The Radek Maneuver is a scale-up-then-scale-down tactic used in the administration of web services, specifically those deployed under a cloud computing paradigm (by a provider e.g. Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud or Microsoft Azure). == History == Developed by Olivier "Radek" Dabrowski in the mid-2010s, the Radek Maneuver was originally conceived of in using and maintaining applications running on a PaaS system. == Execution == The Radek Maneuver consists of a series of steps, usually executed via the PaaS or web portal interface. The tactic should be used when a service is misbehaving or otherwise experiencing errors, and the suspected cause is the underlying cloud layer, rather than the application layer. This includes networking issues and other "bad box" problems. The steps are as follows: Identify the application or service which is misbehaving. Increase the compute resource (number of CPU cores, amount of ram) for the instance on which the application is running. This is also known as scaling up. Wait for the application to re-deploy and stabilize. Scale back down to the original instance size. == Principle of action == This scale-up-scale-down method is understood to shift the application to a different physical machine underlying the PaaS service or application virtual machine. While this layer of the cloud computing stack is generally out of the access of an application developer (instead in the hands of the cloud provider), the maneuver allows troubleshooting and dodging errors in that layer.
Dark data
Dark data is data which is acquired through various computer network operations but not used in any manner to derive insights or for decision making. The ability of an organisation to collect data can exceed the throughput at which it can analyse the data. In some cases the organisation may not even be aware that the data is being collected. IBM estimate that roughly 90 percent of data generated by sensors and analog-to-digital conversions never get used. In an industrial context, dark data can include information gathered by sensors and telematics. Organizations retain dark data for a multitude of reasons, and it is estimated that most companies are only analyzing 1% of their data. Often it is stored for regulatory compliance and record keeping. Some organizations believe that dark data could be useful to them in the future, once they have acquired better analytic and business intelligence technology to process the information. Because storage is inexpensive, storing data is easy. However, storing and securing the data usually entails greater expenses (or even risk) than the potential return profit. In academic discourse, the term dark data was essentially coined by Bryan P. Heidorn. He uses it to describe research data, especially from the long tail of science (the many, small research projects), which are not or no longer available for research because they disappear in a drawer without adequate data management. Without this, the data become dark, and further reasons for this are e.g. missing metadata annotation, missing data management plans and data curators. == Analysis == The term "dark data" very often refers to data that is not amenable to computer processing. For example, a company might have a great deal of data that exists only as scanned page-images. Even the bare text in such documents is not available without something like Optical character recognition, which can vary greatly in accuracy. Even with OCR, the significance of each part of the data is unavailable. An obvious examples is whether a capitalized word is a name or not, and if so, whether it represents a person, place, organization, or even a work of art. Bibliographic and other references, data within tables (that may be labeled quite adequately for humans, but not for processing), and countless assertions represented with the full complexity and ambiguity of human language. A lot of unused data is very valuable, and would be used if it could be; but is blocked because it is in formats that are difficult to process, categorise, identify, and analyse. Often the reason that business does not use their dark data is because of the amount of resources it would take and the difficulty of having that data analysed. In other words, the data is "dark" not because it is not used, but because it cannot (feasibly or affordably) be used, given its poor representation. There are many data representations that can make data much more accessible for automation. However, a great deal of information lacks any such identification of information items or relationships; and much more loses it during "downhill" conversion such as saving to page-oriented representations, printing, scanning, or faxing. The journey back "uphill" can be costly. According to Computer Weekly, 60% of organisations believe that their own business intelligence reporting capability is "inadequate" and 65% say that they have "somewhat disorganised content management approaches". == Relevance == Useful data may become dark data after it becomes irrelevant, as it is not processed fast enough. This is called "perishable insights" in "live flowing data". For example, if the geolocation of a customer is known to a business, the business can make offer based on the location, however if this data is not processed immediately, it may be irrelevant in the future. According to IBM, about 60 percent of data loses its value immediately. == Storage == According to the New York Times, 90% of energy used by data centres is wasted. If data was not stored, energy costs could be saved. Furthermore, there are costs associated with the underutilisation of information and thus missed opportunities. According to Datamation, "the storage environments of EMEA organizations consist of 54 percent dark data, 32 percent redundant, obsolete and trivial data and 14 percent business-critical data. By 2020, this can add up to $891 billion in storage and management costs that can otherwise be avoided." The continuous storage of dark data can put an organisation at risk, especially if this data is sensitive. In the case of a breach, this can result in serious repercussions. These can be financial, legal and can seriously hurt an organisation's reputation. For example, a breach of private records of customers could result in the stealing of sensitive information, which could result in identity theft. Another example could be the breach of the company's own sensitive information, for example relating to research and development. These risks can be mitigated by assessing and auditing whether this data is useful to the organisation, employing strong encryption and security and finally, if it is determined to be discarded, then it should be discarded in a way that it becomes unretrievable. == Future == It is generally considered that as more advanced computing systems for analysis of data are built, the higher the value of dark data will be. It has been noted that "data and analytics will be the foundation of the modern industrial revolution". Of course, this includes data that is currently considered "dark data" since there are not enough resources to process it. All this data that is being collected can be used in the future to bring maximum productivity and an ability for organisations to meet consumers' demand. Technology advancements are helping to leverage this dark data affordably. Furthermore, many organisations do not realise the value of dark data right now, for example in healthcare and education organisations deal with large amounts of data that could create a significant "potential to service students and patients in the manner in which the consumer and financial services pursue their target population".
Bottom-up and top-down approaches
Bottom-up and top-down are strategies of composition and decomposition in fields as diverse as information processing and ordering knowledge, software, humanistic and scientific theories (see systemics), time management, and organization. In practice they can be seen as a style of thinking, teaching, or leadership. A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and stepwise refinement and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional subsystems in a reverse engineering fashion. In a top-down approach an overview of the system is formulated, specifying, but not detailing, any first-level subsystems. Each subsystem is then refined in yet greater detail, sometimes in many additional subsystem levels, until the entire specification is reduced to base elements. A top-down model is often specified with the assistance of black boxes, which makes it easier to manipulate. However, black boxes may fail to clarify elementary mechanisms or be detailed enough to realistically validate the model. A top-down approach starts with the big picture, then breaks down into smaller segments. A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to more complex systems, thus making the original systems subsystems of the emergent system. Bottom-up processing is a type of information processing based on incoming data from the environment to form a perception. From a cognitive psychology perspective, information enters the eyes in one direction (sensory input, or the "bottom"), and is then turned into an image by the brain that can be interpreted and recognized as a perception (output that is "built up" from processing to final cognition). In a bottom-up approach the individual base elements of the system are first specified in great detail. These elements are then linked together to form larger subsystems, which then in turn are linked, sometimes in many levels, until a complete top-level system is formed. This strategy often resembles a "seed" model, by which the beginnings are small but eventually grow in complexity and completeness. But "organic strategies" may result in a tangle of elements and subsystems, developed in isolation and subject to local optimization as opposed to meeting a global purpose. == Computer science == === Software development === In the software development process, the top-down and bottom-up approaches play a key role. Top-down approaches emphasize planning and a complete understanding of the system. It is inherent that no coding can begin until a sufficient level of detail has been reached in the design of at least some part of the system. Top-down approaches are implemented by attaching the stubs in place of the module. But these delay testing of the ultimate functional units of a system until significant design is complete. Bottom-up emphasizes coding and early testing, which can begin as soon as the first module has been specified. But this approach runs the risk that modules may be coded without having a clear idea of how they link to other parts of the system, and that such linking may not be as easy as first thought. Re-usability of code is one of the main benefits of a bottom-up approach. Top-down design was promoted in the 1970s by IBM researchers Harlan Mills and Niklaus Wirth. Mills developed structured programming concepts for practical use and tested them in a 1969 project to automate the New York Times morgue index. The engineering and management success of this project led to the spread of the top-down approach through IBM and the rest of the computer industry. Among other achievements, Niklaus Wirth, the developer of Pascal programming language, wrote the influential paper Program Development by Stepwise Refinement. Since Niklaus Wirth went on to develop languages such as Modula and Oberon (where one could define a module before knowing about the entire program specification), one can infer that top-down programming was not strictly what he promoted. Top-down methods were favored in software engineering until the late 1980s, and object-oriented programming assisted in demonstrating the idea that both aspects of top-down and bottom-up programming could be used. Modern software design approaches usually combine top-down and bottom-up approaches. Although an understanding of the complete system is usually considered necessary for good design—leading theoretically to a top-down approach—most software projects attempt to make use of existing code to some degree. Pre-existing modules give designs a bottom-up flavor. === Programming === Top-down is a programming style, the mainstay of traditional procedural languages, in which design begins by specifying complex pieces and then dividing them into successively smaller pieces. The technique for writing a program using top-down methods is to write a main procedure that names all the major functions it will need. Later, the programming team looks at the requirements of each of those functions and the process is repeated. These compartmentalized subroutines eventually will perform actions so simple they can be easily and concisely coded. When all the various subroutines have been coded the program is ready for testing. By defining how the application comes together at a high level, lower-level work can be self-contained. In a bottom-up approach the individual base elements of the system are first specified in great detail. These elements are then linked together to form larger subsystems, which in turn are linked, sometimes at many levels, until a complete top-level system is formed. This strategy often resembles a "seed" model, by which the beginnings are small, but eventually grow in complexity and completeness. Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a paradigm that uses "objects" to design applications and computer programs. In mechanical engineering with software programs such as Pro/ENGINEER, Solidworks, and Autodesk Inventor users can design products as pieces not part of the whole and later add those pieces together to form assemblies like building with Lego. Engineers call this "piece part design". === Parsing === Parsing is the process of analyzing an input sequence (such as that read from a file or a keyboard) in order to determine its grammatical structure. This method is used in the analysis of both natural languages and computer languages, as in a compiler. Bottom-up parsing is parsing strategy that recognizes the text's lowest-level small details first, before its mid-level structures, and leaves the highest-level overall structure to last. In top-down parsing, on the other hand, one first looks at the highest level of the parse tree and works down the parse tree by using the rewriting rules of a formal grammar. == Natural sciences == === Nanotechnology === Top-down and bottom-up are two approaches for the manufacture of products. These terms were first applied to the field of nanotechnology by the Foresight Institute in 1989 to distinguish between molecular manufacturing (to mass-produce large atomically precise objects) and conventional manufacturing (which can mass-produce large objects that are not atomically precise). Bottom-up approaches seek to have smaller (usually molecular) components built up into more complex assemblies, while top-down approaches seek to create nanoscale devices by using larger, externally controlled ones to direct their assembly. Certain valuable nanostructures, such as Silicon nanowires, can be fabricated using either approach, with processing methods selected on the basis of targeted applications. A top-down approach often uses the traditional workshop or microfabrication methods where externally controlled tools are used to cut, mill, and shape materials into the desired shape and order. Micropatterning techniques, such as photolithography and inkjet printing belong to this category. Vapor treatment can be regarded as a new top-down secondary approaches to engineer nanostructures. Bottom-up approaches, in contrast, use the chemical properties of single molecules to cause single-molecule components to (a) self-organize or self-assemble into some useful conformation, or (b) rely on positional assembly. These approaches use the concepts of molecular self-assembly and/or molecular recognition. See also Supramolecular chemistry. Such bottom-up approaches should, broadly speaking, be able to produce devices in parallel and much cheaper than top-down methods but could potentially be overwhelmed as the size and complexity of the desired assembly increases. === Neuroscience and psychology === These terms are also employed in cognitive sciences including neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology to discuss the flow of information in processing. Typically, sensory input is considered bottom-up, and higher cognitive processes, which have more information from other sources, are considered top-down. A bottom-up proc
Enterprise architecture
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a business function concerned with the structures and behaviours of a business, especially business roles and processes that create and use business data. The international definition according to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations is "a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes." The United States Federal Government is an example of an organization that practices EA, in this case with its Capital Planning and Investment Control processes. Companies such as Independence Blue Cross, Intel, Volkswagen AG, and InterContinental Hotels Group also use EA to improve their business architectures as well as to improve business performance and productivity. Additionally, the Federal Enterprise Architecture's reference guide aids federal agencies in the development of their architectures. == Introduction == As a discipline, EA "proactively and holistically lead[s] enterprise responses to disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing the execution of change" towards organizational goals. EA gives business and IT leaders recommendations for policy adjustments and provides best strategies to support and enable business development and change within the information systems the business depends on. EA provides a guide for decision making towards these objectives. The National Computing Centre's EA best practice guidance states that an EA typically "takes the form of a comprehensive set of cohesive models that describe the structure and functions of an enterprise. The individual models in an EA are arranged in a logical manner that provides an ever-increasing level of detail about the enterprise." Important players within EA include enterprise architects and solutions architects. Enterprise architects are at the top level of the architect hierarchy, meaning they have more responsibilities than solutions architects. While solutions architects focus on their own relevant solutions, enterprise architects focus on solutions for and the impact on the whole organization. Enterprise architects oversee many solution architects and business functions. As practitioners of EA, enterprise architects support an organization's strategic vision by acting to align people, process, and technology decisions with actionable goals and objectives that result in quantifiable improvements toward achieving that vision. The practice of EA "analyzes areas of common activity within or between organizations, where information and other resources are exchanged to guide future states from an integrated viewpoint of strategy, business, and technology." === Definitions === The term enterprise can be defined as an organizational unit, organization, or collection of organizations that share a set of common goals and collaborate to provide specific products or services to customers. In that sense, the term enterprise covers various types of organizations, regardless of their size, ownership model, operational model, or geographical distribution. It includes those organizations' complete sociotechnical system, including people, information, processes, and technologies. Enterprise as a sociotechnical system defines the scope of EA. The term architecture refers to fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment; and embodied in its elements, relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution. A methodology for developing and using architecture to guide the transformation of a business from a baseline state to a target state, sometimes through several transition states, is usually known as an enterprise architecture framework. A framework provides a structured collection of processes, techniques, artifact descriptions, reference models, and guidance for the production and use of an enterprise-specific architecture description. Open-source tools supporting EA practice, such as the Essential Project, have also been evaluated for suitability in academic and commercial training contexts. Paramount to changing the EA is the identification of a sponsor. Their mission, vision, strategy, and the governance framework define all roles, responsibilities, and relationships involved in the anticipated transformation. Changes considered by enterprise architects typically include innovations in the structure or processes of an organization; innovations in the use of information systems or technologies; the integration and/or standardization of business processes; and improvement of the quality and timeliness of business information. According to the standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, the product used to describe the architecture of a system is called an architectural description. In practice, an architectural description contains a variety of lists, tables, and diagrams. These are models known as views. In the case of EA, these models describe the logical business functions or capabilities, business processes, human roles and actors, the physical organization structure, data flows and data stores, business applications and platform applications, hardware, and communications infrastructure. The first use of the term "enterprise architecture" is often incorrectly attributed to John Zachman's 1987 A framework for information systems architecture. The first publication to use it was instead a National Institute of Standards (NIST) Special Publication on the challenges of information system integration. The NIST article describes EA as consisting of several levels. Business unit architecture is the top level and might be a total corporate entity or a sub-unit. It establishes for the whole organization necessary frameworks for "satisfying both internal information needs" as well as the needs of external entities, which include cooperating organizations, customers, and federal agencies. The lower levels of the EA that provide information to higher levels are more attentive to detail on behalf of their superiors. In addition to this structure, business unit architecture establishes standards, policies, and procedures that either enhance or stymie the organization's mission. The main difference between these two definitions is that Zachman's concept was the creation of individual information systems optimized for business, while NIST's described the management of all information systems within a business unit. The definitions in both publications, however, agreed that due to the "increasing size and complexity of the [i]mplementations of [i]nformation systems... logical construct[s] (or architecture) for defining and controlling the interfaces and... [i]ntegration of all the components of a system" is necessary. Zachman in particular urged for a "strategic planning methodology." == Overview == === Schools of thought === Within the field of enterprise architecture, there are three overarching schools: Enterprise IT Design, Enterprise Integrating, and Enterprise Ecosystem Adaption. Which school one subscribes to will impact how they see the EA's purpose and scope, as well as the means of achieving it, the skills needed to conduct it, and the locus of responsibility for conducting it. Under Enterprise IT Design, the main purpose of EA is to guide the process of planning and designing an enterprise's IT/IS capabilities to meet the desired organizational objectives, often by greater alignment between IT/IS and business concerns. Architecture proposals and decisions are limited to the IT/IS aspects of the enterprise and other aspects service only as inputs. The Enterprise Integrating school believes that the purpose of EA is to create a greater coherency between the various concerns of an enterprise (HR, IT, Operations, etc.), including the link between strategy formulation and execution. Architecture proposals and decisions here encompass all aspects of the enterprise. The Enterprise Ecosystem Adaption school states that the purpose of EA is to foster and maintain the learning capabilities of enterprises so they may be sustainable. Consequently, a great deal of emphasis is put on improving the capabilities of the enterprise to improve itself, to innovate, and to coevolve with its environment. Typically, proposals and decisions encompass both the enterprise and its environment. === Benefits, challenges, and criticisms === The benefits of EA are achieved through its direct and indirect contributions to organizational goals. Notable benefits include support in the areas related to design and re-design of the organizational structures during mergers, acquisitions, or
Least-squares spectral analysis
Least-squares spectral analysis (LSSA) is a class of methods for estimating a frequency spectrum by fitting sinusoids to data using a least-squares fit. Unlike Fourier analysis, the most widely used spectral method in science, data need not be equally spaced to use LSSA. Furthermore, while Fourier analysis generally amplifies long-period noise in long or gapped records, LSSA mitigates such problems. The first strictly least-squares LSSA method was developed in 1969 and 1971, and is known as the Vaníček method or the Gauss–Vaniček method, after its inventor Petr Vaníček and Carl Friedrich Gauss, the inventor of the least-squares method for error minimization. A widely known LSSA variant is the Lomb method or the Lomb–Scargle periodogram, based on dated computational simplifications of the Vaníček method introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, first by Nicholas R. Lomb and later by Jeffrey D. Scargle. Other LSSA variants have been subsequently developed. == Historical background == The close connections between Fourier analysis, the periodogram, and the least-squares fitting of sinusoids have been known for a long time. However, most developments are restricted to complete data sets of equally spaced samples. In 1963, Freek J. M. Barning of Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, handled unequally spaced data by similar techniques, including both a periodogram analysis equivalent to what nowadays is called the Lomb method and least-squares fitting of selected frequencies of sinusoids determined from such periodograms — and connected by a procedure known today as the matching pursuit with post-back fitting or the orthogonal matching pursuit. Petr Vaníček, a Canadian geophysicist and geodesist of the University of New Brunswick, proposed in 1969 also the matching-pursuit approach for equally and unequally spaced data, which he called "successive spectral analysis" and the result a "least-squares periodogram". He generalized this method to account for any systematic components beyond a simple mean, such as a "predicted linear (quadratic, exponential, ...) secular trend of unknown magnitude", and applied it to a variety of samples, in 1971. Vaníček's strictly least-squares method was then simplified in 1976 by Nicholas R. Lomb of the University of Sydney, who pointed out its close connection to periodogram analysis. Subsequently, the definition of a periodogram of unequally spaced data was modified and analyzed by Jeffrey D. Scargle of NASA Ames Research Center, who showed that, with minor changes, it becomes identical to Lomb's least-squares formula for fitting individual sinusoid frequencies. Scargle states that his paper "does not introduce a new detection technique, but instead studies the reliability and efficiency of detection with the most commonly used technique, the periodogram, in the case where the observation times are unevenly spaced," and further points out regarding least-squares fitting of sinusoids compared to periodogram analysis, that his paper "establishes, apparently for the first time, that (with the proposed modifications) these two methods are exactly equivalent." Press summarizes the development this way: A completely different method of spectral analysis for unevenly sampled data, one that mitigates these difficulties and has some other very desirable properties, was developed by Lomb, based in part on earlier work by Barning and Vanicek, and additionally elaborated by Scargle. In 1989, Michael J. Korenberg of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, developed the "fast orthogonal search" method of more quickly finding a near-optimal decomposition of spectra or other problems, similar to the technique that later became known as the orthogonal matching pursuit. == Development of LSSA and variants == === The Vaníček method === In the Vaníček method, a discrete data set is approximated by a weighted sum of sinusoids of progressively determined frequencies using a standard linear regression or least-squares fit. The frequencies are chosen using a method similar to Barning's, but going further in optimizing the choice of each successive new frequency by picking the frequency that minimizes the residual after least-squares fitting (equivalent to the fitting technique now known as matching pursuit with pre-backfitting). The number of sinusoids must be less than or equal to the number of data samples (counting sines and cosines of the same frequency as separate sinusoids). The relationship between the DFT and the approximation of trigonometric functions using the least-squares method is well explained in (Strutz, 2017). A data vector Φ is represented as a weighted sum of sinusoidal basis functions, tabulated in a matrix A by evaluating each function at the sample times, with weight vector x: ϕ ≈ A x , {\displaystyle \phi \approx {\textbf {A}}x,} where the weights vector x is chosen to minimize the sum of squared errors in approximating Φ. The solution for x is closed-form, using standard linear regression: x = ( A T A ) − 1 A T ϕ . {\displaystyle x=({\textbf {A}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\textbf {A}})^{-1}{\textbf {A}}^{\mathrm {T} }\phi .} Here the matrix A can be based on any set of functions mutually independent (not necessarily orthogonal) when evaluated at the sample times; functions used for spectral analysis are typically sines and cosines evenly distributed over the frequency range of interest. If we choose too many frequencies in a too-narrow frequency range, the functions will be insufficiently independent, the matrix ill-conditioned, and the resulting spectrum meaningless. When the basis functions in A are orthogonal (that is, not correlated, meaning the columns have zero pair-wise dot products), the matrix ATA is diagonal; when the columns all have the same power (sum of squares of elements), then that matrix is an identity matrix times a constant, so the inversion is trivial. The latter is the case when the sample times are equally spaced and sinusoids chosen as sines and cosines equally spaced in pairs on the frequency interval 0 to a half cycle per sample (spaced by 1/N cycles per sample, omitting the sine phases at 0 and maximum frequency where they are identically zero). This case is known as the discrete Fourier transform, slightly rewritten in terms of measurements and coefficients. x = A T ϕ {\displaystyle x={\textbf {A}}^{\mathrm {T} }\phi } — DFT case for N equally spaced samples and frequencies, within a scalar factor. === The Lomb method === Trying to lower the computational burden of the Vaníček method in 1976 (no longer an issue), Lomb proposed using the above simplification in general, except for pair-wise correlations between sine and cosine bases of the same frequency, since the correlations between pairs of sinusoids are often small, at least when they are not tightly spaced. This formulation is essentially that of the traditional periodogram but adapted for use with unevenly spaced samples. The vector x is a reasonably good estimate of an underlying spectrum, but since we ignore any correlations, Ax is no longer a good approximation to the signal, and the method is no longer a least-squares method — yet in the literature continues to be referred to as such. Rather than just taking dot products of the data with sine and cosine waveforms directly, Scargle modified the standard periodogram formula so to find a time delay τ {\displaystyle \tau } first, such that this pair of sinusoids would be mutually orthogonal at sample times t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} and also adjusted for the potentially unequal powers of these two basis functions, to obtain a better estimate of the power at a frequency. This procedure made his modified periodogram method exactly equivalent to Lomb's method. Time delay τ {\displaystyle \tau } by definition equals to tan 2 ω τ = ∑ j sin 2 ω t j ∑ j cos 2 ω t j . {\displaystyle \tan {2\omega \tau }={\frac {\sum _{j}\sin 2\omega t_{j}}{\sum _{j}\cos 2\omega t_{j}}}.} Then the periodogram at frequency ω {\displaystyle \omega } is estimated as: P x ( ω ) = 1 2 [ [ ∑ j X j cos ω ( t j − τ ) ] 2 ∑ j cos 2 ω ( t j − τ ) + [ ∑ j X j sin ω ( t j − τ ) ] 2 ∑ j sin 2 ω ( t j − τ ) ] , {\displaystyle P_{x}(\omega )={\frac {1}{2}}\left[{\frac {\left[\sum _{j}X_{j}\cos \omega (t_{j}-\tau )\right]^{2}}{\sum _{j}\cos ^{2}\omega (t_{j}-\tau )}}+{\frac {\left[\sum _{j}X_{j}\sin \omega (t_{j}-\tau )\right]^{2}}{\sum _{j}\sin ^{2}\omega (t_{j}-\tau )}}\right],} which, as Scargle reports, has the same statistical distribution as the periodogram in the evenly sampled case. At any individual frequency ω {\displaystyle \omega } , this method gives the same power as does a least-squares fit to sinusoids of that frequency and of the form: ϕ ( t ) = A sin ω t + B cos ω t . {\displaystyle \phi (t)=A\sin \omega t+B\cos \omega t.} In practice, it is always difficult to judge if a given Lomb peak is significant or not, especially when the nature of the noise is unknown, so for example a false-alarm spectr
Powerset (company)
Powerset was an American company based in San Francisco, California, that, in 2006, was developing a natural language search engine for the Internet. On July 1, 2008, Powerset was acquired by Microsoft for an estimated $100 million (~$143 million in 2024). Powerset was working on building a natural language search engine that could find targeted answers to user questions (as opposed to keyword based search). For example, when confronted with a question like "Which U.S. state has the highest income tax?", conventional search engines ignore the question phrasing and instead do a search on the keywords "state", "highest", "income", and "tax". Powerset on the other hand, attempts to use natural language processing to understand the nature of the question and return pages containing the answer. The company was in the process of "building a natural language search engine that reads and understands every sentence on the Web". The company has licensed natural language technology from PARC, the former Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. On May 11, 2008, the company unveiled a tool for searching a fixed subset of English Wikipedia using conversational phrases rather than keywords. Acquisition by Microsoft: One significant milestone in Powerset's history was its acquisition by Microsoft on July 1, 2008, for an estimated $100 million. This acquisition was part of Microsoft's broader strategy to enhance its search capabilities and compete more effectively with other search engine providers, particularly Google. Natural Language Search Engine: Powerset's primary focus was on developing a natural language search engine capable of understanding and interpreting user queries in a more human-like manner. Instead of simply matching keywords, Powerset aimed to comprehend the meaning behind the words, allowing for more accurate and contextually relevant search results. Technology and Partnerships: Powerset had licensed natural language technology from PARC, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. This technology likely played a crucial role in the development of Powerset's NLP capabilities. Wikipedia Search Tool: In May 2008, Powerset unveiled a search tool that allowed users to search a fixed subset of English Wikipedia using conversational phrases rather than traditional keywords. This demonstrated the potential of Powerset's NLP technology in providing more precise and relevant search results. == Powerlabs == In a form of beta testing, Powerset opened an online community called Powerlabs on September 17, 2007. Business Week said: "The company hopes the site will marshal thousands of people to help build and improve its search engine before it goes public next year." Said The New York Times: "[Powerset Labs] goes far beyond the 'alpha' or 'beta' testing involved in most software projects, when users put a new product through rigorous testing to find its flaws. Powerset doesn’t have a product yet, but rather a collection of promising natural language technologies, which are the fruit of years of research at Xerox PARC." Powerlabs' initial search results are taken from Wikipedia. == Notable people == Barney Pell (born March 18, 1968, in Hollywood, California) was co-founder and CEO of Powerset. Pell received his Bachelor of Science degree in symbolic systems from Stanford University in 1989, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and was a National Merit Scholar. Pell received a PhD in computer science from Cambridge University in 1993, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He has worked at NASA, as chief strategist and vice president of business development at StockMaster.com (acquired by Red Herring in March, 2000) and at Whizbang! Labs. Prior to joining Powerset, Pell was an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Mayfield Fund, a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley. Pell is also a founder of Moon Express, Inc., a U.S. company awarded a $10M commercial lunar contract by NASA and a competitor in the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Steve Newcomb was the COO and co-founder of Powerset. Prior to joining Powerset, he was a co-founder of Loudfire, General Manager at Promptu, and was on the board of directors at Jaxtr. He left Powerset in October 2007 to form Virgance, a social startup incubator. Lorenzo Thione (born in Como, Italy) was the product architect and co-founder of Powerset. Prior to joining Powerset, he worked at FXPAL in natural language processing and related research fields. Thione earned his master's degree in software engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Ronald Kaplan, former manager of research in Natural Language Theory and Technology at PARC, served as the company's CTO and CSO. Ryan Ferrier is a member of the founding team of Powerset. He managed personnel and internal operations. After 2008 he went on to co-found Serious Business, which made Facebook applications and was later bought by Zynga. Another Powerset alumnus, Alex Le, became CTO of Serious Business and went on to become an executive producer at Zynga when it bought the company. Siqi Chen founded a stealth startup in mobile computing after leaving Powerset. Tom Preston-Werner worked at Powerset and left after the acquisition to found GitHub. == Investors == Powerset attracted a wide range of investors, many of whom had considerable experience in the venture capital field. The company received $12.5 million (~$18.2 million in 2024) in Series A funding during November 2007, co-led by the venture capital firms Foundation Capital and The Founders Fund. Among the better-known investors: Esther Dyson, founding chairman of ICANN, founder of the newsletter Release 1.0 and editor at Cnet Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of PayPal Luke Nosek, founder of PayPal Todd Parker. Managing Partner, Hidden River Ventures Reid Hoffman, executive vice president of PayPal and founder of LinkedIn First Round Capital, seed-stage venture firm
Upper ontology
In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e