation of the medical dictionary. In fall 1988, the company released Grammatik III, a total rewrite that made use of artificial intelligence to more accurately judge the grammar of sentences by breaking them down into a syntactic hierarchy. Grammatik III received universal acclaim, with Gloria Morris of InfoWorld calling it the apparent leader in the grammar checking field and Sandra Anderson of Mac Home Journal calling it "hands down ... the best of the industry" six years after its release. By 1989, the product had competitors in Correct Grammar by Lifetree Software and RightWriter by Rightsoft, Inc. By 1990, RSI achieved annual sales of $9.7 million. In the same year they released Grammatik IV, which was the first to offer direct integration with WordPerfect on both MS-DOS and Windows. In March 1992—by which point RSI had sold 1.5 million copies of Grammatik across all versions—the company released version 5 of the program, another rewrite that updated the lexicon further and added new functions such as word redundancy detection. Around the same time, the company introduced Easy Proof, a pared-down version of Grammatik intended for novice writers, students, and family computers. In 1991, the company was engaged in a trademark dispute with Systems Compatibility Corporation (SCC) of Chicago, Illinois, over the rights to the Software Toolkit title. Both companies had published software bundles bearing the name in the turn of the 1990s; SCC had published theirs first in 1988 and registered the trademark with the USPTO. SCC was granted a restraining order against RSI in January 1991. The following month, RSI agreed to rename their product, preventing a protracted legal battle. === Decline and acquisition (1992–1993) === By early 1992, RSI achieved annual sales of more than $13 million, employed 120 people, and had opened international offices in London, Belgium, and Antwerp to sell foreign versions of Reference Set and Grammatik. The company reached peak employment in the middle of 1992, with 140 employees. However, RSI's launch of six disparate titles in the year proved problematic for the company when they failed to sell as well as they had projected, and the company laid off employees by the dozens. By December 1992, only 71 employees were left, 32 from their San Francisco office. On the last day of 1992, RSI received an acquisition offer from WordPerfect Corporation, makers of the namesake word processor based in Orem, Utah. The deal was inked in January 1993, RSI's stakeholders receiving $19 million. The company's remaining employees were absorbed into WordPerfect in Orem. WordPerfect continued selling Grammatik as a standalone product for several years.

Informedia Digital Library

The Informedia Digital Library is an ongoing research program at Carnegie Mellon University to build search engines and information visualization technology for many types of media. The program has carried out research on spoken document retrieval, video information retrieval, video segmentation, face recognition, and cross-language information retrieval. The Lycos search engine was an early product of the Informedia Digital Library Project. The project is led by Howard Wactlar. Researchers on the project have included: Michael Mauldin, Alex Hauptmann, Michael Christel, Michael Witbrock, Raj Reddy, Takeo Kanade and Scott Stevens.